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

151–160 of 272 posts

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#151

Post by Androsynth »

anthonyb wrote: post #143
Androsynth wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>"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.

Its not marketing. Dev Relations is a liaison to developers. They will champion your cause when it is mutually beneficial. But they don't work for you and are not obliged to stick up for you.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#152

Post by protomyth »

dasil003 wrote: post #105
sseveran wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Microsoft was the company involved everyone would be crying fowl about how they are a monopoly and this is the ultimate evil.

You mean if this was 10 years ago. I haven't heard anyone use Microsoft and monopoly in the same sentence for years.

The phrase has a bit of renewed meaning with the Windows 8 Hardware Certification and its affect on open source / free operating systems.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#153

Post by josephlord »

jarek wrote: post #144
josephlord wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't know, I wouldn't develop for it but they do have a large audience for the moment.

Edit: Added "for the moment".

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#154

Post by ryanmerket »

dalton wrote: post #110
airnomad wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wrote this post 40+ days after the meeting took place. That imply your timing is chosen for reasons you didn't disclose in the blog post. Hence you try to manipulate public while pursuing hidden agenda.

-> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4325762

Yea? So what? You just happen to post it right after your post about creating an open feed platform -- right as the PR momentum behind it started dying.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#155

Post by ryanmerket »

dalton wrote: post #70
ryanmerket wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Business is business. It's not the Dev Relations team that decides if an app on the platform is competitive. Just because they told him to it was 'cool' doesn't mean the execs think it's too competitive... Moral: Make sure you're talking to the right people.

Um, yeah pretty sure I was talking to the right people. Marc Andreessen is on my board.

What does that have to do with anything? In your letter to Mark you said, "I had been reassured by Facebook dev-relations employees" -- as an ex-Facebook Dev Relations employee I can assure you that you were not talking to the right people.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#156

Post by ilaksh »

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.

They spent a lot of time working on a product and then had the choice of either giving it to Facebook (selling) or writing off the entire effort.

From a business standpoint, that's just the way our society works.

The problem is the concept of business and how it controls all aspects of our lives and opposes technological progress.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#157

Post by ryanmerket »

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.

You should have used your Marc Andreessen connection to talk to the VP of Product instead of a Level 2 or 3 dev relations employee.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#158

Post by jakebellacera »

jedberg wrote: post #38
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.)

His time is presumably valuable to him. The cost was his time. Time he could have spent building his product.

Time, sure, but also I think that instead of the exec-level support he wanted he instead got the impending doom that either:

a) Facebook will knock on his door again at a later date asking to "acqu-hire".

b) Facebook will eventually release something in-house that will compete with his app (and most likely win due to Facebook's large momentum).

With the impending doom stuff aside, I still don't think that he should've expected getting exec-level support for his product walking in to the meeting. Facebook doesn't _need_ to give him anything. So yeah, he wasted his time, but that's _his_ problem, not Facebook's.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#159

Post by vibrunazo »

natrius wrote: post #74
dalton wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have digital "proof" that all of the other details in my post are true, in case FB PR attempts to discredit me. I don't have a recording to back up my claims of what was said in that phone call, so I chose not include those details.

That makes sense, but what remains in the letter isn't a significant grievance. Facebook using API access in an anti-competitive manner is.

I agree, the letter makes it sound there isn't anything serious going on. And the general skepticism here on HN seem valid. But if a FB exec informally threatened to revoke API access, then it's a whole different picture. This little detail deserves a bit more visibility.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#160

Post by fatbird »

csallen wrote: post #147
fatbird wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Generally, negotiations favour the prepared. By ambushing him, FB was hoping to trick him into negotiating unprepared. Dalton, by experience or judgement or both, recognized the ambush and dealt with it well. Someone else might start talking terms because they accept what the FB execs are saying (and thus be intimidated or fearful, or grateful for what seems like a nice guy move by FB).
Post reply on HN