Dear Mark Zuckerberg • Hacker News Board

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#251

Post by NLips » Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 8:26 AM UTC

dtsingletary wrote: post #227

marshray wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Other way round - When I'm talking to you, I can imply and you can infer.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#252

Post by iamwil » Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 8:44 AM UTC

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.

Don't feed the trolls. Ryan is trolling here.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#253

Post by petegrif » Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 8:53 AM UTC

notJim wrote: post #98

shock3naw wrote: post #15

Let's be clear, the only purpose of this post is to bring attention to App.net. Calling Facebook 'rotten-to-the-core' isn't a great way to capture the sympathy of its CEO.

I agree. This post comes across as very self-serving. He attacks Facebook for not being something they never claimed to be, and then offers a competing product that fulfills that need. Gross.

That's not quite true tho is it? FB does offer something it represents as being a platform. And bear in mind that he didn't just blindly build a product assuming that he could trust the platform. He solicited and continually received assurances that his product would be welcomed and valued on the platform. It was only after he had invested time and money building it that the rules changed. And it was that experience that resulted in his conviction of the need for a competing product.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#254

Post by arunoda » Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 8:56 AM UTC

I just felt that this is a marketing tac-tic by dalton to promote his new app.net

Just a random thought.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#255

Post by k-mcgrady » Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 10:19 AM UTC

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…

Bad faith? Why didn't he ask them to be more specific about why they wanted a meeting. It seems the problem was that he made an incorrect assumption.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#256

Post by dsushant » Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 11:09 AM UTC

jenius wrote: post #80

hollerith wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you think Dalton refused a few million dollars (almost all acqui-hires would enrich a founder that much) so that he could complain publicly? Or is Dalton complaining publicly now in the hopes that Facebook will pay him more later than they would have if he'd just gone along with their proposal now? (Honestly curious: I do not have an opinion yet.)

I think Dalton is in it for a cause, and a belief. A belief that he has strengthened and reinforced in his mind for months. One that he is totally convinced is true. And right here he demonstrated the strength of that belief and of his cause. He could essentially have sold his soul to the devil and been rich and happy, or stuck with his belief, and he stuck with it. Whether or not he is right, I'll give him a lot of…

You are on the right track. Couple points to round it off: 1. Dalton is questioning the dominant business model online & fired his first salvo via join.app.net. 2. As a vocal spokesman for a pro-user & pro-developer platform design, he's got to rally his forces. No wonder he is gunning for the big ones - the first indication was his response to Fred Wilson's post (http://daltoncaldwell.com/fred-wilson-is-wrong-about-free).

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#257

Post by nl » Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 11:55 AM UTC

alexqgb wrote: post #226

marshray wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

a) I disagree completely that there is any sort of implied promise not to compete with app developers. Even ignoring history on other platforms (where every single platform takes good ideas from apps and incorporates them) Facebook is too young a company for people to think they won't add something to their platform.

b) Even if there is an implicit promise, in this case Facebook acted very ethically in offering to buy him our when they decided to offer the same features. I can't imagine a better way to have handled that situation from Facebook's point of view.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#258

Post by tedsuo » Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 12:22 PM UTC

klawed wrote: post #178

csallen wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dalton sums up his issue with FB's tactics pretty succinctly right here: Your team doesn’t seem to understand that being “good negotiators” vs implying that you will destroy someone’s business built on your “open platform” are not the same thing. He then goes on to call out the root-cause of the problem as FB's understandable but unfortunate focus on ad-revenue. This puts them at odds with the developers who use the…

Actually, over the years both MS and Apple have heavily messed with developers in various ways.

Microsoft refined the practice to the point they coined a new term for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

As a recent example from Apple, they are now requiring sandboxing in the App store, which is heavily messing with a number of developers. But they are not sandboxing their own applications.

EDIT: this comment appears to be unpopular? what's the disagreement?

EDIT: Also, I should point out that apple didn't used to mess with developers, probably because they were primarily a hardware company, with low market share, so developers were key, and there was no competition. However, they have expanded and are now also a services company, so they have an incentive to mess with the environment in order to defend their services against competition. Microsoft, conversely, made quite a bit of money off of it's office products, so always had a reason to manipulate the environment.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#259

Post by taligent » Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 1:23 PM UTC

WiseWeasel wrote: post #11

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 seems like Dalton was under the impression that he was rather explicitly threatened with being denied access to the Facebook platform through a change in terms of service, in a way that is critical to his business. That's a strong-handed negotiation tactic for a supposed business infrastructure provider.

> supposed business infrastructure provider

Sorry but I don't think you know what those words mean.

People who do, know that the business of an infrastructure providers revolves around SLAs and contracts.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#260

Post by taligent » Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 1:27 PM UTC

zcvosdfdgj wrote: post #55

DevX101 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strong handed and entirely legitimate.

Sure.. it is legitimate. But Dalton has the right to say as loudly as he can what Facebook's negotiation tactics are. And other developers have the right to stop developing on the Facebook platform because of it. It may be legitimate, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences. How many developers would continue using Facebook's platform if they knew Facebook would kill their product on a whim?

> How many developers would continue using Facebook's platform if they knew Facebook would kill their product on a whim?

Those exact words have been uttered about both Microsoft and Apple in the past. Both have been wildly successful. At the end of the day developers will follow where the money is and absorb the risk.