peterme.com

Yahoo does in fact have a pretty extensive API; look at the section "What Services does Yahoo offer?" on that page. There's also a list of apps people have built with it.

The GoogleMaps/Craigslist thing, while incredibly cool, isn't using a supported API. That's a straight up hack. Although apparently Google's already made some effort to make these sorts of hacks easier--and there's no way they're not planning a maps API at some point.

I saw that Yahoo had an extensive API. But, for whatever reason, the extensions people have built with it haven't really made impressions. And I think it's because this approach to the sandbox mentality isn't really... authentic for Yahoo. I mean, why don't the non-search properties have APIs? Why can't I tap into Calendar, messenger, maps, photos, etc.? Is Yahoo360 open?

I think the fact that Google is, well, hackable in that way is even more to my point. They built a sandbox application without using an API.

Sandbox design is in large part a mentality, an approach.

There are some rumblings-from-within that Google may be settling on a public API for Google Maps.
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/05/google_maps_hac.html

....which would be amazing, useful, non-evil, etc.

More Ofoto Overbearing Control Follies

Peter,
You might be interested in taking a look at my blog - the issue of control in design is a theme I've been exploring for awhile. I first wrote about it here, and in fact happened to write a bit about it last week - one entry where I suggest that one way to understand control in design is in terms of degrees of control i.e. like a scale - and in another, how we can understand it in terms of activity.

There is certainly interest in the "Designing for the Sandbox" end of the scale right now (previously I was looking for a term for this as well and the best I came up with was "Designing for Creativity"), and there are many ideas out there related to this - hacking, remixing, etc.

i agree that the sandbox can be a great money-making tool by providing customers/fans the means to customize the product or service to their liking. However, i think you need to be careful holding up flickr as an example of a truly sustainable business model. if their exit strategy was to be acquired, then they did great. but what does this mean for cusotmers/fans? all the stuff you love about flickr may disappear (or get slowly diluted). why is that?

I think the problem may be twofold: Instead of designing for a sandbox, where play and discovery can occur, these companies build toolboxes that extremely skilled/knowledgeable mircrosubsets of people can use to build applications. Secondly, the commercial model often subsumes the interaction model. When Ofoto first started, it was a brilliantly usable and useful destination. With album sharing providing a collaborative space, Ofoto also enabled analog sharing through its easy ability to deliver physical photos. But business requirements to have more people buy photos instead simply browse them online forced some decision-makers to implement the registration-to-view opt-out. And when Ofoto became Kodakgallery.com (or whatever it is), the commercial stranglehold of control tightened.

As much as I love Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mojohand), I expect the same thing to happen.

I was a sandbox expert as a kid; we had a great big built-in box full of real Lake Superior beach sand, and the whole neighborhood played in it.

Good sandboxes are social spaces above all, it doesn't really matter that much how good the toys are (we had old 2x4 chunks and bits of plywood for building) as long as it's big enough and there are shady places to sit in the hot summer afternoon.

(and someone to scoop out the cat poop)

i completely agree with jsokohl.

ophoto was a *huge* upgrade to the old process of "shoot rolls of film, submit them for development, guess how many copies you want made, send them to friends/family or wait for them to contact you with requests." it also solved the digital film process of "shoot pictures, ftp to server (for the technical people) or email to friends (for the majority of people)."

if anything, ophoto successfully merged these two human behaviors -- pre and post-digital film -- into one useful and usable service. i had no problem providing light registration info (email) to be able to check out photos of a party from the night before. and if i wanted prints, the site leveraged established e-commerce parameters (full registration).

ophoto created a community vibe with the ability to announce that an album was ready to view. the gratification i had after receiving that email from a friend following their latest vacation, the birth of their first child, etc. made me want to do the same for my friends/family.

so here's my question for you: would the concept for flickr ever have come into being if ophoto didn't break ground first?