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

131–140 of 272 posts

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#131

Post by snowwrestler »

alttab wrote: post #28
marcusf wrote: post #12

One thing I don't get, and I've started to feel really stupid for it, is this whole Social as Infrastructure meme that has started going around and that the author touches on. I'd love for someone to explain to me exactly what it would entail, why any company would move to become a commodity, and where the user value would be? I'm not saying there aren't any really good answers to these questions, I'm just too thick…

Imagine a world where everyone used a protocol to communicate. Lets call that protocol "English". Now, imagine "English" is owned by one company, who changes "English" and compromises your conversations consistently, and then tries to monetize your conversations in increasingly subtle and annoying ways. Now in reality no one owns English. Its an open form of communication that anyone can use, anywhere. You can even c…

The users of Facebook are people, and as far as I know, Facebook does not change or compromise the conversations among people. I've never seen a status, comment, photo, friend request, etc. changed by Facebook.

Businesses who build on the Facebook platform are not users. They are attempting to extract value from the users--just like Facebook itself is. It is not surprising that they sometimes find themselves competing with Facebook.

The sort of open "infrastructure" Dalton advocates for would be great for platform businesses...of course they would love to have all the advantages of a platform (aggregated audience, aggregated data, well-defined API, etc.), without the downsides (changes to the API, competition from the platform owner).

But it doesn't really matter that much to users. I can easily take my personal social graph with me...I know who my friends and family are, and I can find them again on whatever new service seems better than Facebook. After all, Facebook did it to MySpace--and without access to MySpace's social graph.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#133

Post by mbesto »

> As I understood at the time, the purpose of the meeting was for me to present/demonstrate a new iOS app & service I have been building on the Facebook Platform. Previously, I had been reassured by Facebook dev-relations employees that the service I was building was an interesting/ valuable use of Open Graph & Facebook Platform.

What evidence does the author have to support this? Is there communication from such VPs saying "We would like you to come in to meet us to measure the value of your service"?

> I was hoping the outcome of this meeting would be executive-level support for my impending product launch.

Again, who set the authors expectations here? And what exactly does "executive-level" support mean? Would they feature the app, simply because it was valuable for them?

Note - Expecation setting is one of the hardest things to do in business. And can also be used for negotiation tactics.

I'm sorry, but all I read from this is just (another) example of how a company with different corporate interests (read-> shareholder value) no longer puts time into something that doesn't drive bottom line. Is it a great example of what an IPO does to a company's interest? Absolutely. But I don't necessarily feel bad for the author nor do I feel like any unjust has been done. He's proved his point, seems extremely smart and will move on to the next cool and interesting project.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#134

Post by gruseom »

astrodust wrote: post #120
unreal37 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Joshing implies a pre-existing relationship. Walking up to a stranger on the street and shoving him is not horseplay.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#136

Post by _delirium »

larrys wrote: post #115
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.

OP is equating "“platform developer relations” " with "ombudsmen" apparently. Unfortunately this is a business. Not a university, non-profit or a government entity.

It's not that uncommon for for-profit businesses to have someone in an ombudsman role, responsible for advocating on behalf of the (official) customer. It's most widespread in news companies, where most newspapers, news magazines, and TV stations have a role specifically designated to be the readers'/viewers' advocate. Of course, it's ultimately self-interested, but it's the kind of self-interest that involves convincing your customers that your organizational structure is taking them seriously.

As an example from tech, I believe HN's 'jf' used to be a startup-relations person for Microsoft, whose job really did involve trying to advocate for their needs within Microsoft, reporting out of the product groups' normal management hierarchy to make sure he was giving them third-party input.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#137

Post by grecy »

ryguytilidie wrote: post #85
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…

It is absolutely stunning to me how badly people miss the point on here. You really wouldn't be annoyed if I scheduled a meeting with you, decided to make the meeting about something else and then basically acted like I was being a good guy when it was clear I was trying to milk as much as possible out of the deal in a meeting I lied about the purpose of while I was wasting your time? Would you then want some angry a…

> You really wouldn't be annoyed.....

You're absolutely right, I would. The OP has a point.

But let's be honest here, we're talking about a multi billion dollar company with thousands of employees, now traded on the stock market, so presumably aggressively trying to spin a profit.

Expecting said company to be "nice" is naive at best.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#138

Post by natrius »

natep wrote: post #126
natrius wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

That's not what this letter is about. Writing an open letter because someone wasted your time would seem a bit silly to me. This is about Facebook threatening to revoke API access, which the letter didn't mention, but his comments here have.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#139

Post by josephlord »

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…

It is bullying tactics. We are big and will crush you unless you give us what we want. It's legal (probably) but isn't a classy move and there are long term costs.

It makes FB less attractive to developers (unless they are trying to get acqui-hired). Also get a reputation as a bully rather than a good fun company may make it harder to attract good staff (or they may charge more if they are not being paid in cool).

It's also the tactic of the mafia and of Microsoft (1990s when people were still scared of them). It would be a shame if anything happened to your company...

Basically it is the big bully move not the cool kid everybody wants to be on his team move.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#140

Post by zem »

First Apple, then Twitter, and now Facebook ... the landscape right now seems positively littered with people who have bet the farm on a sharecropping strategy, gotten burnt and are now complaining about the landlord rather than learning the underlying lesson.
Post reply on HN