I think one of the messages here is that if you're a start-up and your product requires a third-party API that you have no control over to function then you're taking a massive risk.
This isn't specific to Linked.In: API access isn't a right. If your product requires a third-party data source and you don't have any contractual agreement with that third-party you have to accept that the rug could be yanked from under your feet at any moment.
And maybe that risk is acceptable to you and your investors - but to not have a backup plan is foolish.
But what about all of those software businesses that have built on top of the iOS API + App Store? Would you say that they are also taking a massive risk? Apple can cut off any app that it wants at any time, almost for any reason, and yet thousands of independent developers are building profitable businesses on top of their platform.
The issue is not a dependency on an API or platform. The issue is the nature and character of the company upon which you are depending. In spite of some well-publicized hiccups, Apple has made an effort to nurture its developer community.
The point of the article is not that dependency is bad (although it may very well be), but rather that LinkedIn is a bad partner, and it's not worth spending any effort to build a business on their platform.
What I'm curious about is what companies are similarly risky to build your business on.
It's not that complicated. If you build your company on the back of another company you must abide by their TOS. If your business plan is to build the best porn app on the App Store, you would be similarly disappointed.
In general, if your business plan relies on the goodwill of another company and you provide little value to that company in return, you don't have a very good business plan.
I don't think it's enough to rely on the TOS. Sure, there are obvious examples like porn on the iPhone where the TOS will give you a clear answer. Frequently, however, the TOS are ambiguous and are interpreted inconsistently. They can also be changed at will.
Sure, you're right that developers should try to give as much benefit back to their platform provider as they derive from the platform. But the fact is that different companies perceive benefit in different ways with reasoning that is opaque. Often a decision can depend on a strategic direction for the firm that you are not privy to.
All this is why the reputation of the company matters so much. From reading the article, it looks like LinkedIn not only acted in a very inconsistent manner--giving praise before shutting them down--but they even began reverse-engineering the application. That's not the kind of behavior that breeds a healthy ecosystem regardless of whether they have all the right to act that way, and regardless of whether Pealk was careless in relying so heavily on LinkedIn.
If everyone were to take a cautious approach to the APIs and platforms that big companies offer, as has been suggested in this thread, then the tech sector would be a much less interesting place. The fact is that a lot of innovation happens because there actually are API and platform providers out there that care about their developers and won't pull shit like this.
You're complicating something that isn't that complicated. LinkedIn's TOS very clearly states in the terms that it is illegal to "Use the APIs in an Application that competes with products or services offered by us"
And your site is using the API to create a service for recruiters, it seems crystal clear to me that you are violating the LinkedIn TOS. This is not some grey area or some arbitrary changing of the rules - it is a very clear violation of LinkedIn API guidelines. I just don't see how this proves even a little bit that LinkedIn doesn't "care about their developers".
And for the bigger picture, it is amazing to me that a significant number of people expect LinkedIn to sit around while some other company attempts to undercut LinkedIn's own premium product using LinkedIn's API.
> But what about all of those software businesses that have built on top of the iOS API + App Store? Would you say that they are also taking a massive risk?
Yes. Very yes. Any iOS developer with any sense is brutally aware that we serve at the pleasure of the king, as Jeff Atwood put it. Apple nurtures its developer community because a robust app store is a selling point for Apple hardware. If Apple decides your app runs contrary to Apple's goals, it's gone, and you better have a backup plan. There've been plenty of panicked anecdotes floating around the Internet on that topic. The grandparent's analysis is sound.
(Also: thousands of independent developers are building profitable businesses on iOS, but tens of thousands aren't.)
>But what about all of those software businesses that have built on top of the iOS API + App Store? Would you say that they are also taking a massive risk?
Yes. If Apple wants to offer a product with similar functionality to yours they can make your disappear. Sharecropping is inherently risky.
But what about all of those software businesses that have built on top of the iOS API + App Store? Would you say that they are also taking a massive risk?
Yes, without question. Business doing so should at the very least diversify across platforms and technologies.
With all the hype about Lean Startup and Agile etc I think it would be worthwhile going over a simple SWOT analysis for a lot of these built-on-API companies.
If you're going to use an API then you need to create a business that will survive when you get big enough for the company to realise you're a threat and buy you or bankrupt you.
Corollary: when the other company is figuring out how generous of an offer they need to make for choice #1, they know that your next best alternative is choice #2 (for $0).
Business is war. Anyone who doesn't think so hasn't got the enough scars to understand this yet. As a small entity, any time you tangle with large well-funded companies you have to be very aware of the fact that they could shaft you in a dozen different ways whenever the please. That's the hard and cold reality of it.
Contracts and agreements only serve to possibly give you the option to sue, and nothing more. They don't create a guarantee of recovery or reparations in any way at all.
I had one very painful incident with a large Korean multinational corporation a few years ago. This was over a hardware design. We devoted about eight months --nearly a million dollars in cash and man-hours-- to complete a set of designs based on components and assemblies that this OEM was to provide.
