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

111–120 of 272 posts

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#111

Post by azakai »

cube13 wrote: post #94
ajross wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Is it that clear? We weren't there.

Perhaps the Facebook executives listened to a presentation about his product for an hour, and realized during that time that the presented product was basically identical to their own intended product, so the last part of the meeting ended up revolving around "hey, looks we might compete with you - or, we might hire you if that interests you".

Maybe it didn't go like that. Maybe they stopped him after 1 slide and told him "your app competes with us. Let us buy you, or die."

Huge range in between those two. You and I (unless you are one of the people that was in that meeting) can't know where things fell.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#112

Post by iamwil »

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.

Just because it's legitimate doesn't mean it's not asshole-ish.

I could invite you over to my house for dinner, and then ask you to pay for the raw materials after you've eaten. Legitimate, but still asshole-ish.

Legitimate is a low-bar.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#113

Post by reinhardt »

hollerith wrote: post #78
natrius wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Starting a company on top of FB's platform without the confidence that your API access is safe from FB's "strategic interests" is not business, it's russian roulette.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#114

Post by loceng »

dalton wrote: post #101
notJim wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

1) I am unhappy that I wasted my time and energy building on a platform that encouraged me to do so, and within the matter of months changed their mind. This is the same thing that makes me unhappy with what Twitter is doing to their ecosystem: http://daltoncaldwell.com/what-twitter-could-have-been 2) Once Mark Zuckerberg gave personal blessing, he shouldn't have changed his mind. I have an interesting email thread a…

It's a game to them. Don't initiate games with children if you don't want to be involved where childish things can be done. Children can do nasty things. They don't understand or possibly don't care of the consequences. Their goal is to create and maintain a controlled ecosystem. They know legally where they stand and they have billions of dollars now to drag out any lawsuit, if anyone decides to waste their energy on such a thing. I am sure they feel invincible, and I can understand how that could develop with what they have power of / are in control of.

I recently had an issue with a local group of 'investors' / tech people, and after learning more details I was clearly mislead into presenting to them.. What they were looking to invest in was absolutely not a match to what I am doing. Sure, it was under confidential and private settings, though I know I taught them a lot and exposed a lot I rather would not have - simply because I don't think these people have good intentions or are honest people - and I don't want to support that as a human being, because I don't think that's good for society.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#115

Post by larrys »

Androsynth wrote: post #50
jedberg wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OP is equating "“platform developer relations” " with "ombudsmen" apparently.

Unfortunately this is a business. Not a university, non-profit or a government entity.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#116

Post by anthonyb »

Androsynth wrote: post #50
jedberg wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Developer relations" normally implies a role intended to encourage developers to use your platform. If they're just going to parrot the company line, then there's not much point in them existing, is there?

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#117

Post by ktizo »

16s wrote: post #103
unreal37 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nor did I. He was likely trying to describe the self-entitlement of the younger generation. Which I totally agree with. You/we are not entitled to anything and you/we are not special snowflakes. I think that's all he meant to convey.

Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.

And you try and tell the young people of today that, they won't believe you.

http://www.phespirit.info/montypython/four_yorkshiremen.htm

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#118

Post by lubujackson »

Don't build a house on a river and then blame the water.

There has never been a company-controlled ecosystem that has EVER thrived for long without the company swooping in to get that easy money.

In fact, now that Facebook is public, its their fiduciary duty to do just that. They could get sued if they DIDN'T try to cheaply build out their own versions of successful products.

The only surprise is that anyone is surprised by this, or thinks that Facebook has "lost their way", or had any other intentions when they started their platform. This is standard business practice - make a little ecosystem, let people futz around in it for a while. If it fails, shut it down; if it succeeds, go pick the low-hanging fruit.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#119

Post by larrys »

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…

"the firm seems to be acting 100% reasonably."

And, as a for profit business, they don't even have to hit anywhere near 100%. They just have to do well enough in how they operate not to loose business or somehow jeopardize what they have. It's really that simple.

This is a story that prior to the Internet nobody would ever hear about. No journalist would tell this story except in a magazine piece maybe that had an agenda and wanted to paint a picture.

This tale goes nowhere near even scratching the surface of how business operates. Spying. Payoffs. "Cut off their air supply" (Microsoft/Netscape)

Here's a story from when I started in business years ago. I called a friend of my fathers for a reference on someone who had worked with him in the past. He said "hmm, Bob left his job? Hmm." and then gave me a nice reference on him. Before I knew it he had hired Bob and basically told him "he's a startup you are wasting your time". I lost out on hiring Bob. This was a friend of the family. That may or may not be how any one of us would operate but in business as you say you can't be "a precious snow flake".

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#120

Post by astrodust »

unreal37 wrote: post #79
gruseom wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Depends on how used to sarcasm and being joshed you are.
Post reply on HN