(no title)
jasonwcfan | 1 year ago
This actually creates an evergreen problem that companies need to overcome, and our paid version will probably involve helping companies overcome these barriers.
Also I should clarify that we're explicitly not trying to build a playwright abstraction - we're trying to remain as unopinionated as possible about how developers code the bot, and just help with the network-level infrastructure they'll need to make it reliable and make it scale.
It's good feedback for us, we'll make that point more clear!
ghxst|1 year ago
While this might be true in theory, it doesn't stop them from trying! And believe me, it's getting to a point where the WAF settings on some websites are even annoying the majority of the real users! Some of the issues I am hinting at however are fundemental issues you run into when automating the web using any mainstream browser that hasn't had some source code patches, I'm curious to see if a solution to that will be part of your service if you decide to tackle it.
candiddevmike|1 year ago
I wish your company the kind of success it deserves.
jasonwcfan|1 year ago
If anything, it's unethical for companies to dictate how their customers can access services they've already paid for. If I'm paying hundreds of thousands per year for software, shouldn't I be allowed to build automations over it? Instead, many enterprise products go to great lengths to restrict this kind of usage.
I led the team that dealt with DDoS and other network level attacks at Robinhood so I know how harmful they are. But I also got to see many developers using our services in creative ways that could have been a whole new product (example: https://github.com/sanko/Robinhood).
Instead we had to go after these people and shut them down because it wasn't aligned with the company's long term risk profile. It sucked.
That's why we're focused on authenticated agents for B2B use cases, not the kind of malicious bots you might be thinking of.