They wanted to get our business and pull us away from their main competitor. In-person meetings where had with the top three VP's in the US. Promises were made both verbally and on-paper. Short version: When we were finally ready to go into production we were told that the components in question --components they had recommended and guaranteed as long-availability components-- had been discontinued. Their recommendation: "You need to redesign your product line".
Soon afterwards I learned that other companies that had selected the same components were under the same dire situation. One particular company had closed a deal with the US government and was about to get sued for tens of millions of dollars for not delivering on their contract. On our front, this one event nearly destroyed my company at that time. We survived only to get taken out during the economic downturn due to having been weakened by this event.
In looking at the potential to sue this company our attorneys concluded that they'd need a minimum of $250K just to consider pulling that trigger and another $250K available past that. They expected this multinational to simply bury us with paperwork and an army of lawyers, with the only goal being to cause financial pain and get us to quit. Their recommendation: "Figure out how to survive and lick your wounds. It is nearly impossible to go after these guys and actually come out ahead".
This is how large companies, effectively, make their own rules, their own laws, if you will. While this wasn't the only tangle I've ever had with a large company it was the worst I've had to endure. I was the first domino that got tipped over in a chain of events that ultimately killed a business that I spent the better part of ten years building.
I don't think there's any point in posting it publicly. Particularly several years past the event. Tell me why you want the name. If it makes sense I'll certainly provide it privately along with further details if necessary.
I briefly started working on an application that would have many positive benefits for the LinkedIn community. After reading the API terms and conditions, it was very apparent that I would not have been able to achieve my goals, so I stopped.
The terms and conditions are pretty restrictive, but they are provided. I should not have come as a surprise that their API access was cut off. You should not be developing an application that not only is dependent on one company's API, but also against their terms of service (without an explicit authorization/partnership).
this is the point I came to make. LinkedIn's TOS specifically disallow apps that cut into their turf. These guys should be negotiating to get their codebase bought and their team acquired.
Where is the outrage? I find this an appalling act by Linked In, who seem, this shortly after WWDC, unaware of the power of a strong developer ecosystem.
How could you continue to work at such a place knowing this?
Why would anyone bother developing for their community via their API?
Linked In's site itself meanwhile is looking increasingly like Facebook to me and is increasingly irrelevant to professionals. They are under pressure to increase revenue dramatically to get close to justifying an over inflated share price, but losing your corporate values by screwing over people in your ecosystem is very short term thinking, perhaps reflecting a Wall St mindset.
I just don't get all the hand wringing. You are not entitled to unlimited use of another company's data. They can shut you off at any time for any reason. And if you build your company around someone else's API, an essential part of the business plan is preparing for the day when the API-providing company takes notice of what you're doing and evaluates your use of their service, with the expectation that they may shut you down if you threaten them.
If your only response to this is "go cry to various small tech publications", then you're doing it wrong.
> If your only response to this is "go cry to various small tech publications", then you're doing it wrong.
I don't think so. The main issue is that people think that there are APIs because companies promote their interoperability to gain developers. Companies are not being sincere and nobody is taking notice. To not repeat this and other opinions I post one of my recent posts on the subject: "Reverse Engineering and The Cloud" http://blog.nektra.com/main/2012/06/01/reverse-engineering-a...
I completely disagree with other people's attitudes on this point - startups definitely need to be wary of using third party APIs, but it is incumbent upon companies to create clear and stable terms for developers to operate within if they are thinking of opening an API. It's completely unfair to make representations to people that they rely on to their detriment and then renege at the last minute.
Let's be clear too - it's not as if these guys were making a porn application or something that violated LinkedIn's TOS. Nor were they acting without LinkedIn's consent. Companies reserve rights to revoke access without reason in order to limit their legal liability but they need to be wary of the non-legal consequences to their reputation.
This is an unmitigated disaster for LinkedIn. Obviously if it is a professional network, and they as a company already offer a number of solutions to recruiters, companies and professionals, then almost every app made for their platform is going to compete with their own offerings in some way.
If they aren't willing to set clear boundaries in this regard then they simply need to shut down the API and stop wasting everyone's time. In any event, even if they leave it open they can forget about people making a serious investment in the platform.
I agree, and Pealk definitely admitted as much, that for a startup, relying on an API is incredibly risky. I'd never be on board with a startup that did, no matter how cool the idea.
But LinkedIn doesn't come off looking great either, and I think that was the thrust of the article. It's pretty concerning that they would spend eight weeks talking nice with Pealk, all the while sussing out Pealk's position, and then shut off access with no opportunity to negotiate.
What LinkedIn did wasn't illegal, perhaps not even unethical, considering what passes ever-so-vaguely for 'ethical' in the business world these days. But it was, in the strictest definition of the word, crappy.
Why? They were abusing LinkedIn's service by competing with them.
LinkedIn took the time to speak with them, evaluate the situation, and then make an informed decision about whether they wanted to support their appropriation of LinkedIn's data.
