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

71–80 of 272 posts

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#71

Post by hollerith »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #24
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 mostly agree with you, but I don't really buy the line that they were offering him millions of dollars for his company (I assume the aqui-hire would be in that range) as "a courtesy". What they'd really be paying for is avoiding exactly this situation they're in now, with him talking quite loudly about how they shut him down. Can't blame 'em for trying, but they need to suss out their target a bit better before thr…

So, you think Dalton refused a few million dollars (almost all acqui-hires would enrich a founder that much) so that he could complain publicly?

Or is Dalton complaining publicly now in the hopes that Facebook will pay him more later than they would have if he'd just gone along with their proposal now?

(Honestly curious: I do not have an opinion yet.)

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#72

Post by snorkel »

Tying your business fortunes to the goodwill of Facebook is like having the fate a toothbrush bird that feeds from the mouth an alligator. The toothbrush bird will never grow to be as big as the alligator and it eats only as much as the alligator allows.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#73

Post by sseveran »

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.

If Microsoft was the company involved everyone would be crying fowl about how they are a monopoly and this is the ultimate evil.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#74

Post by natrius »

dalton wrote: post #65
natrius wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I have digital "proof" that all of the other details in my post are true, in case FB PR attempts to discredit me. I don't have a recording to back up my claims of what was said in that phone call, so I chose not include those details.

That makes sense, but what remains in the letter isn't a significant grievance. Facebook using API access in an anti-competitive manner is.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#75

Post by yuvadam »

These are the types of stories that Silicon Valley generates that never cease to amuse me. What we have here is a typical example of how agents act in a competitive capitalist environment. In a system where profit is all that matters, I find it amusing to hear people bitch about 'ethics' and 'bad faith'.

We have long known Facebook's model, and the warning signs are everywhere. Facebook is a surveillance conglomerate, and it is granting you certain privileges - either as a so-called 'user' or as a developer - at its behest. Get in bed with that thing, and you just might get the cooties.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#76

Post by kevinalexbrown »

Why wait 1.5 months to make an open letter after a "June 13th, 2012 at 4:30pm" meeting? Did you try communicating directly with Facebook for 45 days, then let it go? What makes now the best time to incite public wrath against Facebook (I'm assuming that was the intent in resolving never to write another line of code for a "rotten to the core" company) in an open letter that was anything but conciliatory?

It sounds like Facebook used some hard-handed tactics, but I'm more curious as to your choice of timing.

Edit: not trying to be snarky, genuinely curious.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#77

Post by ajross »

cube13 wrote: post #64
ajross wrote: post #5

I don't get it. FB took an opportunity to make an acquisition offer (or at least open the dialog) and used some hard tactics (in this case the threat of direct competition) to improve their negotiating position. What's the problem here? This is just business. Facebook has every right to develop that app, just like Dalton Caldwell did. If it makes sense for them to do it themselves, then they will. If it makes sense f…

The problem is that it's a bad faith negotiation. Dalton was under the impression that he was going to be making a pitch for some higher level support from FB for his product. That does not automatically translate to wanting Facebook to hire him(which apparently was FB's intent). Facebook's execs effectively ambushed Dalton during the pitch with an aquihire offer. That's where this turns into a bad faith negotiation,…

That's an awfully liberal use of "bad faith". There wasn't any "negotiation" yet at all, it's just a meeting. Meetings go off-agenda all the time.

It seems to me just like you say, the extent of the harm to Dalton is that he "would not have had the meeting in the first place." So basically facebook wasted his afternoon by forcing him to listen to some competition threats and trying to hand him an offer letter.

Why should we care? I still don't see any ethics issues here at all. Hard negotiation isn't "bad faith".

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#78

Post by hollerith »

natrius wrote: post #58
dalton wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But they suggested they were wiling to compensate Dalton (by buying his company) which makes it decidedly less uncool.

P.S. did people here believe before this story broke that Facebook would never revoke API access when it is in their strategic interest to do so? What did Facebook say or do to give off that impression? Is this an industry norm I am not familiar with?

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#79

Post by unreal37 »

gruseom wrote: post #54
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.

I didn't view that as rude. Eye of the beholder I guess.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#80

Post by jenius »

hollerith wrote: post #71
waterlesscloud wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree with you, but I don't really buy the line that they were offering him millions of dollars for his company (I assume the aqui-hire would be in that range) as "a courtesy". What they'd really be paying for is avoiding exactly this situation they're in now, with him talking quite loudly about how they shut him down. Can't blame 'em for trying, but they need to suss out their target a bit better before thr…

So, you think Dalton refused a few million dollars (almost all acqui-hires would enrich a founder that much) so that he could complain publicly? Or is Dalton complaining publicly now in the hopes that Facebook will pay him more later than they would have if he'd just gone along with their proposal now? (Honestly curious: I do not have an opinion yet.)

I think Dalton is in it for a cause, and a belief. A belief that he has strengthened and reinforced in his mind for months. One that he is totally convinced is true. And right here he demonstrated the strength of that belief and of his cause. He could essentially have sold his soul to the devil and been rich and happy, or stuck with his belief, and he stuck with it.

Whether or not he is right, I'll give him a lot of respect for sticking with his guns and turning down something so outrageously tempting that hardly anyone else has turned down ever, just to chase his dreams. Props Dalton, and whether or not you get it, you deserve congrats and success for this.

Post reply on HN