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

Dear Mark Zuckerberg

daltoncaldwell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 272 posts

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#41

Post by notJim »

veyron wrote: post #36
notJim wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they had been upfront about their intentions with the meeting, he probably would have never gone. I don't understand why this is a big issue. What was the cost to him in going to this meeting? It would hardly have changed the outcome (outcome: he declines their offer and they build a service which clobbers his.)

"What was the cost to him in going to this meeting?? Time, both in the meeting and in preparing, and in information transfer. He didn't specifically say what he went through, but he may have divulged pieces of the puzzle that they were unaware of.

I mean, sure, but in business there are always meetings you attend for partnerships or offers that don't pan out. It's just the way the world works.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#42

Post by tijs »

WiseWeasel wrote: post #11
tjic wrote: post #3

I don't understand what you think Facebook did wrong. They intend to enter this new space, using their technology and their people. As a courtesy they offered to hire you / throw a lot of money at you. What would you have had them do instead? Not compete with you, because you're a precious snow flake? Acquire you and treat you like a prima donna, giving you your own team and allowing you to take your own technical di…

It seems like Dalton was under the impression that he was rather explicitly threatened with being denied access to the Facebook platform through a change in terms of service, in a way that is critical to his business. That's a strong-handed negotiation tactic for a supposed business infrastructure provider.

I do wonder how many people in Facebook actually think of their company as a "business infrastructure provider".

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#43

Post by farinasa »

JPKab wrote: post #23
tjic wrote: post #3

I don't understand what you think Facebook did wrong. They intend to enter this new space, using their technology and their people. As a courtesy they offered to hire you / throw a lot of money at you. What would you have had them do instead? Not compete with you, because you're a precious snow flake? Acquire you and treat you like a prima donna, giving you your own team and allowing you to take your own technical di…

By creating an open platform, Facebook has made the big picture decision that encouraging third party developers to build applications leveraging their social graph is beneficial to the company's bottom line, allowing them to be embedded in places where they otherwise wouldn't be. This is where utilizing a product company's platform can be very morally dicey. They offer a platform for others to build on, because it r…

I think that was the point of the meeting. They saw that there was a developer in the space they wanted to enter. They could have just undercut him without a thought, but instead offered to work with/buy out his product. This happens.

Microsoft and Google are doing it with hardware. I imagine the phone/tablet manufacturers had a similar reaction as this guy, but didn't go blogging about it on the web. It's good for us that he did, because OEMs talk to each other in meetings. Small time devs best communicate a company's intentions via the web.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#44

Post by fusiongyro »

marcusf wrote: post #12

One thing I don't get, and I've started to feel really stupid for it, is this whole Social as Infrastructure meme that has started going around and that the author touches on. I'd love for someone to explain to me exactly what it would entail, why any company would move to become a commodity, and where the user value would be? I'm not saying there aren't any really good answers to these questions, I'm just too thick…

For one thing, the OP author is responsible for the whole meme, and is posturing his startup as the litmus test for the idea (which is probably fair).

From a certain perspective, the whole idea of Google is to get users off the search engine faster, which doesn't sound like a great way to make money as compared to Yahoo! whose core idea was to keep them on the site as long as possible to serve more ads at them. In the end, the Google idea is more profitable because users prefer to use things that don't parasite them by a huge margin, especially if both are free.

Caldwell's idea, as I understand it, is that there are a lot of interesting applications that could use Twitter's technology that aren't or can't be written because of their restrictions (or it would suck because of their ads), and that people would be willing to pay for a service like Twitter's if it enabled access to or the ability to author these applications. He thinks he can win at choosing to be the commodity by being first and doing the best job. The user value is hard to envision, because the apps that will be powered by this social infrastructure don't exist yet or are perverted by the presence of ads and Twitter's own self-interest.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#45

Post by notJim »

jedberg wrote: post #38
notJim wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they had been upfront about their intentions with the meeting, he probably would have never gone. I don't understand why this is a big issue. What was the cost to him in going to this meeting? It would hardly have changed the outcome (outcome: he declines their offer and they build a service which clobbers his.)

His time is presumably valuable to him. The cost was his time. Time he could have spent building his product.

I replied to veyron [your sibling]'s similar comment.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#47

Post by fusiongyro »

alttab wrote: post #28
marcusf wrote: post #12

One thing I don't get, and I've started to feel really stupid for it, is this whole Social as Infrastructure meme that has started going around and that the author touches on. I'd love for someone to explain to me exactly what it would entail, why any company would move to become a commodity, and where the user value would be? I'm not saying there aren't any really good answers to these questions, I'm just too thick…

Imagine a world where everyone used a protocol to communicate. Lets call that protocol "English". Now, imagine "English" is owned by one company, who changes "English" and compromises your conversations consistently, and then tries to monetize your conversations in increasingly subtle and annoying ways. Now in reality no one owns English. Its an open form of communication that anyone can use, anywhere. You can even c…

That's a great metaphor.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#48

Post by dalton »

Rather than get involved with all of these threads, I'd like to clarify something.

I build a product that pre-dated App Center by several months. Facebook dev relations people tested it and actively encouraged me to build it. I was assured that it was considered "good" and "helpful" as an example of using Open Graph. At an earlier point I was offered marketing help from Facebook for my launch.

I am not clear why some folks don't see the issue with building something that is encouraged by employees of a company, and then, in the matter of months, being told "never mind". That is not good for an ecosystem.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#49

Post by natrius »

caleywoods wrote: post #34
jgrahamc wrote: post #10

This is one of the reasons why I hate open letters. They are almost always annoying. This person is complaining because he didn't want to be acquired by Facebook but would like them to not compete with him. Oh well.

Wrong. He's angry because he didn't want to be acquired and didn't want to have his business shut down by Facebook turning off his access.

Nothing in the post suggests that Facebook threatened to turn off access.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#50

Post by Androsynth »

jedberg wrote: post #20
tjic wrote: post #3

I don't understand what you think Facebook did wrong. They intend to enter this new space, using their technology and their people. As a courtesy they offered to hire you / throw a lot of money at you. What would you have had them do instead? Not compete with you, because you're a precious snow flake? Acquire you and treat you like a prima donna, giving you your own team and allowing you to take your own technical di…

I think his issue was that the meeting was in bad faith. He was under the impression that he would be demoing his technology so it could get visibility within Facebook, not walking into a negotiation. If they had been upfront about their intentions with the meeting, he probably would have never gone. What do you think the purpose of the “platform developer relations” executive is? To advocate AGAINST Facebook and for…

Who knows what positions each took behind closed doors, but do you think they aren't going into a negotiation all on the same page? Do you think they would allow someone in negotiations to take a position opposite to the company line?

Also, relations does not mean advocate. He has relations with the customer, he is not obliged to advocate their views. Especially not when it goes against FBs interests.

Post reply on HN