When a company grows large enough, the APIs and user-generated tools that propelled its growth get treated like a threat. They tend to vertically integrate and keep anyone from using their data.
I remember it was a shitshow at the time, probably around 2012, I worked for a company that was leveraging Twitter's API for a product and we got quite nervous about the hostility.
The Twitter fiasco was indeed a shit show. I remember being on HN once a week or so during that time but was on daily for a few weeks during that time.
I believe the alternative Twitter app for $50/year came out around that time as well before failing.
Facebook started locking their stuff way before Cambridge Analytica - I'd say by 5-8 years. Even then, Fb acted like an open platform for games and quizzes, but locked down its social-graph while siphoning Google's (via one-way Messenger-GTalk/XMPP interop). That marked a turning point for Google's attitude towards openness as well, since open vs. closed systems exhibit something similar to the paradox of tolerance: closed systems will take advantage of open systems and smother them out of existence.
For Google. That may have been a turning point. But Google’s actions by and large are their own. No one does their repeated bad behavior because of a few incidents with FB or other big players. Even more, I have no doubt Google would’ve ended up close enough to where they are now even without FBM’s interoperability shenanigans.
On the other hand, FB had no reason to lock things down the way they did after Cambridge as it was already pretty much locked down. That was a perfect excuse to do something in their interest while garnering praise from everyone.
It’s easy to blame FB for everything. They are the most blamed tech company for years now. Not as nice when society is complicit with one of their lockdown times though.
This is accurate. And Twitter runs a lucrative data sharing business. In Q1 they made $137 million from data licensing. So there are two reasons they've locked down access.
Pretty much everything that helps a company grow is seen like a threat when "it helped us yesterday, but now can help others". Just like the competition hypocrisy: small companies love competition and fully support it, then they grow and do whatever they can to destroy it.
In the Twitter example, I understand the direct conflict with revenue, but it still seems like a bad long term play.
But I’ve also seen this in B2B, where the API enhanced growth, reduced churn, enabled sales and didn’t compete with subscription revenue.
But new wigs in the business wanted to chase something new.
And copying (and then restricting, as opposed to competing) API use cases became the low hanging fruit.
In the end it was shortermism, most of the wigs only stay for 2 years, and the cost to the business plays out on a longer timescale.
The users, community and tools always get screwed in the process and they have never mattered to them as soon as the investors come in. Has happened on every social media company.
Very unsurprising of this to happen. It won't be the last.