Comments on: Google Transit Maps Shows the Dark Side of Platform Developement http://blog.andrewparker.net/2007/08/24/google-transit-maps-shows-the-dark-side-of-platform-developement/ Tech, Entrepreneurship, and Venture Capital in New York City Wed, 08 Oct 2008 05:30:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: morland http://blog.andrewparker.net/2007/08/24/google-transit-maps-shows-the-dark-side-of-platform-developement/#comment-76158 morland Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:09:42 +0000 http://blog.andrewparker.net/2007/08/24/google-transit-maps-shows-the-dark-side-of-platform-developement/#comment-76158 As you mentioned with Microsoft, it's a problem with development platforms in general, not just web services. This behavior results in criticism oft targeted at Apple as well - that any enterprising independent developers build new apps that the user community takes to will see Apple's own version built into the next Mac OS. Konfabulator/Dashboard, Sherlock/Watson, etc. It's a very delicate thing, spurring innovation... As you mentioned with Microsoft, it’s a problem with development platforms in general, not just web services. This behavior results in criticism oft targeted at Apple as well - that any enterprising independent developers build new apps that the user community takes to will see Apple’s own version built into the next Mac OS. Konfabulator/Dashboard, Sherlock/Watson, etc. It’s a very delicate thing, spurring innovation…

]]> By: Nate Westheimer http://blog.andrewparker.net/2007/08/24/google-transit-maps-shows-the-dark-side-of-platform-developement/#comment-75816 Nate Westheimer Sun, 26 Aug 2007 05:38:45 +0000 http://blog.andrewparker.net/2007/08/24/google-transit-maps-shows-the-dark-side-of-platform-developement/#comment-75816 Andrew -- This is a very interesting note. You're right -- these issues do not go un-addressed by teams developing applications and platforms which rely on the services (in some cases free) of others (especially when those "others" have such an ability to reinvent *your* wheel overnight). On the data pipeline control issue, we have a belief that all services on the web are best publicly available, and -- here's the important part -- the more folks who have access and ability to use these services as they see fit, the more likely they are to stay free and available to folks who have access and ability to use them. This is a common balancing act on the Internet, but ultimately both API service providers and ourselves want to see web services in the hands of people. We think creating a platform for that to happen adds to this natural, democratic process. On the second point, indeed the Goliaths can come out with their own versions of applications, functions, and platforms, but they can't always communicate the value of their product as effectively as an independent company focused on that one thing. Google's replacement of boutique RSS readers with the Reader app may be easier to predict because there's only so much one can do to differentiate a product which receives consistently formatted information over a set protocol -- and Google can do it. But for a product like a blogging platform, the Big Cos. can still have their product out and doing well (i.e. Blogger) while other companies exist happily, earning revenue, innovating and building value for their users, investors, and the broader Internet community (i.e. Six Apart's several, eventually acquired products, tumbler, Twitter, to reference a few). So my reaction to your post, in a nut shell, is this: Yes we lose sleep over these issues, but no it doesn't phase us. Anyway, it's my over simplification to say that if these services and platforms are really valuable enough that we're worried about how Google compete, then we're in the right business. Thanks, Nate BricaBox Andrew –

This is a very interesting note. You’re right — these issues do not go un-addressed by teams developing applications and platforms which rely on the services (in some cases free) of others (especially when those “others” have such an ability to reinvent *your* wheel overnight).

On the data pipeline control issue, we have a belief that all services on the web are best publicly available, and — here’s the important part — the more folks who have access and ability to use these services as they see fit, the more likely they are to stay free and available to folks who have access and ability to use them. This is a common balancing act on the Internet, but ultimately both API service providers and ourselves want to see web services in the hands of people. We think creating a platform for that to happen adds to this natural, democratic process.

On the second point, indeed the Goliaths can come out with their own versions of applications, functions, and platforms, but they can’t always communicate the value of their product as effectively as an independent company focused on that one thing. Google’s replacement of boutique RSS readers with the Reader app may be easier to predict because there’s only so much one can do to differentiate a product which receives consistently formatted information over a set protocol — and Google can do it. But for a product like a blogging platform, the Big Cos. can still have their product out and doing well (i.e. Blogger) while other companies exist happily, earning revenue, innovating and building value for their users, investors, and the broader Internet community (i.e. Six Apart’s several, eventually acquired products, tumbler, Twitter, to reference a few).

So my reaction to your post, in a nut shell, is this: Yes we lose sleep over these issues, but no it doesn’t phase us. Anyway, it’s my over simplification to say that if these services and platforms are really valuable enough that we’re worried about how Google compete, then we’re in the right business.

Thanks,
Nate
BricaBox

]]>