There was a controversial thread over at Techcrunch about Flickr not opening up their API to Zooomr. Two sides promptly formed behind each company in the comments (with some pretty harsh words being said about Zooomr). The Zooomr proponents said that Flickr shouldn’t be afraid of opening up to their competitor, and that keeping their system closed harkens back to the days of Web 1.0. In the end, Butterfield of Flickr cleared it up by saying that they will indeed be opening up to competitors, as long as they reciprocate the gesture by opening their own API. This was supposedly a change of heart.

We have to remember that Flickr is a company, not some free wheeling do-gooder that will cater to anyone’s request. It should come as no suprise that Flickr woudl take some time out to carefully consider opening their API directly to their competitor. In the end, I believe that Flickr has made the right decision, which could potentially allow Zooomr users to transfer all their Flickr photos to their Zooomr account. There’s no reason for Flickr to tether their user’s content. But for people to say that this decision should be a knee-jerk reaction is quite ridiculous.

52 Bicycles has a nice little post about how many Web 2.0 startups are too focused on making the “plus one” killer app.

… I think there is a focus on “plus-one” features to “kill” the previous generation (i.e. Digg killer, bloglines killer, etc). Arrington is all over this, and from an analyst’s point of view, it’s good: each marginal iteration is not only a chance for a new review, it’s also a way to examine how new features help/hurt on the margin. So Arrington writes up a review or profile, and his 53,651 readers flock to the reviewed service, and some fraction actually sign up and use it for a day or a week. And then nothing.

I couldn’t agree more with this observation. After editing BuzzShout for about a month, I have seen a plethora of newly submitted web applications that are simply an increment of an old established one. Sure, if the newly added features are compelling enough, there is added value, and maybe, it even solves some problems that have plagued many of the legacy users. But, more often than not, the new and exciting web app fails to be as disruptive as they claim they would be.

The post ends with the statement:

Go where the other guy aint - that won’t get a review in TechCrunch, but it is the basis of a more sustainable competitive advantage.

I totally disagree with this. I believe that Michael knows the value of a truly creative and original idea when he sees it. Those are the type of companies and ideas that I’m personally seeking out — ideas that make anyone say, “Wow, that’s so easy and effective. Why didn’t I think of that?” Can anyone name a web application that only introduces incremental features that would make you say that?