Sony Studio Acquisition Of Nixxes May Portend Company Opening Up The PlayStation's Walled Garden To PC Gaming

from the finally dept

Late last year, we discussed Sony's corporate report on where its income sources were detailed out and laid bare the fact that the biggest revenue generator for the company was in gaming. We noted at the time that what made all of this really interesting is that this revenue generation occurred under Sony's famous walled-garden policies, where the company went to great lengths to silo its own games into the PlayStation console while also trying to gobble up exclusives for the PlayStation. Coinciding with all of this, though, were some cracks starting to form in that policy. Sony finally opened up games on the PlayStation to cross-platform online play, allowed the PlayStation Now service to run on PCs, and even moved some of its first-party titles onto other platforms, such as having MLB: The Show appearing on the Xbox for the first time and Horizon: Zero Dawn getting a belated PC release.

But those are toe-in-the-water type things. It would be reasonable for anyone to wonder just how committed Sony was going to be in opening up the garden and exploring a wider program of getting first-party games on other platforms. Well, Sony just announced the acquisition of gaming studio Nixxes and it sure looks like it's the answer to those concerns, given what Nixxes does.

If the name Nixxes doesn't ring a bell for most gamers, that's because the studio hasn't developed any original projects in its over-20-year history. Instead, Nixxes has primarily specialized in creating a variety of PC and console ports for games from the likes of Eidos Montreal and Crystal Dynamics (both now Square Enix subsidiaries).

That makes Nixxes an especially intriguing acquisition for Sony, which has been slowly dipping an increasing number of toes into the PC gaming space in recent years. After Horizon: Zero Dawn hit the PC last year, Sony said in its annual report that it "will explore expanding our 1st party titles to the PC platform in order to promote further growth in our profitability." Then, in May, Sony listed Uncharted 4 under the "more PC releases planned" section of an investor report, alongside the recent PC port of former PlayStation exclusive Days Gone.

Save for some sort of mystery work nobody could see coming, it appears that there is exactly one reason why a company like Sony would acquire a studio like Nixxes: to bring PlayStation games to the PC. And, while there is a long history of console ports on PC being done quite poorly, Nixxes actually has a pretty good reputation when it comes to this sort of thing.

So what does this mean? Well, at the very least it portends that we're all going to see a real-time experiment performed by a company that has preferred to have an iron grip on its IP, and what it will do to revenue to slacken that grip. It will come as no surprise to readers here that it is my belief that this will be an absolute boon to revenues. The days of console exclusives are waning. The days of the public having little choice when it comes to options in the gaming space are gone. In its place is an industry where opening things up for fans to give them plenty of options and choice in how to spend their money with you is quickly becoming the norm.

While I'm happy to criticize Sony when the company deserves it, it's worth recognizing that these sorts of culture shifts cannot be easy to pull off. If Sony is actually going to go head first into a new way of operating, I'll be here cheering them on and hoping for its success.

Filed Under: cross platform, playstation, walled garden
Companies: nixxes, sony

Facebook Is Not The Internet: Philippines Propaganda Highlights Perils Of Company's 'Free Basics' Walled Garden

from the disinformation-nation dept

We've talked at great lengths about Facebook's pretty transparent effort to dominate the advertising industry in developing markets. That has come largely via internet.org and the company's "Free Basics" service, which provides a curated selection of Facebook-approved content exempt from mobile usage caps (aka "zero rated"). While Facebook has often hyped this service as a wonderful way to connect impoverished third-world farmers to the internet, net neutrality and gatekeeper concerns resulted in the program being banned in India as part of a growing tide of criticism over the programs' less noble aspects.

Many groups (like Mozilla) have pointed out that if Facebook really wants to connect poor people to the internet, they should just connect poor people to the internet, not some curated, AOL-esque version of it where Facebook dictates what content and services users get to see. Others have quite correctly pointed out the perils of conflating such a walled garden with the actual internet, especially in places like Myanmar just emerging from under the umbrella of violent dictatorship where the internet is a relatively new phenomenon with an even more profound impact than usual.

That point was driven home again this week via this Buzzfeed report on Facebook's propaganda problem in the Philippines. While Facebook was ultimately forced to retreat from Free Basics in many areas due to the above criticisms, Zuckerberg initially and repeatedly praised the service's 2013 launch in the Philippines as a smashing success, calling the program a "home run" at a conference in Barcelona in 2014.

