You mean, why should you build a for-profit product while relying on someone else's not-for-profit API?
I'm guessing you shouldn't!
I've seen a lot of neat projects come from Google APIs, but that's as far as I'd taking it.
Relying on someone else's good will for the lifeblood of your company is insane.
1 exception, though: Getting started. I could see using Google to get off the ground and then switching to a more reliable API (read: paid for) afterwards.
Google's App Engine is pretty much a for-profit API.
And now they've announced a change in their pricing scheme, which if true, would change App Engine from pay-what-you-use to same-as-amazon-aws-but-pricier scheme, which makes it hugely expensive for a large portion of devs that have built on top of App Engine. And migrating away from App Engine is a total pain in the ass.
I truly hope that the blog-post missed important details or that they'll keep providing the old option too (i.e. paying per cpu-hour instead of instance-hour).
I know App Engine was beta, but people have built on it expecting instability in the implementation, not in its pricing scheme. I mean, come on!
Relying on someone else's good will for the lifeblood of your company is insane
Tweetdeck anyone? And Zynga (FB is its lifeblood)
Google shutting down an API that thousands of developers are relying on without much warning is insane.
The web is an increasingly competitive space and there are lots of walled gardens to worry about. Google openly encourages developers to build on top of and use its APIs and it prides itself on its "Don't be evil" policy.
Like it or not, companies like Google, FB, and Apple are platforms that developers are building on top of simply because these companies and their services are the "web" these days.
it's not so black and white. it's not like you should never use anyone else's api ever for your for profit stuff; it's simply a question of risk versus benefit.
in the case of apis, the risk is that there is some probability that the api will go down. the benefit is that you don't have to write your own stuff, and in some cases, the benefit is the entire value proposition of your application. for example, should you use the google translate api? there is some probability that the api will go down. whatever you estimate this probability to be, that's how you have to weigh your benefit. you probably can't recreate google translate, so the benefit is whatever benefit your application provides, or the marginal benefit that google translate provides to your application.
also, consider the fact that all apis will go down, but you can always create value in the interim. no api is going to be around forever, but will html even be around forever? how long is your application going to be useful? maybe the chance that the api will go down in the medium term is low, so that's an acceptable lifetime for your application.
As a counterpoint, many companies are built off of APIs that are out there. That's the nature of business and that's actually great for the API authors out there.
But if developers knew that APIs could easily go away, then people wouldn't build businesses on top of those APIs. The risk would be too high.
I don't know the history but it seems that Google could've implemented some simple solutions to prevent abuse of their APIs while catering to the business community such as simply charging for use. Any legit business would be willing to do this.
Right. And this same argument means you should not rely on, for example, gmail, for your email. This is good advice for people in general, although perhaps not something google wants to hear, as they generally market themselves as someone you can trust. Obviously, google will let you down in exactly the same way that, say, apple or microsoft or facebook will. The pain for some people might be greater in this case, simply because the expectations were higher. I often wonder if they regret adopting that "don't be evil" motto.
If Microsoft did this with the Windows API ten years ago people would be going absolutely batshit crazy in here and the government probably would have intervened
I completely agree that you are shooting yourself in the foot if you are relying on someone else's API for you entire functionality. But there are a few things here -
* Everything Google does is free. So it can be argued that the API is in fact for-profit.
* In this case, translation is not something a small company can do by themselves. The API's whole value proposition is that it enables startups without the infrastructure like Google can create interesting applications using the API. Google wants people to do that and its very much a big part of its success so far.
So the developer is not entirely at fault.
I would not rely on that one API itself for my business but he/she chose to do it.
One needs to keep in mind that a significant portion of Google's public facing deployment consists of "throwing stuff against the wall, and seeing what sticks".
Remember the now legendary "beta" moniker. It applies, even where it's not explicitly designated.
While you are pointing out a valid strategic risk in building on another’s platform, I’m disappointed to see the top post here is simply engaging in blame-the-victim.
Google cites abuse as the reason for shutting down the translate API. I find it ironic that they have engineers smart enough to write software that can translate human language between hundreds of language pairs, but can't write software to stop abuse.
I'll let Google in on a little secret: If you charge more for a service than it costs you to provide, then there is no such thing as abuse.
The cost in goodwill (and perhaps even real money) of using translate to fill hundreds/thousands of google ad-filled spam sites in hundreds of different languages may be much higher than they could ever conceivably recoup in charging for the API.
Once you charge more than any legitimate user would be willing to pay for the API, you are effectively shutting down the API anyway.
