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

51–60 of 272 posts

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#51

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

DevX101 wrote: post #14
WiseWeasel wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Strong handed and entirely legitimate.

All's fair in business is a bullshit perspective. It's the self justification of those who want to engage in behavior they know is sociopathic.

Deception is occasionally a necessary tactic, but it would be insane to try to argue that it is a behavior that creates economic value. It should not be the expected default behavior, and in fact, is not. Which is why there are both civil and criminal penalties for fraud.

Deceptive behavior that is less than fraud may not be illegal, but it's still shame worthy in my view.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#52

Post by natrius »

dalton wrote: post #48

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…

This still doesn't sound wrong to me. You built something. You showed it to them. They liked it. They later liked it so much that they wanted a similar product.

Did they threaten to revoke API access?

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#53

Post by dalton »

natrius wrote: post #52
dalton wrote: post #48

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…

This still doesn't sound wrong to me. You built something. You showed it to them. They liked it. They later liked it so much that they wanted a similar product. Did they threaten to revoke API access?

yep. That was presented as an option they could use by one exec, on a phone call.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#54

Post by gruseom »

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…

Would you please stop being gratuitously rude?

Not compete with you, because you're a precious snow flake and

Acquire you and treat you like a prima donna, etc.

add nothing other than nastiness to Not compete with you and Acquire you, etc.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#55

Post by zcvosdfdgj »

DevX101 wrote: post #14
WiseWeasel wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Strong handed and entirely legitimate.

Sure.. it is legitimate. But Dalton has the right to say as loudly as he can what Facebook's negotiation tactics are. And other developers have the right to stop developing on the Facebook platform because of it.

It may be legitimate, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences.

How many developers would continue using Facebook's platform if they knew Facebook would kill their product on a whim?

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#56

Post by natrius »

ivankirigin wrote: post #13

To clarify for those confused comments here: app.net is in part a platform to showcase your app. Facebook's AppCenter is similar. If they were building an open platform, app.net could build into Facebook's AppCenter. Offering a aquihire and refusing to make an open platform is what Dalton doesn't like. His critique is tied to his project at http://join.app.net because the reason the platform isn't open according to D…

"Offering a aquihire and refusing to make an open platform is what Dalton doesn't like."

Typically, when someone doesn't like an acquisition offer, they decline it. Is it wrong for Facebook to build a platform that isn't open? I don't see why Mark Zuckerberg (or the public, as the comments on this submission indicate) would read this letter and decide that his employees acted improperly, which the letter seems to expect.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#58

Post by natrius »

dalton wrote: post #53
natrius wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This still doesn't sound wrong to me. You built something. You showed it to them. They liked it. They later liked it so much that they wanted a similar product. Did they threaten to revoke API access?

yep. That was presented as an option they could use by one exec, on a phone call.

OK, that's definitely uncool. That should probably be part of the letter.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#59

Post by ljd »

dalton wrote: post #48

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…

I agree with many of the comments in this thread about how an acquisition offer isn't a bad alternative to just getting ran over by the platform.

However, I can see your point. They should not have encouraged you to build it on your own if they were going to build it themselves. This seems like a lose-lose for both parties.

I've heard a lot of talk on how teams within facebook can work without much centralized oversight and this might be one of the drawbacks. Whoever you spoke to months ago might not have known that another team was working on it.

Then when they prep'ed for your meeting they found out someone had been working on it, felt guilty about leading you on months ago and offered a buy out.

It seems like a communication problem more than anything else.

disclosure: if it is not absolutely clear from my post, I'm speculating on events, I have no ability to gauge what really happened at facebook.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#60

Post by ryanmerket »

notJim wrote: post #26

So you were building a service that competes with a service Facebook was working on, they offered to buy you out, you declined, and you're angry about this ? I'm sorry, but that's absurd. Most companies would not have even thought about steamrolling you, forget about offering a check. Did you expect them to just decide not to pursue their App Store offering because ol' Dalton Caldwell wouldn't like it? That's fucking…

This. Business is business. It's not the Dev Relations team that decides if an app on the platform is competitive. Just because they told him to it was 'cool' doesn't mean the execs think it's too competitive...

Moral: Make sure you're talking to the right people.

Post reply on HN