But as the report notes, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has used Facebook -- more specifically Facebook's Free Basics service -- to wage a major disinformation war against his political opponents, shore up support via a cacophony of fake user accounts, and amplify smear campaigns and any number of bogus news reports. And because only Facebook-approved content was exempt from usage caps, users quickly began to see Facebook as the end all be all of connectivity and information, exactly as Facebook designed it.

But Facebook didn't do much of anything to help combat platform abuse, resulting in cultural and political chaos that may just look a little familiar:

"Alongside all this, Duterte and his administration have railed against the mainstream media in the Philippines. Duterte has repeatedly called local news outlets “fake news.” He’s suggested murdered journalists must have “done something” to deserve their fate. Such statements are chilling in a country where as many as 177 media workers have been killed since 1986, according to the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines.

This miasma of inflammatory rhetoric, propaganda, and real and fake news has made a mess of the Filipino political discourse and the Philippines itself. And it’s a mess we’ve seen before."

The difference, of course, is that in the States users at least tend to have access to the actual internet, allowing them to find alternative viewpoints. That's not quite as easy when your version of the "internet" is primarily a walled garden dictated by Facebook; a walled garden that at least in its earlier incarnations went so far as to ban access to encrypted services while giving governments a wonderful new repository for personal data. The end result was that all of the problems we've seen in the States were amplified and made even worse in the Philippines:

"Facebook’s Internet.org effort has floundered embarrassingly in more than half a dozen nations and territories. But in the Philippines, the social media capital of the world according to global media agency We Are Social, Facebook rushed into a culture that unquestioningly assimilated it.

"We were seduced, we were lured, we were hooked, and then, when we became captive audiences, we were manipulated to see what other people — people with vested interests and evil motives of power and domination — wanted us to see,” de Lima wrote to BuzzFeed News. “It was a slow takeover of our attention. We didn’t notice it until it was already too late."

Now that may have happened anyway, but when users can only afford to use Facebook's version of the internet, you can see how the problem could be compounded. On the plus side, Facebook does at least seem to be showing some indication it now understands its own initial lack of understanding as it bumbled toward attempting to dominate the developing world's ad markets:

"Facebook has made the world more connected than ever before, resulting in unprecedented ways for people to organize themselves in society,” a Facebook spokesperson said in response to a list of detailed questions sent by BuzzFeed News. “We know we were too idealistic about the nature of these connections and didn’t focus enough on preventing abuse or thinking through all the ways people could use the tools on the platform to do harm."

We're still pretty far from hammering out a solution to the global disinformation problem, or from determining the real width and breadth of such operations and their real impact on elections. But there does at least seem to be forming a growing consensus that when rich, white Westerners attempt to dominate markets they don't really understand with "help" that may not actually be all that helpful -- it's possible to do more harm than good.

Filed Under: free basics, internet, open internet, philippines, propaganda, walled garden, zero ratings
Companies: facebook

Apple, Arbiters Of Art, Say Game About Surviving The Gaza Strip Isn't A Game, Even Though It Is

from the art-thou-kidding? dept

Search for stories about Apple's App Store in the Techdirt archives and you will quickly notice a theme. That theme is that Apple routinely appoints itself as the arbiter of artistic quality and morality when it comes to content within the app store, particularly gaming content, and that its application of these standards swings like some kind of absurd pendulum. Ban a game over here for telling a bible story that includes violence against children, but allow the actual bible to be sold as well. React to the South Carolina massacre by pulling down games about the Civil War because they include images of the Confederate flag. Reject a wargaming simulation, then approve it, and nobody knows how the company might decide to react tomorrow. You often hear that stability breeds a good ground for business, whereas Apple runs its App Store like some kind of experiment in chaos.

And in order to apply its standards in a way that apparently makes the folks at Apple feel all warm and fuzzy inside, it occasionally has to truly lower its explanations to absurd levels of outright lying. For instance, Apple recently disallowed a game about surviving on the Gaza Strip in its store, claiming it wasn't a game at all, but a news publication, even though the briefest review of the app reveals that it's obviously a game.

A game about the Palestine/Israel conflict, Liyla and The Shadows of War, has proved too political for Apple. The technology giant ordered the developer, Rasheed Abueideh, to remove Liyla from the games section of its iTunes app store, claiming it isn't a game and should sit in the news section.

The real question is, is Liyla and The Shadows of War a game? I played it last night, as Liyla is available from Google Play. It's a short platformer with a powerful message and stunning graphics.

