My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT

Re:My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT by timdierks on Monday March 28, 2016 @11:08PM (#11379229)

On one hand, you can justify the work as a part of making a more reliable platform without per-service shims, but presumably you could have asked the services to adopt a better open API rather than IFTTT-specific integration.

But why did you ignore all the commentary on your TOS? Are you endorsing those terms as the company you want to be?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT by lindentibbets on Monday March 28, 2016 @11:15PM (#11379254)

Our API is not yet open, but we very much want it to be soon. I stand behind our TOS and I agree that we can make it clearer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT by natch on Monday March 28, 2016 @11:53PM (#11379373)

>I stand behind our TOS and I agree that we can make it clearer.

It's already very clear.

Having read what was posted of the Terms of Service document, the document is saying that IFTTT shall own all rights, title, and interest in my content... You stand behind that?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT by hellofunk on Tuesday March 29, 2016 @07:07AM (#11380656)

The fact that IFTTT claims to own all the content that flows through it, even though it did not itself create any of that content, is ridiculous. That alone is reason for no one to ever use this service.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT by pbarnes_1 on Tuesday March 29, 2016 @07:45PM (#11385886)

Your TOS is a disaster. Anyone agreeing to it is an idiot.

Also, the developer pays YOU $3000/year to write an integration for YOU? WTF?

I run a service larger than yours. Not a chance in hell I'd agree to what you're asking there. You need to reorient your thought process around mutually beneficial partnerships instead of acting like you're doing someone a favor by letting them onto your platform. It'll work out better.

[ Parent | on HN ]