Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Messenger Platform

messenger.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 248 posts

Re: Facebook Messenger Platform

#211

Post by qznc »

natrius wrote: post #139
ethanpil wrote: post #92

I'm crying. Remember when messaging was built on open platforms and standards like XMPP and IRC? The golden year(s?) when Google Talk worked with AIM and anyone could choose whatever client they preferred? Welcome to the future friends when we must pay to battle the keymasters and gatekeepers on their terms to do what we used to do ourselves, for free. First they took my RSS, then they took my XMPP... Who can guess w…

We can take back the internet. We've been at a disadvantage for so long because centralized services are easier to build great experiences with than federated services. Messaging protocols require identities, and federated identities are user-hostile. They worked once: email. Never again. Luckily, we're in the middle of a decentralization renaissance. Instead of managing your identity on a server controlled by Facebo…

I believe sandstorm.io has bigger chances to create a federation renaissance. It makes hosting your own cloud easy. It is also more efficient than p2p technology.

Re: Facebook Messenger Platform

#213

Post by okpatil »

miguelrochefort wrote: post #190
jexe wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what that means, but you've got my attention. Could you elaborate on what you have in mind?

# PROBLEM Software is fragmented. This leads to poor user experience. - I have 100+ apps on my phone - I have 1000+ online accounts I need to discover these apps/websites/services, repeat the same information over and over again, learn their features and limitations. They don't talk to each other, which means that I need to continuously update them. We're humans, we're smart, we adapt easily, we got used to it, we do…

Spot on !!

Re: Facebook Messenger Platform

#214

Post by skewart »

Jtsummers wrote: post #109
theseatoms wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a way of siphoning users from FB to other platforms, then yes, you can win. Otherwise, when the gate shuts, your users are locked out.

Ok, I must be missing something. How is FB Messenger here anything other than a means of connecting to customers? If the concern is that FB will ape your app, then your app isn't sufficiently differentiated from their offerings. I want to write a game server, say for Go (the game, not the language). I want to make one (or the sole) method of connecting to it FB Messenger (hypothetical, not actually doing this, and th…

> However, if I'm Papa Johns or Marcos Pizza or ..., FB can't shut me out.

That's not true. FB doesn't have to get into the food delivery business to shut someone out.

Imagine that FB's plans come true and talking with bots on Messenger becomes an incredibly popular way for people to order pizza. A lot of people can't imagine ordering a pizza any other way. Let's say you're Pappa John's and 60% of your business comes from Messenger. Now FB has incredible leverage over you, since they effectively control a huge chunk of your revenue stream. They could decide to kick you off unless you pay them a lead gen fee, since they're generating leads for your business. Or, they could start to offer "premium" service, where message response times are slowed down unless you're a paying premium customer. Or, heck, maybe a competitor would even pay FB in a strategic partnership to kick you off. The point is that FB is set up to have incredible leverage and government-like power, and it is a very safe bet that they will do everything they can to extract taxes from the businesses that depend on them.

The bottom line is that if people are using your app because it's on Messenger, and it's not that people are using Messenger because of your app, FB has much more leverage than you do, and you are entirely at their mercy. They are very likely to take advantage of that power dynamic in one way or another.

Re: Facebook Messenger Platform

#215

Post by dpark »

knz wrote: post #197
JoshTriplett wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and a plumbing system that requires most houses to own a plunger. Getting off topic for the article at hand, but what's different in Australian plumbing in that area?

I can only speak for New Zealand, but the whole disposal method is fundamentally different. Instead of relying upon the swirling/draining motion to dispose of the waste, water is forced straight down into the much larger gap. Every kiwi/aussie who has stayed with me (in multiple homes) has complained about US toilets!

> Instead of relying upon the swirling/draining motion to dispose of the waste

It makes me sad and annoyed whenever I flush one of these toilets. The swirling doesn't do anything useful. It seems to actually increase the clogging probability because it typically manages to swirl 100% of the toilet paper together and then finally move it downward all at once for maximum clogging effect, which might be fine if the drain weren't ~2 inches across.