The writer goes on from there to describe the plot, the inclusion of reactions to real life events, the graphical elements of the game, and the, well, gameplay. Because it's a game. You have to play to get either a win or lose scenario, there are choices to be made, puzzles to be solved, and stages to complete. It's a platformer, like Mario Bros..

So, why the ban and the lies to support it? Well, one can understand that the Middle East conflict and the ongoing crisis between the Palestinians and the Israelis is among the most touchy of subjects. For a company that wants to keep its brand and its App Store squeaky clean, at least in its own mind, one can imagine that this kind of thing is something Apple wouldn't want to touch. But, misguided as this already is, it becomes all the more so when it can't even bother to stay consistent on the matter. The App Store has available for purchase, for instance, Israeli Heroes, which appears to be an Angry Birds clone in which you lob missiles at bombs that reside under a crescent moon and oh my god, I think I'm about to have an embolism, because come on.

As always, in the midst of this nonsense, the game is available for Android devices, because that garden has no wall around it.

For once, the phrase 'relax, it's just a game' seems apt. Apple take note. Liyla and The Shadows of War is available for Android on Google Play – it's free, it's short and it's definitely a game worth playing.

We've said it before, but we'll say it again: it'd be best if Apple would get out of the art critique business. They're not very good at it.

Filed Under: app store, censorship, games, gaza strip, itunes, video games, walled garden
Companies: apple

India's New Net Neutrality Guidelines Suggest Facebook's Internet.org Is Just Glorified Collusion

from the we-see-what-you're-up-to dept

India's government has finally released the country's recommendations for new net neutrality protections, and the report makes it very clear: they're not impressed with Mark Zuckerberg's vision of a Facebook-dominated, walled-garden Internet future.

If you recall, Facebook's Internet.org recently took a nasty international public relations beating for its disregard of net neutrality, with content companies dropping out of the purportedly-altruistic program in droves. These companies complained that the program, which gives consumers in developing nations free access to some Facebook-approved services, set a horrible precedent by placing Facebook in the kingmaker position of a new AOL-esque empire, allowing it to pick and choose winners and losers.

The Indian government appears to agree, suggesting in the policy recommendation that Internet.org is basically glorified collusion:

" Content providers have an incentive to leverage the gatekeeper role of networks to collaborate and collude with TSPs/ISPs to stand above competition. Although such practices may enhance consumer welfare in the short run, the distortion in content markets would result in immense damage to the fabric of the Internet economy besides affecting the spread of innovation. While it may be legitimate for content providers to use business tools such as advertisements, reaching the consumer through the control of access or influence over access may have a deleterious impact on the economy."

If Facebook really wants to help the poor, critics like Mozilla have suggested, the company can offer discounted access to the actual Internet.

Facebook's response to these complaints so far has been less than impressive. First, company boss Mark Zuckerberg proudly proclaimed that violating net neutrality via zero rating was ok because the company meant well, and that opposition to the program was an extremist position. Facebook then announced it would be opening the walled-garden front door wider to include more services, but stated they'd still be banning most audio, video, JavaScript, Flash and even encrypted content.

So the good news: the Indian recommendations seem to recognize Internet.org for what it is: Facebook's attempt to elevate itself, break the Internet, and corner ad markets in developing nations for decades to come under the pretense of altruism. That's something Facebook makes pretty clear it doesn't think most people are smart enough to realize. On the flip side, there's some suggestions that cellular carrier Airtel (opposed to Internet.org) had plenty of input in the proceedings, since while zero rating by content companies is outright banned, zero rating by wireless carriers will be examined on a case-by-case basis:

"Before a licensee launches any tariff plan, the same would need to be filed before TRAI within a reasonable period prior to the launch of the plan. TRAI would examine each such tariff filing carefully to see if conforms to the principles of Net Neutrality principles and that it is not anti-competitive by distorting consumer markets."

That's effectively the same approach taken by the FCC here in the States regarding zero rating. While some see this as sane implementation of flexible regulation, as noted previously, it allows ISPs to violate net neutrality if they're just clever enough about it. For example, here in the States, T-Mobile's been making the biggest streaming services cap exempt to the detriment of smaller companies. Support for the plan has been relatively-thunderous despite obvious neutrality implications. AT&T, similarly, has been pushing the idea of letting companies pay to be cap exempt (again, breaking the open Internet and giving select parties a leg up) and many consumers and regulators simply can't see the problematic precedent.

