The problem I see with companies providing an API on top of their service is that their core business comes first, API second. So if someone were to use their API to build something that takes traffic from their core business, they will shut it down. Whereas a company whose sole business is providing an API won't run into that same problem.
And I can't blame the companies for making that decision either, why should the company serve your app if they're not even getting any traffic from it? Which would be a logical argument, except these companies open up their APIs and act like they are ok with it at first, and developers spend time building on top of them, creating even more useful services, making the original company even more popular, and then after those companies benefit from these developers, they shut them down.
If your business model is entirely dependent on margins with other companies' APIs (free or paid), a price increase for those APIs would put you out of business anyways. The concern shouldn't be "What if they charge more for this API?", the concern should be "Why is my business so dependent on this company's APIs?"
It seems to me like this gives the company free ideas and feedback they can then turn around and implement in their core business. Is this too simplistic, or is this simply not practiced enough?
And I can't blame the companies for making that decision either, why should the company serve your app if they're not even getting any traffic from it? Which would be a logical argument, except these companies open up their APIs and act like they are ok with it at first, and developers spend time building on top of them, creating even more useful services, making the original company even more popular, and then after those companies benefit from these developers, they shut them down.
This is similar to what happened in this case, which I think was a complete dick move by Soundcloud: https://medium.com/@padschneider/r-i-p-soundflake-79f7cf5f9d...