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

181–190 of 272 posts

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#181

Post by CoffeeDregs »

jedberg wrote: post #20
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…

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…

> I think his issue was that the meeting was in bad faith.

Agreed, but an honest question [and I'm no fan of FB, but...]: how could FB have requested a meeting without acting in bad faith and without being dumb? Seems dumb for FB to say to Dalton: hey, we're about to launch a competitive product and, since you're going to be squashed, we wanted you to come in to talk about an aqui-hire. Now Dalton has inside-ish info on FB (which he will have post meeting anyways) and can run around telling FB's competitors that FB is bidding for his company.

I suppose one of the VPs could have pinged Dalton about meeting for coffee, but then, assuming the informal meeting goes well, Dalton still has to meet all the other VPs, Dirs. Plus FB has a lot of these conversations with companies (I've been in 3 separate ones with 2 companies), so this is kind of the process.

I don't particularly see a better way for FB to handle the situation. Were I Dalton, I would have given myself some cool-down-room and, rather than blowing off the discussion, would have engaged the folks in a discussion and then told everyone that I'd get back to them first thing in the morning. Then I would have gone for a long run and let my thoughts settle. Or at last that's what I did when this happened to me 4 years ago.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#182

Post by syassami »

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.

I agree 100% on the first point, I feel like open letters on HN are mostly a pity-party due to someones bad experience with a/b company.

Also other developers need to realize that Facebooks moves in this meeting are business as usual.

Put yourselves in their shoes and realize what their motives are as a company.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#183

Post by raffi »

ivankirigin wrote: post #125
unreal37 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed. I feel like I see this in nearly every discussion now.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#184

Post by hxf148 »

I've dealt with people at App.net during my own development projects (Infostripe) and they seem one of the few who were good at communicating back. They even featured IS at one point.

Which might go to explain how they are apparently excellent at putting themselves in the news as an heir to Twitter and a major Facebook competitor. Yet aren't actually either of those things. At least so far.. fascinating.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#185

Post by 385668 »

CoffeeDregs wrote: post #181
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…

> I think his issue was that the meeting was in bad faith. Agreed, but an honest question [and I'm no fan of FB, but...]: how could FB have requested a meeting without acting in bad faith and without being dumb? Seems dumb for FB to say to Dalton: hey, we're about to launch a competitive product and, since you're going to be squashed, we wanted you to come in to talk about an aqui-hire. Now Dalton has inside-ish info…

They can tell him that they're interested in an aqui-hire before hand. That's how they can act in good faith. If he shows, he gets the info they gave him at the meeting anyway. If he doesn't, they crush him, which they plan to do now, after the meeting they had in bad faith.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#186

Post by unimpressive »

jlgreco wrote: post #164
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All's fair in business is a bullshit perspective. It's the self justification of those who want to engage in behavior they know is sociopathic. Deception is occasionally a necessary tactic, but it would be insane to try to argue that it is a behavior that creates economic value. It should not be the expected default behavior, and in fact, is not. Which is why there are both civil and criminal penalties for fraud. Dec…

I've been seeing comments like the one you have responded to more and more here. Commenters seemingly confusing legality with ethics and politeness, or perhaps mistakenly thinking that the later two do not exist. If we swapped out companies with strangers and HN with facebook, would these people be responding to their friends posting venting comments about whistlers on the bus to work with "It's a free country, they…

> Why this is the case I can only guess.

Because in contemporary North American culture the expectation for a company is basically sociopathic behavior within the law. But the expectation for an individual person is ethically aware and polite behavior in the face of public scrutiny.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#187

Post by ryguytilidie »

grecy wrote: post #137
ryguytilidie wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So what is wrong with documenting them not being nice? I have no issue seeing this. I'm an ex-fb employee myself and I saw behavior like this constantly. I'm just amazed at how angry it seems to make people that this guy reacted angrily to a situation where most others would have done the exact same.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#188

Post by gruseom »

nl wrote: post #171
gruseom wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. T…

I think writing a rude[1] letter to a public figure and posting it on your blog does change the rules somewhat. I do think that the author's post came off as somewhat precious. Saying Not compete with you, because you're a precious snow flake? was less polite than perhaps is ideal, but OTOH the author's post was also less-than-polite. [1] "I didn’t want to believe your company would stoop this low. My mistake.", "rot…

You make a reasonable case. Still, context matters. It seems to me the OP was being emotional while the commenter was being snide, and the latter is more destructive.

Far be it from me on the day after Gore Vidal died to say that snideness is always a bad thing, but the community here is fragile and simply can't withstand the free flow of vitriol.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#190

Post by csmeder »

A lot of people seem to be missing Dalton's point. Dalton isn't complaining Mark's behavior is bad (in the short term). He knows why Mark did what he did, it makes sense if you are thinking short term. It makes sense if you think Facebook is worth 110 Billion.

This isn't a letter so much to convince Mark that he is heading down the wrong path. I think Dalton is convinced FB as an organization has made too many promises. It's too late for FB too change direction. They are headed for and iceberg at 110 billion dollar speed and can't course correct in time.

Rather this is a letter to us. Dalton is pointing out the prediction that Facebook won't be around in 10 years. So don't build your apps on it. If you build your apps using Facebook you will be at its mercy. And as Facebook starts to die, you will feel the pain it inflicts on its closest "partners" as it scrambles to squeeze blood from turnips. It will use every nasty trick in the book to keep a monopoly on its market and squeeze every last drop of money and value (your personal info) it can from users.

Dalton has seen what people who run a company, with a dying business model, are capable of before. The Record/Music companies... He knows what a company, that is seeing its monopoly slip through its fingers, is willing to do to keep that monopoly just a little longer.

Intimidation and dishonest negotiation tactics are just the start. Will we soon see Facebook suing users? Lobbying congress for SOPA like laws to protect its monopoly? Remember GoDaddy was a main supporter of SOPA. It saw SOPA as a way to keep its URL retailing monopoly.

Dalton is warning you. Dalton cares about you. He has given up on saving Mark. Mark wants to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Dalton wants to raise the goose that lays the silver egg. And share those eggs with us. Well, that's my interpretation of this open letter to Mark. I could be wrong, I often am.

Post reply on HN