Well, maybe not just that type of abuse, overusage without benefit to Google. Of course there could still be abuse of some sort, like somehow using a service to spread spam or malware.
The original post mentions a 3-year deprecation period. Given the speed of technological progression, that would be pretty difficult for me to complain about.
Edit: The Translate API, specifically mentioned, will be deprecated December 2011. That's pretty soon.
I don't mean to be a stickler, but this is an egregious example of editorializing in the title. Can someone edit it please?
I was already well aware of the API deprecation story, but I clicked on this link thinking it was a new article from Google defending the move (or something of the sort).
This submission is linking to a comment, not a news story, and that comment asks "why should any developer, any company which wants to build a valuable product for the long term use any of your APIs ever again?"
So, still slightly editorialised title here on HN, but pretty much on the money.
Amazing sense of entitlement in this comment. Google built the apis, they host the apis, they incur costs from this yet provide them for free. Presumably this is because they intend to get some benefit. So its Google's decision if they want to continue to provide them or change the way they work.
I use some free apis in my commercial apps but I'm aware that I don't control them nor am I entitled to them. They may change in such a way that I'd have to discontinue a product but that's a responsibility I took on when I decided to use them. Google and other free API providers don't bear reposibility for my decision.
Google has made some unpopular developer-facing moves lately (App Engine pricing changes come to mind), and it seems entirely out-of-character.
From now on, any API announcement from Google should be accompanied with a GIANT expiration date stamped all over it by default. Then, if it keeps going... happy surprise!
I agree, something strange is definitely going on internally at Google.
I actually attribute it to starting with the shutdown of Wave and the floundering about with Buzz and other products since then.
One thing that Google has been excellent at doing is building up the perception that they have near limitless computing power at their disposal. These kinds of shutdowns, and the reasons given, are doing immense harm to that cultivated image.
Google is doing the right thing that would be typical for an internet company. For any product they would need to have maintainers/owners who are continuously updating and monitoring. It is completely waste of time to maintain unused stuff.
Offering an API, paid or unpaid, is not making an unending commitment to support it forever. If it was, businesses would simply not offer APIs.
When someone offers a product or service, they have to right to decide later on to not offer that service any more. That is simply the nature of any business arrangement where you are depending on an entity not under your control.
Would the OP prefer that Google and other companies simply not offer APIs?
I would be very interested in seeing how many developers would pay for the Translate API if Google had decided to monetize it instead of deprecating it then shutting it down as some of the commentors on the blog had suggested. At the same time if the Google Translate API is such a popular service then maybe there is enough demand to support a startup providing a Translate API ;)
Question: Can anyone recommend another Translation API? The problem is that the translation work that Google does is the best out there that I've seen, and I'm not even sure if there's a decent alternative to be found.
I keep hearing about hypothetical for-profit products and people's weekend hobby projects being affected by this change, but does anyone have any example of an actual business that will be affected by this change?
Note that most of these APIs have 3 year deprecation policies and so will continue to be around; only the translate api is going away (and that's in December).
I have serious doubts that almost anyone would actually pay per translate (and if you would, it's likely you could work out a license deal independent of a public API anyway). It seems like the reaction to this has more to do with annoyance that another cool free service is going away and remaining anger over app engine pricing changes.
Yes. I hire many translators. We use google translate, and license professional dictionaries to speedup the process. I estimate that Google translate saves us $20k/year. I personally would be willing to pay a lot for continued access to the translate API. (I'll probably just end up using some sort of iframe hackery when the translate API goes away)
We use Google Translate where I work for a some very small customer service related tasks. Our business is not "built on" Google Translate (and has nothing to do with translation), but it solves some small problems for us and is easily worth $10-20 a month for a low volume of requests. Actually, since we already have it integrated and are happy with it, we'd probably pay more just to have the problems solved so we can focus on really important things.
I'm leery of building anything on top of someone else's API. I built on top of an API while also keeping in active contact with the company to let them know what I was doing, going as far as talking directly to their legal department, and they still shut me down when they couldn't handle the volume of usage. And this is in a situation where every marginal use of their API made them money. Collectively I was going to make them revenue of (projected admittedly) $1.2M. Didn't stop them from shutting me down.
Long story short: Building on someone else's API is a recipe for disaster. Are there times when you have to? Sure. But you need to know what you are getting into.
Gratitude for what? Ripping out "the foundations of many startups"? In many cases, offering something and then rescinding at the last minute is worse than not offering in the first place.
