« More Delays for Windows Vista | Main | Weekend Reading: The Making of the Atomic Bomb »
Latest Stories
- Bubbles are Good For You Because ... They Are
- Quote of the Day: Commodities Markets
- San Diego Homes Bottoming?
- The Myth of the Angel Investor
- Pete Peterson on Subprime, Bailouts, etc.
June 17, 2006
Data Wants to Be Free. No It Doesn't. Yet It Does. No. Yes.
Lots of good discussion has been sparked by the some comments from Flickr founder (say that twenty times fast) Stewart Butterfield on reciprocal APIs. The gist: Some companies want program level access to snarf up Flickr's photos, in particular a competitor called Zoomr. Stewart first said No, quite rightly wondering why he should allow a competitor to use Flickr bandwidth; now he has turned around and said he think it likely makes sense.Why? Here's the money quote:
[T]his is something that we've never had any set policy on and this thread has sparked a lot of internal debate on the team: some people felt that it was unreasonable, some people felt like it didn't matter since Flickr should win on the basis of being the best thing out there.Marc has more thoughts and links.
I actually had a change of heart and was convinced by Eric'sposition that we definitely should approve requests from direct competitors as long as they do the same. That means (a) that they need to have a full and complete API and (b) be willing to give us access.
The reasoning here is partly just that "fair's fair' and more subtly, like a GPL license, it enforces user freedom down the chain. I think we'll take this approach (still discussing it internally).
My take: Reciprocal openness makes sense -- it is your data after all -- but like all such "treaties" it requires trust with verification. Naive openness is a path to ruin.
Sphere It
| 
Digg it
| 
Bookmark it
| 
Stumble it
both zoomr users will be overjoyed to hear this.
"My take: Reciprocal openness makes sense -- it is your data after all -- but like all such "treaties" it requires trust with verification. Naive openness is a path to ruin."
Indeed openness is what makes Google valuable as well... if they couldn't summarize/ref so many public databases there would be no point in using it, or models such as Flikr. I applaud this affirmation and hope they continue to.
So, what's your approach, Mr. Paul Kedrosky?
Too bad you edit down comments by random web-wanderers such as myself. Your site is in danger of crossing into vanity site realms if you continue culling informed and polite commentary to those stories you post - as you have done to me. I've been an information designer for almost two decades now and I thought the lessons of a Walled Garden had been made clear to the biz community ... from Betamax to iTV trials. Just what kind of school do you run and/or lessons are you interested in passing on here with this effort?
You talk a good talk, but walk your own Ministry of Funny Walks.
This was a mistake on the part of Flickr. The reason Flickr took off when there were already so many sites out there is because Flickr was the only site with an open API. Sadly, it's been almost two years and Flickr's competitors still haven't figured this out yet. Apparently Flickr hasn't figured this out yet either, because now Flickr is mandating that its competitors copy what made it successful.
Yes, data should be free. But if freedom is your sustainable competitive advantage then it would be better for Flickr to give away the data for free and demand nothing in return.