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

Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 177 posts

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#121

Post by MiroF »

MiddleEndian wrote: post #100
MiroF wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP, but on Bumble, I matched with someone who I knew - she showed me her app and no such match had appeared on her app. I think this sort of behavior is not uncommon.

Any more info on this or maybe some screen shots? I'm not on the market but given the complaints about the current state of dating apps I think lots of people would be curious to see this.

Unfortunately I don't have screenshots. I'm happy to provide more info -

for instance, to those who might say "she just didn't want to acknowledge you had matched," I saw it with my own eyes and also we were already involved with each other at the time.

FWIW, my perception is that this is not the case on Tinder, but obviously can't be sure.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#122

Post by MiroF »

dang wrote: post #102
MiroF wrote: post #17

Why is this thread full of commentators attacking Snap for completely unrelated things? Strikes me as odd. FB told IG influencers they might lose their verified status if they link to a SC profile? Seems like that was a mistake on their part, could they really not anticipate future antitrust action?

Most threads are full of commenters attacking whatever for unrelated things. Please don't insinuate astroturfing without evidence; this is in the site guidelines because it's so common, off-topic, and undermining of community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I didn't claim astroturfing and frankly I don't think that is quite what is occurring. And FWIW, it seems like the general tone of the comments has changed substantially since I posted.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#123

Post by dang »

MiroF wrote: post #122
dang wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most threads are full of commenters attacking whatever for unrelated things. Please don't insinuate astroturfing without evidence; this is in the site guidelines because it's so common, off-topic, and undermining of community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I didn't claim astroturfing and frankly I don't think that is quite what is occurring. And FWIW, it seems like the general tone of the comments has changed substantially since I posted. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I believe you. It's just that vague references like "strikes me as odd" usually amount to that when it comes to seeming patterns of comments in threads.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#124

Post by wombat-man »

empath75 wrote: post #89
toxik wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see the problem with this. Isn’t it fair market competition? Facebook had (and has) deeper pockets and more users, so they won against Snap and Foursquare. Their acquisition of IG and WA were great moves too, it’s almost impossible to escape the Facebook and Google internet.

> Isn’t it fair market competition? Exploiting a monopoly in one segment in order to capture another is text book unfair competition.

I mean, they're competing social networks.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#125

Post by krustyburger »

khawkins wrote: post #60
toxik wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see the problem with this. Isn’t it fair market competition? Facebook had (and has) deeper pockets and more users, so they won against Snap and Foursquare. Their acquisition of IG and WA were great moves too, it’s almost impossible to escape the Facebook and Google internet.

If these features were critical enough that you could found a company on them, then clearly they brought innovation to the scene. If they had not come along, it's unclear as to whether Facebook would have ever introduced those features in their products. "Fair market competition" is the idea that products compete on their own merits, not that you can leverage your market position to destroy competitors. "Deeper pocke…

I think FAANG is less useful as an abbreviation these days because it includes Netflix. I don’t think Netflix is guilty of much of anything sinister, at least by anyone’s reckoning except certain movie and tv studio executives.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#126

Post by SkyMarshal »

empath75 wrote: post #89
toxik wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see the problem with this. Isn’t it fair market competition? Facebook had (and has) deeper pockets and more users, so they won against Snap and Foursquare. Their acquisition of IG and WA were great moves too, it’s almost impossible to escape the Facebook and Google internet.

> Isn’t it fair market competition? Exploiting a monopoly in one segment in order to capture another is text book unfair competition.

Exactly, that's illegal under US anti-trust law. It's called product tying.

It's legal to achieve a monopoly by competitive means, via pure excellence in product and operations. But it's illegal to then attempt to achieve another monopoly in a different product by tying it to your legal monopoly product.

That was part of the US DoJ suit against Microsoft in the 90s.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#127

Post by underwater »

monkeydreams wrote: post #120
underwater wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also the exact same playbook Google used against Facebook with Google+.

Except both companies had deep pockets in this scenario.

Facebook was further along than Snapchat, but there was still a 10x disparity in headcount and market cap. This was before Facebook had IPO'd.

Google had around 1,000 engineers dedicated to Google+, plus the entire company had KPIs based on the success of the project. Facebook had less than 1,000 engineers in total.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#128

Post by NoodleIncident »

khawkins wrote: post #60
toxik wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see the problem with this. Isn’t it fair market competition? Facebook had (and has) deeper pockets and more users, so they won against Snap and Foursquare. Their acquisition of IG and WA were great moves too, it’s almost impossible to escape the Facebook and Google internet.

If these features were critical enough that you could found a company on them, then clearly they brought innovation to the scene. If they had not come along, it's unclear as to whether Facebook would have ever introduced those features in their products. "Fair market competition" is the idea that products compete on their own merits, not that you can leverage your market position to destroy competitors. "Deeper pocke…

> Exploiting the fact that you have "more users" should probably also be looked at as anti-competitive since it certainly doesn't benefit consumers by locking people into exclusive platforms.

It's not quite as clear cut as you say. The downsides of being locked into a single platform exist, but the upsides of a new feature benefiting from an existing network also exist. Many consumers have benefited by getting access to ephemeral messages with their existing friends, when they wouldn't have installed a separate app and nagged their friends to switch just to get that feature.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#129

Post by smsx »

krustyburger wrote: post #125
khawkins wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If these features were critical enough that you could found a company on them, then clearly they brought innovation to the scene. If they had not come along, it's unclear as to whether Facebook would have ever introduced those features in their products. "Fair market competition" is the idea that products compete on their own merits, not that you can leverage your market position to destroy competitors. "Deeper pocke…

I think FAANG is less useful as an abbreviation these days because it includes Netflix. I don’t think Netflix is guilty of much of anything sinister, at least by anyone’s reckoning except certain movie and tv studio executives.

While that’s a good point, if the alternative is going around and using the acronym FAAG I think we can stick with the original.

Re: Snap Detailed Facebook’s Aggressive Tactics in ‘Project Voldemort’ Dossier

#130

Post by sprafa »

krustyburger wrote: post #125
khawkins wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If these features were critical enough that you could found a company on them, then clearly they brought innovation to the scene. If they had not come along, it's unclear as to whether Facebook would have ever introduced those features in their products. "Fair market competition" is the idea that products compete on their own merits, not that you can leverage your market position to destroy competitors. "Deeper pocke…

I think FAANG is less useful as an abbreviation these days because it includes Netflix. I don’t think Netflix is guilty of much of anything sinister, at least by anyone’s reckoning except certain movie and tv studio executives.

Virtually anybody but Hollywood exec types love Netflix, particularly creatives (the people who actually DO the things). Netflix has been making enormous amounts of content, even for smaller markets like Spain and betting on great people who are making really good shows (see ‘casa de papel’)

If you are a creative person you are enthused about streaming because suddenly there’s a huge amount of content being funded. Think about standup comedy and what Netflix has done for it.

Netflix is run by very smart people who are making very good content that most Hollywood execs wouldn’t touch. Scorcese’s next film is being funded by them! It’s nuts that Wolf of Wall Street, The Departed, multiple Scorsese projects were VERY HARD to fund. Jonah Hill worked essentially for the lowest money you can work for in a movie (SAG which is the actors union says 20k minimum) in Wolf of Wall St. Because they couldn’t afford him. Stuff that you look back and wonder “how the fuck?”

Post reply on HN