(I'm not personally mad and wouldn't have built a business around this API. But creating false expectations is not a good thing.)
It's really too bad. The Translate API was super, super fun to play with. I made myself a cute little interface to translate JavaScript or CSV arrays into multiple languages simultaneously. I envisioned being able to build fully self-translating web applications. And there's no other company providing this type of technology in this fashion.
If there's any startup working in this area, here's your chance.
Agreed. This is a great opportunity for a startup to swoop in, clone the Google API so the only change necessary is authentication tokens and URI, and get everyone to switch to their (paid) platform.
The announcements seem impact the smaller, niche, API's. It's unlikely that this would ever happen to large API's such as Maps, Analytics, etc. However, the Translate API was definitely very cool.
The way I look at it, Apple and Microsoft have ecosystems that allow others to profit from software development. Google has an ecosystem that allows others to profit from advertising. Of course, you can development software products around Google's platforms, but I'm only seeing a handful of success stories in comparison to the other two.
Some of the Google API are released early to get contributions, testers and inputs to improve their services. In other words, they abuse their contributors to improve their services without thanking them or helping them on the long-term. The translation service is one of them, the massive improvement of the translation service came from the many inputs received by people using their API.
It shows again the importance of building free software along with their free network services. That's quite challenging and difficult but it shows that initiative like http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/ is not completely useless on the long run.
Never rely on anyones API, building something with API is mashup/side-project not a startup/company.
I think a better statement is "Never rely on anyone's API unless you have a contractual agreement and SLA in place, and a backup plan for if/when the API goes away; building something on an API otherwise is a mashup/side-project not a startup/company."
[+] [-] wccrawford|15 years ago|reply
I'm guessing you shouldn't!
I've seen a lot of neat projects come from Google APIs, but that's as far as I'd taking it.
Relying on someone else's good will for the lifeblood of your company is insane.
1 exception, though: Getting started. I could see using Google to get off the ground and then switching to a more reliable API (read: paid for) afterwards.
[+] [-] bad_user|15 years ago|reply
And now they've announced a change in their pricing scheme, which if true, would change App Engine from pay-what-you-use to same-as-amazon-aws-but-pricier scheme, which makes it hugely expensive for a large portion of devs that have built on top of App Engine. And migrating away from App Engine is a total pain in the ass.
I truly hope that the blog-post missed important details or that they'll keep providing the old option too (i.e. paying per cpu-hour instead of instance-hour).
I know App Engine was beta, but people have built on it expecting instability in the implementation, not in its pricing scheme. I mean, come on!
[+] [-] fjabre|15 years ago|reply
Tweetdeck anyone? And Zynga (FB is its lifeblood)
Google shutting down an API that thousands of developers are relying on without much warning is insane.
The web is an increasingly competitive space and there are lots of walled gardens to worry about. Google openly encourages developers to build on top of and use its APIs and it prides itself on its "Don't be evil" policy.
Like it or not, companies like Google, FB, and Apple are platforms that developers are building on top of simply because these companies and their services are the "web" these days.
[+] [-] andylei|15 years ago|reply
in the case of apis, the risk is that there is some probability that the api will go down. the benefit is that you don't have to write your own stuff, and in some cases, the benefit is the entire value proposition of your application. for example, should you use the google translate api? there is some probability that the api will go down. whatever you estimate this probability to be, that's how you have to weigh your benefit. you probably can't recreate google translate, so the benefit is whatever benefit your application provides, or the marginal benefit that google translate provides to your application.
also, consider the fact that all apis will go down, but you can always create value in the interim. no api is going to be around forever, but will html even be around forever? how long is your application going to be useful? maybe the chance that the api will go down in the medium term is low, so that's an acceptable lifetime for your application.
[+] [-] freshfunk|15 years ago|reply
But if developers knew that APIs could easily go away, then people wouldn't build businesses on top of those APIs. The risk would be too high.
I don't know the history but it seems that Google could've implemented some simple solutions to prevent abuse of their APIs while catering to the business community such as simply charging for use. Any legit business would be willing to do this.
[+] [-] tybris|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ellyagg|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nikcub|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yalogin|15 years ago|reply
* Everything Google does is free. So it can be argued that the API is in fact for-profit. * In this case, translation is not something a small company can do by themselves. The API's whole value proposition is that it enables startups without the infrastructure like Google can create interesting applications using the API. Google wants people to do that and its very much a big part of its success so far.
So the developer is not entirely at fault.
I would not rely on that one API itself for my business but he/she chose to do it.