Both of those examples suggest carriers can still blatantly violate net neutrality if the sales pitch is good enough, so you'll need some pretty uncharacteristically tech savvy, consistent and competent regulators if you're going to honestly determine competitive harm from zero rating on a case-by-case basis. Of course these are just recommendations, so they could change with pressure. In a statement, Facebook still claims they created Internet.org to "promote an Internet access model that is open and non-exclusive," and is looking forward to working with the Indian government to convince them that collusion is fine "overcome the infrastructure, affordability and social barriers that exist today."

Filed Under: india, mark zuckerberg, net neutrality, walled garden, zero rating
Companies: facebook, internet.org

South Park's Matt Stone To Silicon Valley: Screw You Guys, I'm Going Hulu

from the not-really-stickin'-it-to-the-man dept

South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have built an entire comedy empire on the back of free distribution. The pair first came to fame by circulating their animated short, The Spirit of Christmas, for free first as a popular bootleg VHS and later on the Internet. They also were among the first TV show creators to operate their own web portal to provide content for free, striking a (at the time) groundbreaking 50/50 ad revenue sharing deal with Viacom. They were the grandfathers of viral content, with free distribution leading them to the mammoth financial and critical success South Park saw at its peak, and continues to enjoy today.

So with the news that Parker and Stone have struck a new, $192 million exclusive, walled off South Park streaming deal with Hulu, it's a little odd to see Stone suddenly forget what made much of his rise to success possible. In an interview discussing the huge Hulu deal, Stone laments how amorphous, villainous "tech guys" demanded he make his content available online, for free:

"This is now particularly satisfying," said Stone in a recent discussion. "It comes full circle since the tech guys came to Hollywood and said you better give us your stuff for free to put online or else it will be taken from you anyway."

The argument that "tech guys" just want everything to be free is a fairly normal response by those who don't understand the digital economy, and are informed that you can reduce piracy by incorporating free into your business model. But again, this is a particularly weird comment coming from Stone, whose entire career foundation was built on such models (apparently begrudgingly). That freemium models help reduce piracy is something Stone appeared to understand perfectly well when talking to Boing Boing back in 2008:

"Basically, we just got really sick of having to download our own show illegally all the time. So we gave ourselves a legal alternative."

Both Stone and Parker also seemed to perfectly understand the benefit viral, free distribution had when talking to the New York Times in 2010 about their continued success:

"NY Times: You’re now about two years into the operation of your South Park Studios Web site, where just about all the content is available for free. Does the gamble seem to be paying off?

PARKER: To be honest, we don’t care about the money. We both have all the money we need. It’s really just about the survival of the show. First hearing about, O.K., we’re going to be putting everything on the Internet for free, I was like, Really? Wow, O.K. [laughs] That’s the world we live in. I’m actually surprised at how smooth the transition is going.

STONE: If we had years and years to discuss it, and we had determined what the right course of action was – but we don’t have years and years. We’re doing the show right now in 2010, and the reality is, we have to have our show on the Internet. Would the network like it if everyone who watched it for free on the Internet actually had to pay? Yes. But it always ends up helping us when people can see the show.

Yet here we are, the better part of a decade later, with Stone clearly annoyed by what he insists is Silicon Valley's demand that he not get paid for his hard work:

"Frankly, in the past I haven't much liked dealing with the people from Silicon Valley. I don’t like our stuff being talked about as content. Spoons are metal and guns are metal, but they're not the same thing. We don’t make content. We make television. And that's now what digital understands it has to pay for."

Arguing that "content" is a reductive word is understandable, but this narrative that ambiguous "digital" enemies in Silicon Valley don't want to pay for television programming is odd, since "digital" has been paying an arm and a leg for content since inception. Netflix, for example, is expected to spend as much as $5 billion in 2016 on programming, making the streaming operator the second largest content buyer behind ESPN. Does that strike you as a "digital" industry that doesn't think there's a price tag for quality television? Perhaps Stone is just developing a nasty case of "get the hell off my lawn" and no longer has the best memory, perched as he is upon precariously-leaning towers of money.

Streaming companies, broadcasters, and content creators alike also don't appear to understand the potential pitfalls these exclusive streaming arrangements create. While 2015 has been a banner year for the evolution of internet video by any standard, there's been a troubling rise in not only exclusive content deals (Hulu, owned by Comcast/NBC, also shelled out $160 million for exclusive streaming rights to Seinfeld), but also standalone streaming services from every broadcaster under the sun (even those B-grade schlock masters over at Lifetime), each of which is going to be eager to lock their own content down exclusively to keep it out of the hands of more successful third-party operators.

