31–40 of 169 posts
And has reached 3.6 million users overnight. That's incredible! I bet the developer is kicking himself for not monetizing with ads right away, that's a lot of traffic and a lot of money.
Since the app pulls in all your Facebook friends, and people generally have a few hundred friends, I suspect the number of users of Breakup Notifier is in the tens of thousands.
Meta-question: Will this termination inspire the same anti-"proprietary walled garden" rhetoric as Apple's imposition of new terms for subscription sales? If not, why not?
No. I don't own facebook's hardware. Apple's terms for their app store wouldn't be so onerous if there was another legal/good way to install software on your own device.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disabling his account is either a display of creepy dictatorial power or an indication of incompetence and lack of common sense.
Or, the system that shut him down is automated and triggers 99.9% of the time on spam accounts, and the lockout is a totally sensible default.
And has reached 3.6 million users overnight. That's incredible! I bet the developer is kicking himself for not monetizing with ads right away, that's a lot of traffic and a lot of money.
Meta-question: Will this termination inspire the same anti-"proprietary walled garden" rhetoric as Apple's imposition of new terms for subscription sales? If not, why not?
No. I don't own facebook's hardware. Apple's terms for their app store wouldn't be so onerous if there was another legal/good way to install software on your own device.
I think that the legality of the task is important, but it's also pretty critical how supported that task is. While it's legal to jailbreak, it's also (probably? unknown) legal for Apple to accidentally brick your phone during updates.
"Facebook has also, inexplicably, disabled his personal account." Sure they can try and justify blocking the application by saying it made 'excessive API calls', but how do they justify disabling his personal account?
For this reason I think its fairly obvious that his personal account and the app were pulled for something more than excessive API calls.
Meta-question: Will this termination inspire the same anti-"proprietary walled garden" rhetoric as Apple's imposition of new terms for subscription sales? If not, why not?
No. I don't own facebook's hardware. Apple's terms for their app store wouldn't be so onerous if there was another legal/good way to install software on your own device.
Meta-question: Will this termination inspire the same anti-"proprietary walled garden" rhetoric as Apple's imposition of new terms for subscription sales? If not, why not?
No. I don't own facebook's hardware. Apple's terms for their app store wouldn't be so onerous if there was another legal/good way to install software on your own device.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disabling his account is either a display of creepy dictatorial power or an indication of incompetence and lack of common sense.
Or, the system that shut him down is automated and triggers 99.9% of the time on spam accounts, and the lockout is a totally sensible default.
"Facebook has also, inexplicably, disabled his personal account." Sure they can try and justify blocking the application by saying it made 'excessive API calls', but how do they justify disabling his personal account?
My guess is that the system that does this is completely automated. The number of API calls his app was making set off a flag for spam/spammer and his account was disabled accordingly. Until he contacted them I wonder if any human was even aware that his app had been blocked. The interesting question here is how Facebook will respond in this instance.
This just gives me the impression that Facebook doesn't approve of successful (indie) applications built on their API.