Hmmm…this is becoming WA corner recently – take a look at my previous piece here. I was less than impressed with the technology and considered it either over-hyped or released too early in to the world. However, I did hope that as time progressed there might be improvements in the results set returned and, more importantly from a developer point of view, an API published that would allow developers to build new applications to stretch and maybe improve WA.
So, this week an API was announced for Wolfram Alpha on the company’s Blog and I was pretty excited about the prospect of trying out a few things. Despite my grumbles about the results returned, I was hopeful that with a suitable API encouraging third party developments, the underlying technology and data sets at WA might see an improvement. My hopes survived for as long as it took me to start reading the small print – in particular this little document, the price list. Now, I’m aware that WA has cost money to develop but to charge for developers to make use of teh API seems to be one of the dumbest and most counter-productive things they could do. There are some ‘pioneer grants’ available for the developers, but I get the impression that these are still likely to involve shelling out money.
Google do not charge developers for use of the API until you start using the API in ‘closed’ systems and with a large number of calls. They certainly don’t charge you during the development cycle – they have more sense.
Now, let’s assume I wanted to develop an API based application for WA – what we in the trade call a ‘proof of concept’ model – i.e. something that proves whether or not the bright idea that we sketched out on the back of a beer-mat in the pub will actually work. How many requests might I get through to develop such an application? Well, the other day I wrote some code to retrieve data from a Postcode / Geocode system’s API. Now, this was a VERY simple application – send a Postcode, retrieve a list of addresses, send a code number, retrieve a full street address with map reference. Let’s say 2 calls to the remote API for something very straight forward. During code development and ‘in house’ testing I made about 30 or 40 API calls. Now, during more formal testing on the client site that’s going to increase somewhat – probably in to the low-hundreds. And this is for a problem with a well defined structure, with a finite returnable answer set – i.e lists of addresses, a single address or nothing at all, all in a set, predictable format.
By the very nature of the sort of problem that WA has been set up to deal with, the problems passed up via an API are unlikley to be as well defined and the results set returned is also unlikely to be as simple to deal with as my addresses. When I did some API work with Google for a client I found I was generating hundreds of API calls and responses during development, let alone testing. For WA, I’m looking at $60 for 1000 API requests, and $0.08 for each additional request beyond the thousand I initially pay for. Obviously, I can buy a bigger bundle, but the inference is clear – it ain’t gonnna be cheap developing for the WA API.
API developments typically involve a learning curve for the API syntax and methods of use. This is par for the course and to be expected. However, when the API is interfacing to a curated data set like WA, we have an additional problem of whether the data set will actually contain the sort of data that we’re wanting to get back. And whether it will be available in the sort of format we’re interested in. And whether the curated data is timely compared to the data that is being made available through non-curated data sets like those available via Google – or other APIs, for that matter. Clearly, if your problem space IS covered by WA and the data set WA has available contains what you want in the format in which you want it, then perhaps the API fee is worthwhile. But for those developers wanting to try something new out, they’re most likely to look to free APIs to test their ideas, and spend time and energy working the wrinkles out in an environment that isn’t costing them pennies for the simplest query.
I’m afraid WA have dropped the ball big time here; by charging for ALL development use of the API they’ve alienated a large source of free development and critical expertise. Look at how Google has benefited from the sheer number of developers doing ‘stuff’ with their various APIs. Can you imagine that happening had they charged all the way? Hardly likely.
If WA were to make a limited ‘sandbox’ set of data available for developers via a free of charge API, that would at least allow the developers to get the wrinkles out of their code. The company could then charge for use of the ‘live’ WA datasets, and would have the additional advantage of the code being run against the live system being reasonably bug free. By charging from the first line of code written, they’re restricting the development of their own product and driving people in to the arms of Google, Amazon, Bing and the like. WA doesn’t appear to be offering a lot that is truly revolutionary; so-so natural language query interface against a curated data set. I doubt it will be long before third party developers start producing the same from Google.