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

141–150 of 272 posts

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#141

Post by grecy »

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,…

> The problem is that it's a bad faith negotiation.

so "multi-billon dollar company uses hard-line negotiation tactics to increase own profit" is a headline now?

Wow.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#142

Post by samstave »

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…

Should have played hardball back and demanded only being acquired for cash. Gotten as much as possible then left as quickly as possible.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#143

Post by anthonyb »

Androsynth wrote: post #121
anthonyb wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

It's a facet of marketing, sure - but you're marketing your platform/API/library/company to developers, not the general public. It doesn't really matter whether they're currently using your system, since they might be in the near future.

The implication is that by having a large ecosystem with lots of developers, the company will benefit, but in this case, FB appears to have shot themselves in the foot.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#144

Post by jarek »

josephlord wrote: post #139
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…

Facebook is still attractive to developers?

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#145

Post by robryan »

ljd wrote: post #59
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…

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…

A communications problem though is still a problem for the business. You don't get a free pass just because you are big.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#146

Post by jarek »

unreal37 wrote: post #87

We are moving into an era of the walled garden. Apple has it's iTunes Store and Mac Store, Microsoft will have a Windows store when Windows 8 launches, FB has its platform and apps that run on its platform, Twitter, on and on... All companies are looking to build walls and moats around their "platforms" because walls mean profits. Now you need to blessing of the landlord, and not be competing against them in any way.

Web 3.0 bubble expected around 2019 once the walled gardens fail yet again

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#147

Post by csallen »

fatbird wrote: post #130
notJim wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I don't understand how they gained an advantage through that meeting. It seems that, meeting or not, they already had the advantage by controlling the platform.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#148

Post by jarek »

dave1619 wrote: post #62
AznHisoka wrote: post #27

The purpose of a business is to make money for their shareholders. Repeat 10 times until this becomes obvious.

This isn't necessarily true. Jony Ive on Apple, "Our goal absolutely at Apple is not to make money. This may sound a little flippant, but it’s the truth. Our goal and what gets us excited is to try to make great products. We trust that if we are successful people will like them, and if we are operationally competent we will make revenue, but we are very clear about our goal."

Of course Ive is going to say that. He's a designer. You think Oppenheimer gets on investor calls and says "Sorry guys, we don't actually care about your money, we're just here to make what we think are great products" and they believe him?

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#149

Post by smber1 »

"I believe that future social platforms will behave more like infrastructure, and less like media companies."

Great, line. Exactly what I was thinking as I was reading the letter. Completely necessary to to create an eco-system that developers/consumers will want to use. Monetizing the eco-system can come later, just as it did with Google search.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#150

Post by gruseom »

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.

Perhaps it would be helpful to unpack this.

"You" did not refer to a generation, but to a person, so the language was personally insulting. The bar for personal insult is much higher and this comment doesn't pass it. First, the OP did nothing to deserve it, so it was out of place. Second, delete the insulting language and the comment not only doesn't lose information, its point (defending Facebook) becomes clearer. There was no need for arbitrary sticks in the eye. That's the meaning of "gratuitously rude".

Post reply on HN