TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Amazon shuts down Lendle

109 pointsby steve918about 14 years ago

21 comments

adityaabout 14 years ago
This seems to be happening over and over again. Two years ago, everyone wanted to be a platform, now all that embracing open API stuff has turned to shit.<p>Basically, the idea seems to be that once you've used your API ecosystem to grow to a certain size, you can fuck over the developers that allowed you to get to that point by building on top of your platform and by attracting users to it or keeping them engaged. The only way to get around this is to become so big that the platform can't shut you down (Zynga, Twitpic).<p>Twitter says, stop building clients, build in these verticals. Who is going to stop them from going after the most profitable verticals tomorrow once developers have proved that there's money to be made there? As a developer, why the hell would I want to deal with this?<p>Open API's seem to be the antithesis of the profit motive, or atleast, that's how it seems to be. Sad.
评论 #2351975 未加载
评论 #2352391 未加载
评论 #2353199 未加载
评论 #2352185 未加载
评论 #2353603 未加载
DanielBMarkhamabout 14 years ago
It amazes me that the e-book providers think they can head down the same road as the music industry and not end up in the same spot.<p>I'm a serious Kindle user -- I have dozens of books. I've thought about using DRM-cracking software to free up my books, not because of any desire to share or lend but just because it's not right having a book in my possession locked away under a secret key some other bunch of people control.<p>This announcement doesn't bode well for Amazon. Technology can help you find markets, technology can enable markets, but using technology to <i>force</i> a market to appear where none did before doesn't have such a great track record. Everybody understands that you read a book, you share it (or give it away). There is no further sale. Lendle was simply trying to help Amazon work in a natural way that people commonly understand.
评论 #2351968 未加载
评论 #2351820 未加载
评论 #2352429 未加载
mbrubeckabout 14 years ago
Time to trot out the Jeff Bezos quote again, from when authors were complaining about Amazon allowing used book sales:<p><i>"When someone buys a book, they are also buying the right to resell that book, to loan it out, or to even give it away if they want. Everyone understands this."</i><p><a href="http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1291" rel="nofollow">http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1291</a>
评论 #2352693 未加载
mryallabout 14 years ago
It's a shame but they kind of had this coming. Amazon's book-lending feature only really works with their business model as long it is just small groups of people lending to each other. They were never going to stand for people circumventing the whole model of individual payment by sharing books with random strangers over the internet.<p>I'm not saying Amazon (and the whole e-book industry) is morally right in restricting sharing like this, but you can't expect them not to stand up for their own interests.<p>In the long term, I'm sure we'll end up with freely distributable e-books. But that won't happen via Amazon's or Apple's online stores, which are quite clearly on the side of restricting distribution in order to charge for it.
patio11about 14 years ago
The Lendle team has their take on the matter here:<p><a href="http://lendle.me/amazon-api-revocation/" rel="nofollow">http://lendle.me/amazon-api-revocation/</a><p>Quote: <i>Our initial reaction was one of pure surprise.</i><p>Me, not so much:<p><i>Lending ebooks is a feature demanded mostly by people who don't pay money for ebooks (and don't pay money for movies, music, or videogames if they can possibly avoid it) and will not be induced to pay money by the feature.</i><p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1821923" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1821923</a><p>The only use of the service is to turn one purchase of any popular book into the ability to read as many as 26 books per year free. Its essentially the classic music startup model: you don't want to pay money for music, we want to make that happen. <i>Of course</i> it got negative attention.
btuckerabout 14 years ago
Amazon must be counting their blessings there wasn't a way for people to borrow &#38; lend physical books or else there's no way they could have built a business around selling them!
评论 #2352198 未加载
bonaldiabout 14 years ago
Amazon's always played hardball with their API (see also Delicious Library mobile). They're like the Oracle of the generally-cuddly API world, but at least they've always been clear and upfront about it. Don't help them to sell things? Bam.<p>By contrast, Twitter's now suffering as it tries to retro-fit a hard-ass approach (though of course with a similar stance from the beginning it's hard to see them getting where they are now).
davidwabout 14 years ago
They should do lending/selling via USB or wifi, that'd add some of the 'physical proximity' aspect back in, in that you couldn't lend to everyone all over the internet, just people you live with or work with.
评论 #2352134 未加载
评论 #2351899 未加载
jjcmabout 14 years ago
