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

61–70 of 272 posts

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#61

Post by dalton »

ljd wrote: post #59
dalton wrote: post #48

Rather than get involved with all of these threads, I'd like to clarify something. I build a product that pre-dated App Center by several months. Facebook dev relations people tested it and actively encouraged me to build it. I was assured that it was considered "good" and "helpful" as an example of using Open Graph. At an earlier point I was offered marketing help from Facebook for my launch. I am not clear why some…

I agree with many of the comments in this thread about how an acquisition offer isn't a bad alternative to just getting ran over by the platform. However, I can see your point. They should not have encouraged you to build it on your own if they were going to build it themselves. This seems like a lose-lose for both parties. I've heard a lot of talk on how teams within facebook can work without much centralized oversi…

You are right, it could be a communications problem. There are a few details I left out of this post that would suggest it probably isn't.

I would never have spent months and capital building this without constant support and encouragement from Facebook.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#62

Post by dave1619 »

AznHisoka wrote: post #27

The purpose of a business is to make money for their shareholders. Repeat 10 times until this becomes obvious.

This isn't necessarily true. Jony Ive on Apple, "Our goal absolutely at Apple is not to make money. This may sound a little flippant, but it’s the truth. Our goal and what gets us excited is to try to make great products. We trust that if we are successful people will like them, and if we are operationally competent we will make revenue, but we are very clear about our goal."

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#64

Post by cube13 »

ajross wrote: post #5

I don't get it. FB took an opportunity to make an acquisition offer (or at least open the dialog) and used some hard tactics (in this case the threat of direct competition) to improve their negotiating position. What's the problem here? This is just business. Facebook has every right to develop that app, just like Dalton Caldwell did. If it makes sense for them to do it themselves, then they will. If it makes sense f…

The problem is that it's a bad faith negotiation.

Dalton was under the impression that he was going to be making a pitch for some higher level support from FB for his product. That does not automatically translate to wanting Facebook to hire him(which apparently was FB's intent).

Facebook's execs effectively ambushed Dalton during the pitch with an aquihire offer. That's where this turns into a bad faith negotiation, because he was not prepared for it, and would not have had the meeting in the first place if this was on the agenda.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#65

Post by dalton »

natrius wrote: post #58
dalton wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep. That was presented as an option they could use by one exec, on a phone call.

OK, that's definitely uncool. That should probably be part of the letter.

I have digital "proof" that all of the other details in my post are true, in case FB PR attempts to discredit me.

I don't have a recording to back up my claims of what was said in that phone call, so I chose not include those details.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#66

Post by marcusf »

alttab wrote: post #28
marcusf wrote: post #12

One thing I don't get, and I've started to feel really stupid for it, is this whole Social as Infrastructure meme that has started going around and that the author touches on. I'd love for someone to explain to me exactly what it would entail, why any company would move to become a commodity, and where the user value would be? I'm not saying there aren't any really good answers to these questions, I'm just too thick…

Imagine a world where everyone used a protocol to communicate. Lets call that protocol "English". Now, imagine "English" is owned by one company, who changes "English" and compromises your conversations consistently, and then tries to monetize your conversations in increasingly subtle and annoying ways. Now in reality no one owns English. Its an open form of communication that anyone can use, anywhere. You can even c…

To counterpoint, haven't we been down that road before? XMPP, OpenSocial, etc. To be fair, it's market powers and network stickiness rather than abstract social or technical merit that have kept Facebook the incumbent.

And for someone to dethrone FB, an interoperable social bus would probably be a good idea. Of course, that would not what would bring users to it (digital empowerment seems too much an abstract idea to explain to my mom, for example), but rather a killer app or a series of them -- like Instagram.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#67

Post by veyron »

notJim wrote: post #41
veyron wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I mean, sure, but in business there are always meetings you attend for partnerships or offers that don't pan out. It's just the way the world works.

Yes but there's a difference between a well-intentioned meeting that didn't pan out and a mal-intentioned meeting, and it would seem that it was the latter according to the OP

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#68

Post by ryanmerket »

quartus wrote: post #37
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.

So you were extending Facebook's core features and you didn't expect Facebook to think that was being too competitive?

I'm pretty sure I've seen this somewhere else... at least a dozen times.

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#69

Post by [deleted] »

dalton wrote: post #61
ljd wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with many of the comments in this thread about how an acquisition offer isn't a bad alternative to just getting ran over by the platform. However, I can see your point. They should not have encouraged you to build it on your own if they were going to build it themselves. This seems like a lose-lose for both parties. I've heard a lot of talk on how teams within facebook can work without much centralized oversi…

You are right, it could be a communications problem. There are a few details I left out of this post that would suggest it probably isn't. I would never have spent months and capital building this without constant support and encouragement from Facebook.

[deleted]

Re: Dear Mark Zuckerberg

#70

Post by dalton »

ryanmerket wrote: post #60
notJim wrote: post #26

So you were building a service that competes with a service Facebook was working on, they offered to buy you out, you declined, and you're angry about this ? I'm sorry, but that's absurd. Most companies would not have even thought about steamrolling you, forget about offering a check. Did you expect them to just decide not to pursue their App Store offering because ol' Dalton Caldwell wouldn't like it? That's fucking…

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.
Post reply on HN