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

221–230 of 272 posts

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#221

Post by CoffeeDregs »

rhizome wrote: post #216
freehunter wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What else would the meeting be for? He's incredibly naive if he honestly thought that the meeting was going to be them congratulating him for making a good product and nothing more. I was hoping the outcome of this meeting would be executive-level support for my impending product launch. What executive-level support would they give him except to buy him/his product? The bad faith here is going into this meeting with…

It's not OK to take advantage of a naive person. They could simply have explained their position in a way more appropriate for the kind of meeting they had portrayed. If Facebook wanted an acqui-hire from this meeting here, they sold it awfully poorly. They don't have to care, of course, they'll likely just look elsewhere and scoop up 5 people to do the same thing, but from a business perspective this meeting would h…

>It's not OK to take advantage of a naive person.

Let's not insult Dalton. Let's assume Dalton is a smart guy and not a naive guy, but that he's in an unfamiliar situation and that THIS SHIT IS HARD. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and judge. It's quite another thing to figure out what to do when: you're a VP at FB who wants to talk with Dalton about an aqui-hire (seriously, how do you do this?); and when you're Dalton and you receive an email from said VP asking for an audience [what kind of audience?!?! who knows.].

>They could simply have explained their position in a way more >appropriate for the kind of meeting they had portrayed.

My original comment suggested that they couldn't. You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary (in fact, you've suggested my "dumb" route without saying why it's not dumb). Let's assume everyone is a decent person [AFAICT this is a reasonable assumption]: this is not a soap opera; this is trying to figure out how to have a tense conversation with someone you respect.

>Heck, that they kind of throw offers around like this is >kind of a lesson for future targets simply to triple their ask. >"Sure, $50MM all cash." Screw those jerks.

This is a very dangerous comment. Of course, there are anecdotes to the contrary, but, by and large, few think the way you suggest they do and I'd warn fellow readers to take this as an anti-pattern. Those playing the game who get to the aqui-hire level are very high performers, not sell-outs. To suggest that the aqui-hirers are fools from whom to part money or that aqui-hires are sell-outs is to demonstrate extreme naivete. Google's top line really can benefit by adding high performance teams and Google is willing to pay for it. This is rational. At the same time, an acquired CEO, such as Kevin Systrom, can be happy that his biggest, in fact existential, competitor is now his partner. This, too, is rational.

Above all, this stuff is both hard and subjective. Let's look at how to use it to be more effective, rather than how to tabloid-ize it.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#222

Post by onedev »

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…

Can't tell if this is a poem or not...

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#223

Post by marshray »

nl wrote: post #169
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. He was under the impression that he would be demoing his technology so it could get visibility within Facebook, not walking into a negotiation. While it is true that he said the thought he would be demoing, I don't think the discussion about an acquisitions was a problem in itself: I said that if Facebook wanted to have a serious conversation about acquiring my…

I think his problem was that Facebook were negotiating from a position of strength (and were honest about that), and he didn't like it.

It really is odd how ecosystem developers always seem to act so shocked when they realize that the prime developer (the one who wrote the API agreement) turns out to hold all the power and control.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#224

Post by kkotak »

Seriously? Are you so delusional? So, what's bothering this guy is that Facebook wants to pay him to buy what he's built? AND he can walk away from it? Spending an hour of his life in that meeting? That really gives raises the bubble to a new level. The one that this guy and a lot of the valley lives in.

_K

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#225

Post by CoffeeDregs »

385668 wrote: post #185
CoffeeDregs wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>They can tell him that they're interested in an aqui-hire before hand.

I thought that I covered this in my comment under the "dumb" option. I don't mean to be disparaging, but I'm not sure how else to take the suggestion, so switching to a not-great analogy:

Your suggestion is sorta like saying that people should walk into a car dealership and say "I want to buy this car. No, not that one. THIS car." It's a classic negotiating fail. If you know they're going to buy the car/company, you're going to milk them.

Of course, FB may think that THIS car/startup is absolutely perfect to acquire, but it's unrealistic to expect them to reveal that bit of info.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#226

Post by alexqgb »

marshray wrote: post #223
nl wrote: post #169

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. While it is true that he said the thought he would be demoing, I don't think the discussion about an acquisitions was a problem in itself: I said that if Facebook wanted to have a serious conversation about acquiring my…

I think his problem was that Facebook were negotiating from a position of strength (and were honest about that), and he didn't like it. It really is odd how ecosystem developers always seem to act so shocked when they realize that the prime developer (the one who wrote the API agreement) turns out to hold all the power and control.

Actually, the real issue is that they're breaking their implicit promise to refrain from competing against the outside developers they rely on to improve their "open" ecosystem.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#227

Post by dtsingletary »

marshray wrote: post #223
nl wrote: post #169

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. While it is true that he said the thought he would be demoing, I don't think the discussion about an acquisitions was a problem in itself: I said that if Facebook wanted to have a serious conversation about acquiring my…

I think his problem was that Facebook were negotiating from a position of strength (and were honest about that), and he didn't like it. It really is odd how ecosystem developers always seem to act so shocked when they realize that the prime developer (the one who wrote the API agreement) turns out to hold all the power and control.

Where exactly is this 'implicit promise'? It's implied. Implication is in the eye of the reader/understander, not the stater/provider.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#229

Post by jlgreco »

unimpressive wrote: post #186
jlgreco wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was thinking about this earlier, and it occurred to me that "expect" has two meanings in a way.

I expect companies to not act ethically. In other words, I think of myself as a realist and this just seems to be how companies are going to act.

On the other hand, I expect them to act ethically. Meaning ethical behaviour is the behaviour that I demand from them.

Like when a parent says to their teenage kid who refuses to study for an exam, "Well I expect you to get an A". They don't expect that, but they do expect that of them.

Maybe these two sorts of "expect" get shorted out when corporations enter the picture? On the other hand, perhaps the expectation of a corporation in both senses really is sociopathic behaviour. All that "duty to the shareholders" crap...

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#230

Post by petegrif »

Having a bunch of software is one thing.

Representing yourself as a platform is something very different.

A platform a representation that you are providing a set of services on which others can safely build. It is a form of contract. And this representation has to be trusted because who in their right minds would otherwise invest on a 'platform' that turns out to be a flag of convenience? If a company loses this trust they ultimately lose the right to be called a platform. They lose developers and are ultimately left with a bunch of unused APIs.

Incidents like these described by DC are extremely important and should be publicly voiced because they bear directly upon the decision making of others who may be in the process of weighing their options. Should they or shouldn't they trust this alleged 'platform.' It is a huge strategic decision that can make or break a company. So people like DC who are prepare to go public with his experience are doing us all a favor because they are providing more perfect information, without which the market cannot operate accurately.

People can choose to criticize this or that dimension of the way various people played their parts, but that really isn't the key point, is it? Surely the key point is, can you trust the 'platformness' of FB? Did they imply one thing - that he was building a valuable product that they would be supporting - THEN choose to compete and wipe him out? That's the key point. The manners, the exact detail of how the wipeout was conducted aren't the point. If the story is accurate it is surely the breach of faith the is important. Some may argue that to expect otherwise is naive. But without some such faith there is no platform. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Post reply on HN