[+] [-] pasbesoin|15 years ago|reply
Remember the now legendary "beta" moniker. It applies, even where it's not explicitly designated.
I'm not defending Google. Just saying.
[+] [-] alanh|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcampbell1|15 years ago|reply
I'll let Google in on a little secret: If you charge more for a service than it costs you to provide, then there is no such thing as abuse.
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|15 years ago|reply
Once you charge more than any legitimate user would be willing to pay for the API, you are effectively shutting down the API anyway.
[+] [-] code_duck|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanI-S|15 years ago|reply
Edit: The Translate API, specifically mentioned, will be deprecated December 2011. That's pretty soon.
[+] [-] jmathai|15 years ago|reply
Why are we still in this infatuation stage of ignoring the pitfalls of this?
[+] [-] jsdalton|15 years ago|reply
I was already well aware of the API deprecation story, but I clicked on this link thinking it was a new article from Google defending the move (or something of the sort).
[+] [-] corin_|15 years ago|reply
So, still slightly editorialised title here on HN, but pretty much on the money.
[+] [-] dkarl|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] baconner|15 years ago|reply
I use some free apis in my commercial apps but I'm aware that I don't control them nor am I entitled to them. They may change in such a way that I'd have to discontinue a product but that's a responsibility I took on when I decided to use them. Google and other free API providers don't bear reposibility for my decision.
[+] [-] thetrumanshow|15 years ago|reply
From now on, any API announcement from Google should be accompanied with a GIANT expiration date stamped all over it by default. Then, if it keeps going... happy surprise!
[+] [-] bane|15 years ago|reply
I actually attribute it to starting with the shutdown of Wave and the floundering about with Buzz and other products since then.
One thing that Google has been excellent at doing is building up the perception that they have near limitless computing power at their disposal. These kinds of shutdowns, and the reasons given, are doing immense harm to that cultivated image.
[+] [-] redler|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rcfox|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SriniK|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomkarlo|15 years ago|reply
When someone offers a product or service, they have to right to decide later on to not offer that service any more. That is simply the nature of any business arrangement where you are depending on an entity not under your control.
Would the OP prefer that Google and other companies simply not offer APIs?
[+] [-] dhimes|15 years ago|reply
You also have the right to not write thank-you cards when people do nice things for you, but those people have the right to react to your selfishness.
[+] [-] Gunther|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelpinto|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] magicalist|15 years ago|reply
Note that most of these APIs have 3 year deprecation policies and so will continue to be around; only the translate api is going away (and that's in December).
I have serious doubts that almost anyone would actually pay per translate (and if you would, it's likely you could work out a license deal independent of a public API anyway). It seems like the reaction to this has more to do with annoyance that another cool free service is going away and remaining anger over app engine pricing changes.
[+] [-] jcampbell1|15 years ago|reply
The actual business is http://www.yabla.com/
[+] [-] jonnycat|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdvolz|15 years ago|reply
Long story short: Building on someone else's API is a recipe for disaster. Are there times when you have to? Sure. But you need to know what you are getting into.
[+] [-] orblivion|15 years ago|reply
"Google is just another company who doesn't care about developers."
What? A little gratitude, at least, before suggesting how things could be better.
[+] [-] chc|15 years ago|reply
(I'm not personally mad and wouldn't have built a business around this API. But creating false expectations is not a good thing.)
[+] [-] r00fus|15 years ago|reply
Many folks are crying out for a paid version of the Translate API for example.
I question the motive behind shuttering a useful and unparalleled API like translate without considering putting a pricetag on it.
[+] [-] dstein|15 years ago|reply
If there's any startup working in this area, here's your chance.
[+] [-] cookiecaper|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nekitamo|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dstein|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neovive|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nhebb|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iqster|15 years ago|reply
Don’t be a Google Bitch, don’t be a Facebook Bitch, and don’t be a Twitter Bitch. Be your own Bitch. (link: http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/23/fred-wilson-be-your-own-bit...)
[+] [-] adulau|15 years ago|reply
It shows again the importance of building free software along with their free network services. That's quite challenging and difficult but it shows that initiative like http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/ is not completely useless on the long run.
[+] [-] krisrak|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindcrime|15 years ago|reply
I think a better statement is "Never rely on anyone's API unless you have a contractual agreement and SLA in place, and a backup plan for if/when the API goes away; building something on an API otherwise is a mashup/side-project not a startup/company."
[+] [-] gte910h|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] code_duck|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drcube|15 years ago|reply