• Sylvartas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    7 months ago

    I would have been ok with reasonable prices for API calls. Bandwidth has a cost after all. But they so obviously set out to drive the third party apps out of business so they could sell ads in the official app/website it just disgusted me.

    Also that new mobile site is so shitty, I refuse to believe it’s not on purpose.

    • lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t get why they had to drive out 3rd party apps for that? They try to make the ads look like user content so it seems like they could have fed it into the 3rd party apps. It must have something to do with the exact placement of the ads?

      • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Idk maybe for performance tracking purposes the ads are marked as such and it’s accessible from the API

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      There were some internal docs leaked that made me think their real motivation was that they had signed some contracts for API access and pricing (probably a direct response to AI scraping), and that they were actually contractually obligated to close stuff down and/or set crazy prices. I think it may not have been about apps at all (or very little)

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        What do you think API access is? They have 100% control over how much they charge for access. There is no entity above them that they’re signing contracts with to decide pricing. There is no situation where what you just said makes any sense.