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

31–40 of 272 posts

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#31

Post by notJim »

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…

> 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.)

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#32

Post by tijs »

sdqali wrote: post #6
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably this: http://app.net/home/

I am not sure how App.net, at least what it is now would have become a service on the FB platform. Was App.net trying to do some other stuff before the attempt to build a 'real-time, ad-free social network'?

Yes it was supposed to be an app market on facebook. But since Dalton 'will never write another line of code for social platforms' i assume that ship is not sailing.

http://app.net/features/facebook/

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#33

Post by slurgfest »

This is a recurring theme.. if you don't want to be in this position, then don't build on top of someone else's closed platform. When you do that, expect to see this situation because that is what such platforms are designed for!

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#34

Post by caleywoods »

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.

Wrong. He's angry because he didn't want to be acquired and didn't want to have his business shut down by Facebook turning off his access.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#35

Post by tjic »

samstave wrote: post #22
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…

While I agree with your assessment of how the platform dev relations guy should have been expected to toe the FB line, I do have to say that I highly respect Dalton for clearly stating he had no interest in the acquihire. In fact, this completely confirms my previous post from two weeks ago: > All these aquisitions are more insidious, they are being done by the big players to stifle diversity in the market and contin…

> I do have to say that I highly respect Dalton for clearly stating he had no interest in the acquihire.

Agreed.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#36

Post by veyron »

notJim wrote: post #31
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…

> 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.)

"What was the cost to him in going to this meeting??

Time, both in the meeting and in preparing, and in information transfer. He didn't specifically say what he went through, but he may have divulged pieces of the puzzle that they were unaware of.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#37

Post by quartus »

sdqali wrote: post #2

Could you care to elaborate on what the app/service you were demoing to FB?

The service we were building (I work at app.net) was a social app discovery service. It integrated with Facebook to show you what apps your friends were using and downloading, and display stories about the apps you use.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#38

Post by jedberg »

notJim wrote: post #31
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…

> 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.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#39

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

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 sleazy behavior when you see it.

Post reply on HN