[kouiskas]

It looks like he's using APIs, which means that he can only index as much data as the services are willing to provide. They can squeeze him out of business by shutting down or reducing access to the data whenever they please. Or just add to their API TOS that keeping a cached copy of the data is a no go.

The service would lose a lot of relevance if suddenly one of the main players like Facebook decided that they don't want to be indexed by Greplin anymore. Without long-term partnerships or contracts with all the stakeholders, I wouldn't bet on that horse.

[pbiggar]

Why would they do that? That's what the APIs are for.

[kouiskas]

Facebook already updates their API and policies very regularly, nothing they give an application access to can be given for granted in the long term. Especially when it deals with private content.

When your service is dependent on another, you're always at the mercy of an update that can shut down the API feature you were using, whether the intention is to kill your service or not.

In this case it seems like the goal of the website is to become a starting point for a person's browsing/searching experience, facebook and google want the same thing. If they feel threatened they could cut just stop Greplin in particular from accessing their API. It's not hard for them to update their API terms of service to make that kind of use forbidden, for instance. That kind of tactic has been used in the past.

That's why I see a lot of uncertainty in the future of that service. I'm not worried about the founder and the company, though, their most likely exit is a talent acquisition by Facebook or Google.

[pbiggar]

Yes, but you haven't really address 'why' they would do it.

> In this case it seems like the goal of the website is to become a starting point for a person's browsing/searching experience, facebook and google want the same thing.

This is your only 'why', but it's very weak. Every company wants to be the 'starting point for a persons browsing experience', but Facebook doesn't provide that, and neither does Greplin. Google does of course, but Greplin doesn't.

Your point reduces to "companies which consume APIs might compete with the companies which create them, and so might be shut down". Of course, your statement is true, but it's valueless.

[kouiskas]

The companies providing the APIs don't have to justify the "why". When I was working on Facebook applications a few years ago they would change the API calls and rules almost monthly, app developers had to adapt or die. The changes were often due to apps abusing the system in one way or another, but Facebook defined what was abuse or not. Sometimes the changes just looked completely arbitrary and sometimes meant that some applications were just not possible anymore due to vanishing API calls.

Exporting the private data from Facebook is considered a big no-no, from what I remember the TOS might only allow you to do so for a short period. Maybe that search service gets away with it because it stores an index based on the private data and not the private data itself. If Facebook gets uneasy with how close the index is to the original data or what private information leak might happen if Greplin is compromised, that could be a good enough reason to put a stop to it. Facebook not getting into a private information leakage scandal is probably more important than allowing a startup to live on Facebook data.

[djahng]

It happened to Facebook Breakup Notifier recently. Facebook revoked API access without notification.

[pbiggar]

Sure, but why would they do it to Greplin specifically?

[ryanwaggoner]

Why wouldn't they? Why did they kill off Breakup Notifier? It's not like that was obviously going to happen.

The problem here is that you have no visibility into Facebook's roadmap, priorities, etc. Sorry, but I think betting $5m (or years of your life) on a startup that can literally be killed overnight on the whim of someone at another tech company is crazy.

[nostrademons]

The point of these API-based companies is usually to gain a foothold and some user traction and then reduce their dependency on the mothership once they've got some leverage.

It's pretty obvious that a business that's completely dependent upon FaceBook isn't in a very good position. It's equally obvious that a business that's completely dependent upon FaceBook but has users is in a better position than a business that nobody cares about. You start with the latter, not the former.

If Greplin or some other startup is still dependent upon FaceBook after years gone by and $5M spent, they're doing something wrong. But in the near-term, they're doing a helluva lot better than the average startup.

[pbiggar]

Breakup Notifier was stalker-ish - not guaranteed to get cut off, but certainly a risk. I wouldn't bet $5m on that, definitely.

In general, we're young in the space of companies that rely on APIs and other companies (App Store much?). Zynga has made a pile of cash relying on facebook, and plenty more will too, and that's just the way the world is from now on.

As for the whim of some individual, you are absolutely right. But that will sort itself out in the next few years, and it doesn't seem like a good reason not to get in early on what is obviously a trend that's here to stay.

[djahng]

I believe Breakup Notifier was blocked due to too many api calls. Facebook hasn't really been commenting on the specifics as to why it was blocked. So why would they block Greplin specifically? Well the point is no one knows if/why/when Facebook would block Greplin, if ever. But they have the option to. And if Facebook decides to block Greplin, who holds all the cards?

[bl4k]

because they will eventually have a superset copy of all this data, which these companies are building a business model on. eg. Facebook API access is for Facebook apps that use Facebook credits. Twitter API access is expensive (Gnip charge $10k+ a month plus just for a slice).