While streaming operators might correctly believe that having exclusive access to select programming can lure customers in the short run, fracturing the content availability landscape in such a fashion could have some nasty downsides. Making consumers hunt and peck their way through an endless variety of $7 to $40 streaming packages for what they want might easily drive annoyed consumers back to piracy (something we've been saying for years). Streaming operators also risk driving those users back to cable if the industry ever wakes up and decides to offer a more uniform value proposition. Right now that's not a risk, since cable execs are still obliviously raising rates in the face of increased competition; but it will be.

Internet video was supposed to be something different and better, built on the legacy dinosaur bones of an industry obsessed with turf protection and utterly terrified of disruption. There were notable lessons learned during internet video's rise during this period; hopefully they're not all mysteriously and suddenly forgotten just as internet video starts reaching its true potential and the money truly begins to flow.

Filed Under: digital, free, matt stone, sharing, silicon valley, south park, walled garden
Companies: hulu

Apple's Insistence On DRM And Other Restrictions Means EFF's New App Is Android-Only

from the eff-your-walled-garden dept

The EFF has produced a new mobile app that allows users to access its alert center and instantly take action on issues pertaining to digital rights and other areas the group focuses on. And, it's Android-only, because the EFF took a long look at Apple's walled garden and said, "Include us out."

Sadly, though, we had to leave out Apple devices and the folks who use them. Why? Because we could not agree to the outrageous terms in Apple’s Developer Agreement and Apple’s DRM requirements.

What specifically bothers the EFF about Apple's Developer Agreement? Well, how about the fact that you can't talk about the agreement? The agreement forbids "public statements" about a public document.

Apple also bans reverse engineering, prevents rejected apps developed with its development kit from being distributed by competing app stores and forbids jailbreaking of its devices. The EFF would prefer more open platforms, hence its decision to bypass Apple and its defensive perimeter.

Going beyond Apple's tight control of apps and its app store, there's the problem with the company's insistence on saddling software with some form of DRM. For a company that fought off the major labels' insistence that iTunes include DRM in its offerings, it seems rather hypocritical that it insist others do the very thing it refused to do for others.

As of now, the app is still in its infancy. There's not much to do with it (at least not until the next alert rolls through the system) other than install it and recommend it to others. But the EFF is seeking input both on features and design (contact rainey@eff.org) and has made the code available for forking at Github.

Apple obviously loses nothing but a bit of its reputation by EFF's shunning. But the EFF is still pushing to make the Apple App Store a better environment for all developers.

We’re inaugurating our new mobile app with a suitable campaign: a petition calling on Apple to change its Developer Agreement to respect the privacy and innovation rights of developers. Add your signature today to stand up for free speech and oppose DRM.

Apple's tight control does more damage to its reputation than any rogue app that sneaks past its controls. It has played the villain in the past, booting controversial apps and exposing itself as a guardian of nothing more than the safe and inoffensive. It has also deployed its developer agreement inconsistently, making navigating its lists of "don'ts" an aggravating exercise in minefield tiptoeing. And that's when it's not booting apps simply because they might jeopardize the home team's offerings.

Its similar control of its devices is starting to work against it, as a recently-filed class action lawsuit over its internal storage claims makes clear. When you can't add removable memory or swap out the internal storage for something bigger, you're forced to rely on the manufacturer's claims of how much room is actually available on your phone. And once you've preloaded everything Apple wants you to have on your iPhone, you're left with far less than the 8/16/32GB printed on the outside of the box. (Apple's software will "helpfully" suggest your purchase some iCloud storage when your phone nears capacity.)

Walled gardens are the antipathy of the open internet and free speech, as the EFF points out. So, as long as Apple wants to force developers to play nice with a long list of limitations, the EFF will be having no part of it.

Filed Under: android, apps, drm, ios, restrictions, walled garden
Companies: apple, eff

Apple Threatens To Kick Out Comic Book App Over 'Adult' Content, Forcing Publisher To Pull 40% Of Its 4,000 Titles

from the option-iPrude-accessory-gouges-eyes-out,-removes-personal-responsiblity dept

Apple's worked very hard cultivating its walled garden and it isn't going to let a bunch of creators ruin its pristine utopia with nudity, depictions of sweatshops, nudity (again), swearing, topical commentary, competitive apps and the ancient art of intricate lovemaking.

Once again, Apple has decided to arbitrarily boot more content out of its garden, expressing its concern that things might be getting a little too sexy for its apparent target audience of schoolchildren who have never browsed the internet.

Reports are coming in that the digital comics distributor Izneo has had to radically prune their catalog or face banishment from iTunes.

