Hacker News Reader

Comment by elbigbad | Hacker News Reader

This sucks, but unfortunately is something that is not unlikely to happen when one's whole service is hosted or relies on a third party API for its data. I recall something similar happening with a service that relied on the Google Maps API to draw coordinates or something. And Google pulled API access because the service was too similar to what Google Maps did with trip directions, or something.

Unfortunately this is a reality of basing, or largely basing, a whole service off of a third party.

View on HN

The point here is not that they're relying on a third party, but the fact that Amazon banned them from the api while their competitors/alternatives can still use it without constraint.

Isn't that a bit like complaining to the police officer who pulled you over that other people were speeding, too?

The problem is that unequally applies rules are often intermingled with biases. While a single instance of 'what about that other guy' isn't a worthwhile plea, if you can show a trend as to who gets pulled based on something other than speeding, you have a problem.

In business, it is less of an issue because business doesn't need to be fair to the same standard of law. There are still certain laws and protect groups and such, but the bar is still much lower than in law. The complaint of unfairness can be valid, but also pointless.

Besides likely being less effective than saving such arguments for the magistrate, what exactly is wrong with that? It's a standard avenue of contesting a speeding ticket.

Because you're admitting that you were speeding. If you claim ignorance ("Sorry, I was too focused on traffic to glance at the speedometer"), you at least have a chance (depending on the officer's mood) of getting away with a warning.

You're "admitting" that you were going a certain speed, but not that said speed qualifies as "speeding".

I agree you're better off trying a different tack with the ticket troll, I'm just saying it's not wrong.

As far as I understand it, this is different because they were "previously told we were in 100% compliance with the rules"

So, it's more like a cop pulling you over even though you weren't speeding.

I think you guys are stretching the analogy way too far. As I see things: it's a private matter and doesn't map well onto a public analogy.

The bottom line is that Amazon can deem it acceptable to allow behavior one day, and change it's mind the next. If you systematically rely on your partner's humor, you're doing something wrong.

I agree its allowed for amazon to do this, but its still a dick move

Right, and that's the point! If you're systematically in a position where you have to worry about "dick moves" from your partners, you're doing something very, very wrong.

Amazon might be dicks, but not to the extent that PriceZombie is foolish.

(I get the sense we're saying the same thing, though :) )

I can only accept that argument if you're willing to say "Hey Amazon, I'm willing to donate $XXX,000 for you guys to hire X people to police everyone and ban anyone violating the TOS". No? Then your complaining is just bitterness, that's all.

Amazon really has no obligation to provide equal access to everyone though. That's a risk of building on an API. They don't need a reason to cut you off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com