There are American toilets that aren't like this, but a shocking number of them are completely unreliable. I had a toilet in my apartment in California that, no lie, I managed to clog by blowing my nose. I used 3 Kleenex, dropped them in the toilet, and flushed. It clogged from that.

Re: Facebook Messenger Platform

#216

Post by subliminalpanda »

natrius wrote: post #139
ethanpil wrote: post #92

I'm crying. Remember when messaging was built on open platforms and standards like XMPP and IRC? The golden year(s?) when Google Talk worked with AIM and anyone could choose whatever client they preferred? Welcome to the future friends when we must pay to battle the keymasters and gatekeepers on their terms to do what we used to do ourselves, for free. First they took my RSS, then they took my XMPP... Who can guess w…

We can take back the internet. We've been at a disadvantage for so long because centralized services are easier to build great experiences with than federated services. Messaging protocols require identities, and federated identities are user-hostile. They worked once: email. Never again. Luckily, we're in the middle of a decentralization renaissance. Instead of managing your identity on a server controlled by Facebo…

I still have no clue what practical uses there are to something like Etherium. Can anyone give an example?

Re: Facebook Messenger Platform

#217

Post by thewhitetulip »

daptaq wrote: post #78
vlunkr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused about this as well. Why are they choosing to compete with themselves?

Is it really competition though? You choose A, Facebook wins. You choose B, Facebook wins. I believe WhatsApp and FB Messenger are the two top chat networks right now (sadly), at least when looking at regional dominance. And since the value of a network to the individual is dependant on the size, AND they're locked up, they win whatever you choose. You might loose because you chose the network with less friends, but…

How is this not different from the strategy MS used to follow either kill opponents or buy them? How did the anti trust dept of US allow whatsapp acquisition since it literally made FB king of everything digital?

Re: Facebook Messenger Platform

#218

Post by natrius »

qznc wrote: post #211
natrius wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can take back the internet. We've been at a disadvantage for so long because centralized services are easier to build great experiences with than federated services. Messaging protocols require identities, and federated identities are user-hostile. They worked once: email. Never again. Luckily, we're in the middle of a decentralization renaissance. Instead of managing your identity on a server controlled by Facebo…

I believe sandstorm.io has bigger chances to create a federation renaissance. It makes hosting your own cloud easy. It is also more efficient than p2p technology.

Sandstorm.io is great. It's definitely a part of the story.

Re: Facebook Messenger Platform

#219

Post by blisse »

ascendantlogic wrote: post #205
Jtsummers wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You build anything meaningful on this and Facebook has you by the you-know-whats and can pull the rug out from under you at will. Is that accurate? If I build a chat-based application, why can't I build out interfaces to various services? It may not be trivial, since some will offer features that others don't, but what's the principal problem preventing me from building a chat-based application that works over Goog…

And that may be perfectly fine right now. But if they change their TOS tomorrow that says you're not allowed to do that and shut you down because of it you're good and fucked. They have all the users. They have the platform the users are on. Therefore they hold all the cards.

I'm ignorant, but how does this differ for something like the Play Store where Google can just not let you publish your app on a whim?

Re: Facebook Messenger Platform

#220

Post by cheapsteak »

ascendantlogic wrote: post #49

The Twitter debacle is what really did it for me. As others have pointed out this is sharecropping through and through. You build anything meaningful on this and Facebook has you by the you-know-whats and can pull the rug out from under you at will. Thanks but no thanks.

The Twitter debacle doesn't seem entirely relevant here

Twitter's API was being used to build apps that replicated and competed with Twitter's own functionality and created a conflict of interest between Twitter and 3rd party developers

There isn't much else you can do with this Messenger API other than to create channels of communication between businesses and their existing and potential customers. Those businesses likely wouldn't know how to make this themselves, so you could make a bit of money there.

This wouldn't compete with Facebook, but rather ties both customers and businesses tighter to Facebook, making FB more valuable to those businesses and and perhaps encourage them to spend more on promoting user engagement.

There'd be no reason Facebook would want to shut you down. They certainly don't want to get into the nitty gritty business of connecting chat messages to all the various ways different businesses could function.

Post reply on HN