Hacker News Reader

Comment by talmand | Hacker News Reader

I'm constantly amazed at the entitlement attitude so many have when it comes to APIs and other people's data. Netflix wishes to change the rules on their API so that it fits in with some broader strategy no one knows about, so what? They wish to restrict the flow of data that they collect for their own uses, so what? They no longer wish to allow third-parties to monetize data accessed from a public API, so what? Regardless of what the article states, it is their data and they can do with it as they please. A person's viewing history on Netflix is not that person's data, it is Netflix's data as they are the people who spent the money to collect it. No amount of whining or complaining will change that.

I can understand people thinking this might be a bad idea for them and I agree that it's possibly a PR mistake. But there is a difference between complaining about access and demanding access to a company's data.

View on HN

From article: It appears Netflix considers what films you’ve watched and what you thought of them as their data, not yours.

What you've watched & thought of it is, of course, your data.

However, Netflix is in no way obligated to act as your memory in when & whatever manner you demand.

They are not obligated. However, I'm fairly sure banks aren't obligated by law to send you statements* - they certainly aren't obligated to let you download them in, say, quicken format (who could be seen as a competitor). It's just such a big feature that no one would do business with a bank that didn't offer it.

Similiarly Netflix's APIs add value for customers, and apps and outboard memory are/have been a big part of Netflix for me. Will loosing that make me leave? I don't know - but clearly this is a major downgrade in their service.

* It looks like they pretty much are obligated by law - thanks benatkin.

I've been under the impression that it's required by law that banks send statements, because I've been presented with the option to receive electronic statements but never with the option to not receive statements at all. I searched and found a U. S. government site where it says that statements are required for accounts that have EFTs (which seem to include debit cards). So my bank is obligated to send me statements. http://www.helpwithmybank.gov/get-answers/bank-accounts/gene...

I get an email each month, that I don't think I can opt out of, that says "New (name of bank) eStatements Available" and links me to the bank's website, where I can view and download it.

You're probably right that they aren't legally obligated to provide transaction data in a machine-readable format.

I agree, bank statements are not a good comparison simply because you have an agreement with the bank to store your money. In that type of agreement there would have to be some form of obligation to report your holdings in their bank.

everything is context.

banks used to that to gain customers. Some time ago, every developer working at banks knew that customers were measured in cost per customer. You'd had the cost to please them, and then you'd make money investing their money.

then, fast forward a measly decade, and banks are seen as obligatory. nobody things about NOT having their money in a bank. So banks drop all of the benefits, and we start to measure clients as profit per account. banks now are profiting from investing your money AND holding that money for you just because you never though about not paying the bank.

So, that's the time when we started to have some regulations and minimal service the bank's supposed to provide.

It seems unfair to me to paint all banks with this broad brush... credit unions, and even some traditional banks, are quite worthwhile. There is a lot of competition in retail banking.

And cOmparing NetFlix usage data to a bank statement is ridiculous anyway.

No, it is not your data. If it were to reside on your server and be collected by your application/code/whatever then it would by your data. You willingly provided them information that they then collect to use for whatever reasons they deem fit. From my point of view your two statements contradict each other. If it is your data then Netflix does have an obligation to act as your memory when you ask them to do so. Since you agree that they have no such obligation then you clearly point out that it is, in fact, not your data.

By "my data" I'm referring to the information which my brain processed/generated. I watched it, I rated it. That Netflix obtained a copy of that information incidental to our interaction does not obligate them to give me access to their copy, any more than I am obligated to Netflix to provide them with a list of what I've watched should their servers "forget".

I think this is a disagreement on the definition of data in this example. I am speaking of ownership of the data in question.

True, you provided the information. But, to me at least, since Netflix is the one who collected it and are actively storing it then it is their data in terms of ownership. Unless there is some language somewhere that states that Netflix is storing this data on your behalf it belongs to them to do with as they please.

For me it seems that you are referring to the data as something you provided and I'm referring to it as something Netflix collected and is storing. These two ideas do not necessarily contradict each other.

If you go to a site and sign up for their newsletter, that data now belongs to them. If you go to your Google Docs account and type the same information into a text file to store there then that data belongs to you. The difference being is that Google Docs is storing that data for you, while the other is not.

That's all I'm saying.

The other guy is being needlessly metaphysical; that's what's tripping you up.

"my data" implies ownership in this context. The more accurate phrase for what you appear to be trying to say would be "data about me".

My data is me, I am my data.

What I eat, my shoe size, where I've been, the drugs I take, where I work, my mortgage and tax payments, the movies I like.

Netflix should pay me for the honor of storing, mining, analysing, and reselling any and all information about me.

Ditto every one else peddling my data. Exploiting me (and you) for profit.

I want my cut.

Netflix could easily say that you do get your cut by them being able to lower prices due to any income stream they manage to get from the data they collect. Realistically that's the only way it could work unless you're suggesting that Netflix should pay you for watching their service.

