Dear Mark Zuckerberg • Hacker News Board

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#121

Post by Androsynth » Wed, Aug 01, 2012, 10:13 PM UTC

anthonyb wrote: post #116

Androsynth wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>>"Developer relations" normally implies a role intended to encourage developers to use your platform.

no, thats marketing.

Dev relations works with you once you are already using the platform. Don't get their intentions confused. They may be on your side with bug fixes and feature requests, but if you try to do something that goes against their company, why the hell would they be on your side?

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#122

Post by Aaronontheweb » Wed, Aug 01, 2012, 10:18 PM UTC

If Facebook's plan B was to lock out Dalton using a TOS change, then it seems awfully stupid to have held this meeting in the first place.

I get the talent acquisition as a defensive play to keep a potential threat out of the market, but if Dalton's story is true then Facebook's execution around this entire engagement seems stupid and ham-fisted through and through.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#123

Post by natep » Wed, Aug 01, 2012, 10:21 PM UTC

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.

No, he didn't want to be acquired, and he didn't want to go to an aggressive acquisition negotiation meeting, since there would be no terms he would accept. He only went to the meeting because he thought it was a demo.

Edit: actually, we're both right, according to the alleged contents of a phone call http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4325586

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#124

Post by natep » Wed, Aug 01, 2012, 10:23 PM UTC

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…

He's upset that what he thought was a demo meeting was actually their way of luring him into an acquisition meeting. And he doesn't seem to have a problem with FB having their own app store, he's going to compete with them regardless.

Actually, he phrases it better here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4325566

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#125

Post by ivankirigin » Wed, Aug 01, 2012, 10:24 PM UTC

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.

Nope, unambiguously rude. This kind of negativity is why this community is worse than it used to be.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#126

Post by natep » Wed, Aug 01, 2012, 10:25 PM UTC

natrius wrote: post #56

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 exp…

Typically, when someone knows they will not accept any acquisition offers, they do not waste their time by going to meetings whose sole purpose is to discuss an acquisition. FB misled him into thinking it was a demo meeting.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#127

Post by Moseman23 » Wed, Aug 01, 2012, 10:28 PM UTC

Mega-meh. I find this "open" letter to be as totally self-serving as "Open" Graph will ever be. You got a meeting with a lot of FB poo-bahs. Whatever you thought it was going to be about, if you were unprepared for the crushing embrace of the Big Face, it's on you. Of course they want to intimidate you into an "aqui-hire." It's called hardball.

Their "platform" is what it is. A highly flawed way to instantly reach astounding numbers of people for potentially deep or shallow exchanges of questionable value. Many your age have made millions for a half-year's work on this "joke" platform, as you call it. This is known, and blaming their tanking stock price for their behavior seems like a cheap shot at execs you don't even name.

I would advise you to get ready in case Apple calls. Unlike FB, they won't apologize after they gutpunch you.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#128

Post by natep » Wed, Aug 01, 2012, 10:32 PM UTC

quartus wrote: post #37

sdqali wrote: post #2

Could you care to elaborate on what the app/service you were demoing to FB?

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.

And how is it related to join.app.net? I'm very confused that these two different things have the same name.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#129

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 01, 2012, 10:33 PM UTC

dalton wrote: post #84

kevinalexbrown wrote: post #76

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 li…

I have been waiting because I have been afraid. I have been blogging extensively about platform-risk issues for the past month, but have never come out and said this part: http://daltoncaldwell.com/

[deleted]

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#130

Post by fatbird » Wed, Aug 01, 2012, 10:34 PM UTC

notJim wrote: post #31

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…

> 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.)

It was an ambush that was designed to give FB an advantage in negotiating with him. It was hardball tactics, carried out in bad faith. Why should Dalton feel neutral about being on the receiving end of that?