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

91–100 of 272 posts

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#91

Post by mikegreenspan »

ryanmerket wrote: post #68
quartus wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The service we were building (I work at app.net) was a social app discovery service. It integrated with Facebook to show you what apps your friends were using and downloading, and display stories about the apps you use.

So you were extending Facebook's core features and you didn't expect Facebook to think that was being too competitive? I'm pretty sure I've seen this somewhere else... at least a dozen times.

Aren't you always extending Facebook's core features when building with their API? The point of leveraging Facebook platform is to build amazing products that Facebook doesn't have the time or resources to create (see zuck's statement on the importance of Facebook platform during the earnings call).

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#92

Post by waterlesscloud »

veyron wrote: post #67
notJim wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes but there's a difference between a well-intentioned meeting that didn't pan out and a mal-intentioned meeting, and it would seem that it was the latter according to the OP

I recently had a meeting where our side came out of it literally saying "WTF was that?". We'd expected it to be about how a partnership would progress and it was more the other side questioning us about why there should be a partnership at all.

In retrospect, our contact with the other side that had set up the meeting hadn't properly communicated to us what the meeting would be about, and presumably had not communicated much with his side about what they were looking for at this stage.

Their side was basically dysfunctional, with each person on their team having a different agenda.

I wouldn't say that meeting was mal-intentioned, just that their company was really screwed up.

Facebook may be in a similar stage at certain levels.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#93

Post by pfraze »

smashing wrote: post #30
JPKab wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Except that it won't, i.e. Microsoft in the 90's and Apple on the iOS/Mac platform. Businesses will follow the markets which have the greatest opportunity to turn over profit. In fact Microsoft used to call their relationship an "ecosystem" because like a predator they would gobble up or crush the smaller players.

Yeah, but that's why linux caught on.

That said, the real difference is that Microsoft's platform was better. It offered more power for less risk.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#94

Post by cube13 »

ajross wrote: post #77
cube13 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sh…

>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.

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

You're absolutely correct that hard negotiation tactics are not bad faith. However, like you point out, there wasn't supposed to be any negotiation about an offer in the first place.

There was no negotiation. In fact, one party(Dalton) did not come to negotiate. The other party clearly did.

This was not just a meeting going off agenda. This was a calculated strategy to hire Dalton, and that's why this is a bad faith negotiation. Dalton did not walk into it prepared to negotiate employment, nor was he pitching for his product to be acquired by Facebook. But Facebook was clearly interested in it.

To be clear, the bad faith negotiation is really on Dalton's part, because he was forced into the negotiations. The fault lies with Facebook, though.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#95

Post by joeblau »

I wonder if this style of negotiation tactic motivated companies like Spool, Face.com, Karama, Glancee, and Lightbox to join? It seems like Dalton's strong entrepreneurial spirit (or hard hardheadedness--however you see it) kept him from falling into that category.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#96

Post by notJim »

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…

Hey dalton, I've posted my thoughts in this thread, and I'm also considering writing a blog article about this, but I have one meta thing to share with you.

This letter doesn't make two things clear to me: 1) what exactly it is you're upset about and 2) what you think should have happened. Because of this, people in this thread are making a lot of assumptions which are uncharitable and inaccurate, and you come across as looking more naive than I suspect you actually are.

Clarifying in the thread is good, but it's damage control. I'm not sure if you wrote the letter when you were angry, or if it was originally written to people with more context, but I just wanted to share a part of why I think this thread is going the way it is.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#97

Post by quartus »

ryanmerket wrote: post #68
quartus wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The service we were building (I work at app.net) was a social app discovery service. It integrated with Facebook to show you what apps your friends were using and downloading, and display stories about the apps you use.

So you were extending Facebook's core features and you didn't expect Facebook to think that was being too competitive? I'm pretty sure I've seen this somewhere else... at least a dozen times.

We used Facebook's APIs and Open Graph in our app discovery service. It was built and released before Facebook's App Center was announced, and Facebook dev-relations employees had previously been supportive of our endeavor.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#98

Post by notJim »

shock3naw wrote: post #15

Let's be clear, the only purpose of this post is to bring attention to App.net. Calling Facebook 'rotten-to-the-core' isn't a great way to capture the sympathy of its CEO.

I agree. This post comes across as very self-serving. He attacks Facebook for not being something they never claimed to be, and then offers a competing product that fulfills that need. Gross.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#99

Post by shiven »

dalton wrote: post #61
ljd wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 oversi…

You are right, it could be a communications problem. There are a few details I left out of this post that would suggest it probably isn't. I would never have spent months and capital building this without constant support and encouragement from Facebook.

Thanks for the details and clarifying the stuff going on "behind the scene".

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#100

Post by mtrn »

surferbayarea wrote: post #83

The issue is that facebook and twitter have derailed from their earlier stated mission of connecting people and facilitating communication. Their goal as public businesses is making money from advertising, anything else is just feeding into that. This kind of misalignment of goals results in end users experience suffering. A thing like a social network is part of the fundamental fabric of the internet As a result the…

I too think it will happen. This post illustrates that

a) the web is not really a welcoming place for large walled gardens,

b) if you want to build on someone else's infrastructure, pay them, so you become their customer, so their goal is to make your life easier.

Post reply on HN