this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2023
54 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

34832 readers
1 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/93361

APIs for content sites must be free (๐Ÿ”ฅ Score: 152+ in 2 hours)

Link: https://readhacker.news/s/5GSi2 Comments: https://readhacker.news/c/5GSi2

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] ThreeHalflings@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Is there a reasonable model for commercial sites to survive if their APIs are free?

[โ€“] cxx@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The obvious answer is "charge a reasonable price".

Many services like AccuWeather do that, including having a limited free tier for experimentation or niche applications.

The real problem though is that the value of the data isn't just the cost of storing and making it available - in many cases its strategic. This is why e.g. the Google Maps API gives you pre-rendered map tiles and curated results, but you don't get access to the raw data.

[โ€“] ThreeHalflings@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I think that's reasonable, which is why I'm wondering how "all APIs must be free" works.

[โ€“] hyperhopper@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Ads, like Reddit does and reddit makes a ton of money. If they weren't trying to make nft integrations or new TikTok and just had the staff it took to keep the lights on, it would be a stable successful business.

But the greedy execs want more money so they act like they have no choice but to squeeze the users for everything they can. This is their choice, not a necessity.

[โ€“] joelthelion@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Exactly this. They keep repeating that they aren't profitable. But the key question is: why do they need 2,000 employees? IIRC, before they were acquired by Facebook, Whatsapp managed to handle a billion+ users with 50 people.

[โ€“] ThreeHalflings@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

If I write a third party app, then I can filter out any ads you pass me, or I can make it easy for a user to do at arm's length from me by allowing plugins. This is exactly what's happening with reddit third party apps.

I don't think it's as black and white as you're making out.

[โ€“] WindInTrees@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I would expect that not filtering ads (unless the user pays the content site) could be an enforceable stipulation to anyone using the APIs, no? I would also think that ads could be served through the common "get new posts" API in an opaque manner pretty easily.

[โ€“] ThreeHalflings@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Firstly, to enforce that reddit now has to police everyone who uses their api, and engage in the inevitable game of whackamole. Secondly, I know I didn't see any reddit ads when I was using Boost for Reddit, so it's actively happening.