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

231–240 of 272 posts

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#231

Post by ryanmerket »

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…

Give me a break. He didn't have this idea back in June. It was a result of his twitter and Facebook platform experiences.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#232

Post by petegrif »

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…

Seems to me that you are missing the key point.

If FB did not declare itself a platform...if it had not encouraged others to build on its platform...if it had not encouraged DC to build his product on this platform...then you would be right. But if you are a platform, if you do encourage others to build on your platform (which is the whole point) and if you encourage a company to continue developing a product then it is not right. It may be realpolitik. It may be that having done all those things the platform company realizes that something it has encouraged is more strategic than it had realized, that it doesn't want a third party owning that product and it has to reel back its promises (which is what is sounds like here) but that is (a) a crippling result for the poor developer who took you at your word, and (b) and blow to your credibility as a platform. One incident like this won't kill you. Two won't. But at some point people just won't develop on your platform because there's no trust. ALL successful platforms have to walk this tightrope. Some do it better than others.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#233

Post by petegrif »

unreal37 wrote: post #79
gruseom wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you please stop being gratuitously rude? Not compete with you, because you're a precious snow flake and Acquire you and treat you like a prima donna , etc. add nothing other than nastiness to Not compete with you and Acquire you , etc.

I didn't view that as rude. Eye of the beholder I guess.

No. It's just rude.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#234

Post by petegrif »

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.

The point is not what he may have been 'trying' to describe. Rudeness is not necessarily about substance. It is about expression. He could have expressed himself in many ways. He chose to do so in terminology that was patronizing and rude. I wouldn't do him the disservice of thinking he didn't know what he was saying or the implications of how he chose to say it.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#236

Post by petegrif »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #39
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…

He's pissed because the conversation went from "Hey, this is great for both of us, what can we do to help you build it?" to "Join us or die". If Facebook went from expressions of support for the project to hostility, I think anyone would feel they'd acted in bad faith. It's not illegal, and it's a fair point that developers should anticipate Facebook's conflicting interests. But it's also fair to publicly shame sleaz…

Exactly. It is a breach of faith that goes to the heart of what a platform is supposed to be.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#237

Post by petegrif »

iamwil wrote: post #196
temphn wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it either. Last week this guy wanted to make some sort of paid Open Twitter competitor. This week he's mad at Facebook for offering to acquire his company rather than simply build a first party feature! No good deed goes unpunished. Moreover, it's just not smart to publicly pick a fight with Facebook after they offered to acquire you. If you're the guys on the other side of the table, you might well brand…

This post is not about being acuhired at all. Read it again. His main thesis has been in the last couple of blog posts is: Social media platforms should not be ad-supported. This is just a continuation of that theme. He's saying, ~Your employees are doing asshole things to 3rd party developers, even though you're calling it a platform, because they have bad incentives, and that bad incentive is coming from the search…

IMHO - smart reply. This is indeed the essence of DC's point.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#238

Post by petegrif »

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…

I agree. I think this is the culmination of a lot of thinking that started with his experience with the music business.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#239

Post by petegrif »

csmeder wrote: post #190

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 promis…

This is great. Completely agree. He believes this to be an oft repeated cycle in which the small guys get hurt because they are suckered in to develop on a platform. Because whilst the platform is augmented by the added value such developers bring to the table, they have little or no security and can be crushed at will. There have been many platforms. There will be more. All have to walk the fine line between short and long term self interest. Microsoft played hardball but did a better job than this. More developers had more stability for longer and made more $$$. Developments like this are scary.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#240

Post by petegrif »

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.

You think expecting a company to behave is naive?

What a depressing statement. Doubtless true but what a revealing and totally awful thing to take for granted. So now we live in a world in which not only are corporations people (thank you Judge Roberts) but they are psychopaths with no social conscience and we all take that pathology for granted. Enjoy the next century. :)

Post reply on HN