It's a shame that they did this. I think Neil Gaiman summarized the wonderful benefits of using the web as a lending tool for books. He has a fantastic interview clip regarding his outlooks on piracy of his books that you can view here: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI</a><p>Here's the transcript, emphasis mine:<p>When the web started I used to get really grumpy with people, because they put my poems up. They put my stories up. They put my stuff up on the web. I had this A.) a belief, which was completely erronious, that if people put your stuff up on the web and you didn't tell them to take it down you would lose your copyright - which actually, is simply not true. And I also got very grumpy because I felt like they were pirating my stuff, that it was bad. And then I started to notice that two things seemed much more significant. One of which was [that] places where I was being pirated, particularly Russa where people were translating my stuff into Russian and spreading around into the world, I was selling more and more books. People were discovering me through being pirated. Then they were going out and buying the real books, and when a new book would come out in Russia it would sell more and more copies. I thought this was facinating, and I tried a few experiments. Some of them are quite hard, you know, persuading my publisher for example to take one of my books and put it out for free. We took American Gods, a book that was still selling and selling very well, and for a month they put it up completely free on their website. You could read it, and download it. What happened was sales of my books, through independant bookstores because that's all we were measuring it through, went up the following month three hundred percent. I started to realize that actually, you're not losing books. You're not losing sales by having stuff out there. When I give a big talk now on these kinds of subjects and people say, "Well what about the sales that I'm losing through having stuff copied, through having stuff floating out there?" I started asking audiences to just raise their hands for one question. Which is, I'd say, "Do you have a favorite author?" They'd say, "Yes." and I'd say, "Good. What I want is for everybody who discovered their favorite author by being lent a book, put up your hands." And then, "Anybody who discovered their favorite author by walking into a bookstore and buying a book raise your hands," and it's probably about five, ten percent. If that, of the people who actually discovered their favorite author, who is the person who they buy everything of. They buy the hardbacks and treasure the fact that they got this author.<p>Very few of them bought the book. They were lent it. They were given it. They did not pay for it, and that's how they found their favorite author. I thought, "You know, that's really all this is. It's people lending books. You can't look on that as a loss of sale. It's not a lost sale, nobody who would have bought your book is not buying it because they can find it for free." <i>What you're actually doing is advertising. You're reaching more people, raising awareness. Understanding that gave me a whole new idiea of the shape of copyright and what the web was doing. The biggest thing the web is doing is allowing people to hear things. Allowing people to read things. Allowing people to see things that they otherwise wouldn't have seen.</i> Basically that's an incredibly good thing.
评论 #2352168 未加载
delinealabout 14 years ago
The lesson in this is that building projects that depend on third-party data is dangerous; there needs to be some sort of guarantee of access to the data before you commit to the project. Building the project and then pointing fingers at the data provider after your api access is revoked does nothing to relieve the frustration of your users.
评论 #2351988 未加载
lancefisherabout 14 years ago
Maybe my judgement is clouded because I really like Amazon, but this seems like something the publishers forced on Amazon.
JustinJMabout 14 years ago
Of the 30 or so books I have in my kindle only 1 was even lendable anyway.
评论 #2351941 未加载
biotabout 14 years ago
I wonder if part of the reason is because the name "Lendle" is a little too close to the "Kindle" trademark... similar to calling your app "Lendazon".
评论 #2351880 未加载
raquoabout 14 years ago
Lesson: Don't get into conflict of interest with a monopoly that you rely on. If you are strategically threatening or simply unprofitable for them, they will kill you off.
VladRussianabout 14 years ago
if we go 2 levels down the stack, to me that situation with private APIs [more precisely - "API services" ] provides a glimpse into the future what would happen with Internet without net-neutrality (as the service of carrying your network packets is just a "network API service" which owner of the service would be able to decline/limit access to to anybody he feels like to).
jschuurabout 14 years ago
One thing to keep in mind here: The Kindle only let's you lend each book you own once, mitigating the potential damage done. The site also prominently featured the option to buy the book before and after the lend.
bhouselabout 14 years ago
Very interesting.. I've built something almost exactly the same as Lendle in my spare time, but I haven't opened it up to a wider audience just yet.<p>I'm starting to wonder if it might be best to just keep it invite-only for now.
svagabout 14 years ago
It is the first time that I hear about Lendle, and as I read from their site it is a very interesting service. I think it is the online version of <a href="http://www.bookcrossing.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.bookcrossing.com/</a> in a way. You are "leaving" your online book in Lendle and everyone can pick it in order to read it.<p>I hope for a quick resolution of this matter.
forkrulassailabout 14 years ago
Very, very bad style. 2 weeks is mostly not enough time between work and life to finish the thicker books. So one ends up buying loaned books you otherwise wouldn't have considered.<p>This is a really stupid move and I implore others to make it known via the Helpdesk.
jmspringabout 14 years ago
Call me naive...and quotes aside...This may be due to Amazon possibly wanting to provide a similar service themselves? Possibly working in some sort of fee/etc?
asciilifeformabout 14 years ago
The idea that one can "lend" a string of bits is nonsense:<p><a href="http://www.loper-os.org/?p=351" rel="nofollow">http://www.loper-os.org/?p=351</a>