> What you've watched & thought of it is, of course, your data.

And you have always been free to write that down in your own notes, if you wish, however you wish. Some folks actually keep their own simple written text notes on what movies they've seen and want to see. same with books, albums, etc. It's free, fast and simple, and nobody has or probably can take that ability away from you.

Spot on.

When you build your house on someone else's foundation, your house is at the mercy of the foundation's owner's plans.

Publically available APIs are great, but at times I am troubled by how many people develop entire products and applications around other's data, and then scream bloody murder when their business model goes up in smoke because the parent decided to evolve and innovate their own business.

Forget business models – I find it frustrating as a consumer to see the value proposition of a service I value being reduced.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to be unhappy about a reduction in value to me, the end consumer. Do I understand it? Perhaps – I still view it as a poor sort of competitive behavior because it's built around increasing information asymmetry and reducing consumers' ability to compare offerings – rather than making their own offerings stronger.

What you say is true, but I don't think this article is demanding access to Netflix data. They've noted rather dispassionately that Netflix is making technical and legal changes, analyzed its impact on Netflix users and third party developers, and concluded that this will be a net loss for user, third party developers and probably Netflix its self.

That sounds about right to me. I'm sure Netflix expects the net effect of this change to be beneficial to the company, and they may be right, but they are going to loose the benefits of the ecosystem that exists today. I certainly don't see any whining, complaining or demanding. It's more of a heads up to everyone involved in the Netflix ecosystem that this is an important change with significant consequences.

AFAICT, goodfil.ms is informing and preparing it's community for changes they're going to have to make. Surely you don't expect them to protect Netflix from the negative PR that this move will generate?

When someone states that the data Netflix has is not their data but that of the viewer and Netflix should not alter access to it, I take that to mean demand of access. I could be wrong but that's my take on it.

I must have missed that bit.

"it is Netflix's data as they are the people who spent the money to collect it."

can easily be turned around to say

"it is the customer's data as they are the people who spent the money to produce it."

Legally, sure... all of you guys are spot on. But this article speaks to what people want, not what they legally deserve

Isn't that the point of this thread? That people are arguably wanting more than they deserve?

The definition of "deserve" stops to matter so much when enough people get involved. I'm not saying this particular story has any sort of groundswell of protest behind it, but if it did legal definitions wouldn't matter much at all. An obvious example of something that has a movement behind it is piracy (illegal, but widespread and unstoppable)

What I will say relating to the Netflix story is that they probably shouldn't put themselves in a position where they alienate power users (read: evangelists) of the site. They've had a rough couple of years (content loss, product stumbles). Hunkering down and putting up fences is exactly what old media has tried to do, and it hasn't exactly been going so well for them.

> but if it did legal definitions wouldn't matter much at all.

I was thinking in more of an ethical/common-sense kind of way. If I pay NF $8/month for their streaming services, is it reasonable for me to claim that I deserve a fully-featured and well-documented API, complete with access to my historical data? Legal questions aside, it seems unreasonable from a gut-check point of view to expect the services of all the engineers & tech writers responsible for making that happen (and keeping it updated) in addition to the streaming service.

If my business depended on access to this Netflix data, you can be sure I'd be making calls and in-person visits if possible to try and form some kind of partnership with them. I think it would be reasonable to assume that kind of business model (NF's model WRT data access) is probably unsustainable and I'd have to do something to protect my business.

I'm betting NF is in the process of creating developer accounts. For $xxx, you get an API key that you embed in your apps that turns these features/this access back on. I wonder if pricing is what's keeping dev accounts from showing up yet -- NF seems against utility billing for end users, but they must deal with it all the time on the back end. Hmm. To your point about the power users, some kind of freemium model would work fine for keeping them happy, I'm guessing... once usage is "Real Business" level, make them pay for it, Google Maps-style.

No they didn't, they spent money to rent/watch videos.

Worth noting, the API strategy is not exactly secret: http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/netflix-api-empha...

( via http://gigaom.com/video/netflix-42-billion-api-requests/)

Original article has been updated to say that it appears the new terms are not as "sinister" as first thought. Sinister? Really?

Exactly. You sharecrop their API's, you play by their rules. Full Stop.

The fact that they had this api made me choose to be their consumer in the first place. And i was already looking for a reason to ditch them since the price changes and recent focusing 100% on series instead of any film.

This is exactly how it is supposed to work. Now, freshly empowered, will choose another streaming service. That service presumably distinguishes itself by offering such APIs. So the number of people who switch helps train the market.

Perhaps there is a startup opportunity for an API driven unbranded movie streaming service where the product is the viewing API/data rather than the streaming.

> Perhaps there is a startup opportunity for an API driven unbranded movie streaming service where the product is the viewing API/data rather than the streaming.

Maybe that's exactly what Netflix intends to offer -- a separate product that's just API/data. Developer account?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com