Pretty cool editorializing bro
Facebook shows even more fear (of Google+, etc.)
21–30 of 30 posts
Re: Facebook shows even more fear (of Google+, etc.)
#22Wow, that is evilness to new highs. First they dont allow google adsense on apps, then they ban 3rd party virtual currency, then they ban G+ ads on facebook, and now this. This company is going straight to technological hell. In any case, it is foolish of them to think that this will in any way harm the growth of g+. If G+ proves to be a good platform alternative, we 'd rather quit the fb platform altogether and forc…
I don't think it represents them going to hell, I think it represents some 'quick' things they can do which may mitigate the impact of G+ in the short term while deeper and perhaps more integrated barriers are put into place. No one should be surprised that Facebook considers Google a competitor, and while I don't think they are 'terrified' I don't think anyone is still thinking this is a 'half hearted' effort by the…
Did you just use the words 'Facebook' and 'coolness' in the same sentence?
Re: Facebook shows even more fear (of Google+, etc.)
#23I work at a social gaming company who currently has an app on Facebook and other social networks. When I saw that Techcrunch had quoted Alex St. John I started laughing out loud and made every one else in the office come and see because it's amazingly hilarious to hear Hi5 say Facebook is terrified of them. Hi5's user base monetizes incredibly badly, and their API and support staff are terrible.
I agree but to be honest, it's not like Facebook is printing money either so far.
Re: Facebook shows even more fear (of Google+, etc.)
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it not (for developers), when competing networks make less than half in revenue than adsense and are provably much less safe (the excuse they used for the ban). For your second question, users are harmed when they are disallowed from doing things they want to. The fact that they are the only ones in the world doing that makes it evil (to me). You may think that kicking the other drivers out of the race is a va…
Following your analogy, Facebook isn't kicking people out of an F1 race, they're disallowing competitors from adding their own engine parts to Facebook's car. Sounds reasonable, right? Still, that's a tortured metaphor.
A better (still horrible) analogy would be more like saying if you build cars for F1 you can't do it for NASCAR and use the same parts or use the same drivers and sponsors etc...
Re: Facebook shows even more fear (of Google+, etc.)
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it not (for developers), when competing networks make less than half in revenue than adsense and are provably much less safe (the excuse they used for the ban). For your second question, users are harmed when they are disallowed from doing things they want to. The fact that they are the only ones in the world doing that makes it evil (to me). You may think that kicking the other drivers out of the race is a va…
Following your analogy, Facebook isn't kicking people out of an F1 race, they're disallowing competitors from adding their own engine parts to Facebook's car. Sounds reasonable, right? Still, that's a tortured metaphor.
I wasn't making an analogy at all. The fact is, facebook has lured developers to work for free in their "open" platform and now prevents them from expanding to other platforms. Reasonable but unethical, a little courtesy towards developers wouldn't hurt. SN is not such a saturated market that they can afford to impose a monopoly. Maybe they'll remember that when they are losing developers.
Re: Facebook shows even more fear (of Google+, etc.)
#26I'll start worrying for Facebook when I no longer see "find us on Facebook!" at the end of every TV ad.
Same flag as when we stopped hearing about AOL keywords in mass media.
The similarities between Facebook and the old AOL should be alarming to anyone working for Facebook. Or maybe just anyone in general.
Re: Facebook shows even more fear (of Google+, etc.)
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Following your analogy, Facebook isn't kicking people out of an F1 race, they're disallowing competitors from adding their own engine parts to Facebook's car. Sounds reasonable, right? Still, that's a tortured metaphor.
A better (still horrible) analogy would be more like saying if you build cars for F1 you can't do it for NASCAR and use the same parts or use the same drivers and sponsors etc...
A better analogy would be a software company that makes the leading operating system who penalized OEMs that produced computers with competing software installed.
Re: Facebook shows even more fear (of Google+, etc.)
#28“I.11. Apps on Facebook may not integrate, link to, promote, distribute, or redirect to any app on any other competing social platform.” I wonder if apps that check you in into multiple services (e.g. Foursquare, Gowalla, etc.) would violate this agreement. Once Google+ opens its Checkin API, I bet these services would integrate with it too.
Is this not an extremely anti-competitive statement? Just curious how often this has to happen to be trigger anti-trust/monopoly scrutiny.
Re: Facebook shows even more fear (of Google+, etc.)
#29I think the implications are still unclear. It's hard to tell if they're specifically targeting apps that are "badge-arrific" and use Facebook to market themselves, if they're referring to canvas apps, or if this a wholesale attack on all apps that use Facebook data. For instance, I'm working on an application that will eventually integrate (hopefully) data from Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc., in a similar fashion a…
> a shred of logic behind they're actions
You should know that "they're" stands for "they are"
Re: Facebook shows even more fear (of Google+, etc.)
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same flag as when we stopped hearing about AOL keywords in mass media.
The similarities between Facebook and the old AOL should be alarming to anyone working for Facebook. Or maybe just anyone in general.
Relevant article: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2375715,00.asp
Dvorak argues that Facebook is AOL. I disagree, and think it's inferior to AOL. Mainly because Facebook neither provides an entry into the internet (like AOL's ISP did/does) nor has a viable, general purpose email system. Facebook messaging couldn't replace something like Gmail. I think the lack of those systems make it easy to abandon the service for something else.
Having 100+ "friends" on Facebook isn't a compelling reason to stay when most people probably wouldn't notice if 90% of those individuals disappeared from one day to the next. Most of your social network online is an illusion.
I'm testing out Google+ right now, but I'm doing so under an alias. The alias is known to my friends and everything I post and share is authentic. My change in attitude comes from 4 years of having a real identity presence online; I don't really see the benefit of shedding anonymity.