It's crappy human behavior, which is not to say 'bad business practice', to pretend to work with someone and support their efforts for 2 months, and then summarily shut down their business simply because LinkedIn made an 'informed decision' that 'we don't owe you anything.'
Let's not confuse the fact that, although businesses certainly have a right to defend their own interests any way they see fit within the law, that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the community they conduct business in will call them out when they act in a basically unkind or deceptive manner.
The former has to do with business, fine print and the dog-eat-dog, watch-your-back world of modern commerce. The latter has to do with basic human decency, trust and the goodwill of the community you do business in.
"It's just business" is all well and good, but don't get butt-hurt when the community that you work with looks at your behavior and says, "it sucks that you did it that way." That's just the cost of "doing business," right? Suck it up and take it.
Same goes for Facebook or any other big company. If your application depends on them heavily, then they can shut you down with the flip of a switch. If you're not making them money directly, they won't care either. I make the distinction between big and small companies here because if you depend on a small company, there's a lot more chance of opening a dialog and working out some kind of arrangement.
That said, to not hinge the entire outcome of your company on another company is, I feel, business 101. Doing so is a very high risk.
My feelings go out to the guys who started the company though...mistakes or not, it would truly suck to see all your hard work flushed down the toilet.
Hi, author here, don't usually [ever] comment on my own work here - but am interested to hear if other devs have had similar or contrasting experiences working with LinkedIn.
In your post, you say "After news of the API cut off, LinkedIn got in touch to suggest a possible trip to its San Francisco HQ" - IIRC, LinkedIn's HQ is in Mountain View, not San Francisco.
I did not downvote you, but I've lived in the US for 11 years, went to different parts of California several times, including a long trip to San Fransisco; to this day I cannot tell you the difference between San Fransisco, Silicon Valley, Mountain View, etc... To me they are really all the same place.
That's a foolish and shortsighted way of looking at it. My company's headquarters is in Newton, MA, but if we're flying people in to talk, they universally say "Boston". Because to people not from the area, that's what it is.
Synecdoche is a part of English (San Francisco being the most notable part of Silicon Valley). It may upset the overly pedantic, but...oh well?
I agree with you from the perspective of people of France (or anyone outside the area). And that point is not lost on me.
I am talking about the credibility of the author. The line referenced in the article is written by the author. They are not words attributed to others in a quote. If it's not in a quote, the author takes on the responsibility with respect to the correctness of the fact. If the author can't verify this simple fact, I don't know if I can trust the article with all the one-sided claims presented.
That they can't be troubled to verify facts that don't have any relevance whatsoever to the content of the post should only very weakly effect your expectation of whether they verify facts that are central to the content of the post. Granted, here on the internet, that's not as high a prior as it might be.
Sell, lease, share, transfer, sublicense any Content obtained through the APIs, directly or indirectly, to any third party, including any data broker, ad network, ad exchange, or other advertising or monetization-related party..
Charge, directly or indirectly, any incremental fees (including any unique, specific, or premium charges) for access to LinkedIn's Content or your integration of the APIs in your Application;
Does it mean that one cannot monetize applications created using linkedin api ??
I developed wiserprofile.com to help people build better LinkedIn profiles, and it works entirely against LinkedIn's API. I too found that some of the cool features that I really wanted to build were not allowed by the LinkedIn developer agreement. It's too bad LinkedIn is not willing to open up their API set to allow an ecosystem to flourish - let the developers loose guys and watch your platform grow!
If a company is both a key partner and a competitor at the same time, your business model is faulty.
That said, the LinkedIn API could open certain features only if you act on behalf of a paying LinkedIn user. That way, both LinkedIn and the startups could happily co-exist, even though the startup recreates some of LinkedIns functionality.
To be honest, this app sounds like a feature LinkedIn can easily implement on their own. There is no viable business here. The real thick value lies in the data.. that's 99% of the work. The app just adds 1% value on top of it.
You may want to sell that LNKD stock you're holding. It's all downhill from here.
The kids (college kids and those who just graduated) are adding me on BranchOut, not LinkedIn. I'm the one who usually has to issue the connection request on LinkedIn, because nobody is fucking using it except people looking for a job and recruiters. It's mostly recruiters. But recruiters are gonna go where they perceive the people to be, so once the facade has fallen LinkedIn is FUCKED. That stock price is gonna start tanking once companies like BranchOut (built into the existing Facebook platform we all know and love) start gaining more ground.
Running your company with the intent of destroying all competition is like running your country with the intent of destroying all people who don't look like you.
"pealk" is a stupid name. I'm not even interested in learning about your product if you named it something stupid. What is it with web start-ups and stupid names?
I don't think that's constructive to the discussion.
While I agree the name is a bit strange in english maybe it's not in France where the startup is based?
This isn't specific to Linked.In: API access isn't a right. If your product requires a third-party data source and you don't have any contractual agreement with that third-party you have to accept that the rug could be yanked from under your feet at any moment.
And maybe that risk is acceptable to you and your investors - but to not have a backup plan is foolish.