Izneo has been selling digital comics on the iPad since they released an iPad app in mid-2010, and they successfully built a catalog of over 4000 French and Belgian titles.

Everything was going fine until late Friday night when one of Apple’s censors noticed that Izneo sold adult comics. And since Apple clearly cannot allow their precious iPad to be sullied by salacious content, the censor gave Izneo 30 hours to remove all adult comics.

Like other Apple takedown requests, this one arrived with no warning and no clear indication as to what content Apple felt was inappropriate and should be removed.

IDBoox broke the story earlier today, and they report that Izneo had absolutely no warning that there was a problem or guidance as to which titles needed to be removed. All they were reportedly told by Apple was that the adult content had to go, so Izneo drastically pruned any comic that showed a breast, cleavage, and even ones with characters evoking a suggestive gesture.

In order to comply with this incredibly vague request, Izneo immediately pulled 2,800 of its 4,000 titles. After a more in-depth review of its content, Izneo restored about half of what it had dumped, bringing it back up to 2,500. That's still 1,500 titles pulled because Apple said, "Jump," and couldn't even be bothered to specify how high.

Now, Izneo is stuck in a bit of a bind. It can abide by Apple's ethereal "guidelines" and hope that it doesn't need to remove even more titles. Or, it can start looking at a few options to get around the walled garden while still remaining somewhat ensconced. Nate Hoffelder suggests it switch to an HTML-5 reading app, or better yet, simply stop selling titles from within the app. This will allow Izneo to avoid Apple's app censoring while also bypassing the "opportunity" to toss 30% of the in-app purchase Apple's way.

As long as Apple is going to continue to behave like a stern parent in need of mood stabilizers, app developers and content creators are going to find themselves on the receiving end of vague missives like these. Apple is, of course, welcome to run its business however it sees fit, but every story like this serves as a warning to developers: if you want to play in Apple's garden, you'll have to abide by the nebulous, arbitrary rules. Apple has stated that if game developers want to handle serious issues (like the Syrian War), they should write a book instead. What is it going to tell comic book creators whose artwork veers into adult areas? Fire up the keyboard and turn those pictures into 1,000 words?

Filed Under: apps, arbitrary decisions, comic books, ios, nudity, walled garden
Companies: apple, izneo

Unfortunate: Craigslist Continues To Be A Walled Garden

from the share-a-little,-guys dept

For many years I've been a big supporter of Craigslist, both as a user and an observer of innovative businesses. I've even argued that the company itself is too modest in pretending that it isn't a profit-maximizing firm. I've frequently defended the company when it was attacked with bogus lawsuits. However, for years, I've been baffled by Craigslist's insistence on being isolationist against the rest of the internet. Almost exactly seven years ago, we were disappointed to see they were shutting down a search tool that made Craigslist easier to use. And, over the years, we've seen this same consistent pattern, whereby the company gets upset at anyone who builds on their work -- even if it takes no money away from Craigslist and likely drives more traffic to the site. Just last year, for example, we wrote about Craigslist bullying an online aggregator.

Late last week, it went down this same path yet again, but this time it picked on a service that's really really popular (more so than most of the others it targets): PadMapper. PadMapper is a pretty neat tool if you're looking for a place to live. It builds on a few different listings sites -- including Craigslist -- to provide much more value to the listing itself, such as by including an embedded map. It sends all the traffic to the original site, so it's not taking away any traffic. It's enhancing Craigslist's value. When others increase your value, you should applaud. But, here, as in the past, Craigslist sent a legal cease-and-desist.

Craigslist has regularly defended these takedowns, by claiming that it just wants people to come directly to its site, and that's part of its view of the "community." But, again, PadMapper was driving more people to the site and making it even more useful to them.

What's interesting this time, however, is that given how popular PadMapper is, and the fact that the guy behind PadMapper is asking people to (politely) suggest to Craig and Jim that they rethink this policy, I wonder if the company will finally change its mind. It's been getting a lot of attention in the tech/startup community. Even though Craigslist has done this before many times, this is the first I can remember doing it to a site that is so popular.

As I've said in the past, I think Craigslist is making a big mistake in blocking these kinds of things. I recognize their reasoning, but at this point, it's just silly. The rationale for blocking these other sites just doesn't add up. There's simply no reason to not be "neighborly" and allow others to drive more traffic to them. It's definitely disappointing to see the company keep this policy up for so long.

Filed Under: aggregator, walled garden
Companies: craigslist, padmapper