5 ms·

The Twitter debacle is what really did it for me. As others have pointed out this is sharecropping through and through. You build anything meaningful on this an

The Twitter debacle is what really did it for me. As others have pointed out this is sharecropping through and through. You build anything meaningful on this and Facebook has you by the you-know-whats and can pull the rug out from under you at will. Thanks but no thanks.

Jtsummers 11y ago
> You build anything meaningful on this and Facebook has you by the you-know-whats and can pull the rug out from under you at will. Is that accurate? If I build a chat-based application, why can't I build out interfaces to various services? It may not be trivial, since some will offer features that others don't, but what's the principal problem preventing me from building a chat-based application that works over Google Hangouts, Facebook Messenger, Kik, etc. so long as they each provide an API for connecting these bots, beyond time?
- free2rhyme214 11y ago
  You can but FB has the most MAU's. I believe after FB Skype is the biggest. Is it easy to build bots on multiple platforms? Personally I'm staying away from Kik. Their MAU is low and I really dislike their constant spam.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - michaelmior 11y ago
    I'm blanking on any names right now, but I've seen a few startups recently working on platforms for building bots with integrations to multiple different services. No doubt one or more of these will add Messenger support. There are also open source projects like Lita[0], BotBuilder[1], and Hubot[2] which give a nice abstraction layer. [0] https://www.lita.io/ https://www.lita.io/ [1] https://dev.botframework.com/ https://dev.botframework.com/ [2] https://hubot.github.com/ https://hubot.github.com/
- theseatoms 11y ago
  If you have a way of siphoning users from FB to other platforms, then yes, you can win. Otherwise, when the gate shuts, your users are locked out.
  - Jtsummers 11y ago
    Ok, I must be missing something. How is FB Messenger here anything other than a means of connecting to customers? If the concern is that FB will ape your app, then your app isn't sufficiently differentiated from their offerings. I want to write a game server, say for Go (the game, not the language). I want to make one (or the sole) method of connecting to it FB Messenger (hypothetical, not actually doing this, and the real game server is just for my edification on learning Erlang). Yeah, this won't go very far. Once FB decides to pull a Yahoo! Games clone out they'll crush me unless I offer something sufficiently different to Go players, but outside a network of players, there's not much to offer that FB can't copy (and FB can, in fact, offer that network of players so I'm lost there too). However, if I'm Papa Johns or Marcos Pizza or ..., FB can't shut me out. They're not going to get into the food production and delivery business. And if they did, those companies are hardly tied uniquely to FB's platform. They already have their websites, phone apps, phone numbers and other means of placing orders.
    - Zikes 11y ago
      Google Reader was one of many means of connecting to RSS. It became the de facto means for a lot of people, and it was a serious blow to RSS when it shut down despite the existence of alternatives.
      - Jtsummers 11y ago
        This strikes me as a non sequitur. No one built a business dependent on RSS except for people in the business of building RSS aggregators. No content provider was effectively shut out of the marketplace (of content providing) by the death of Google Reader. My point was that anyone building a business on top of Messenger that cannot stand alone is, probably, in trouble. But that's always been the case regardless of the base technology. What apps can be built on Messenger? Content delivery, potentially. Random data connectors like weather updates or where's-my-package. How can those apps stand alone against a behemoth like FB or Google or anyone else? They can't. The point, then, is to build applications that make use of Messenger, but are not replicable by FB. Facebook isn't going to replace my FLGS. So how about I connect my inventory to an chat app so people can ask me if I have something they want? It cuts into my spur-of-the-moment sales when people come in, can't find Settlers of Catan, but see Dominion and buy it instead. But it also gives customers a better experience, and me a better understanding of what customers want (I got 20 queries for Catan this week, I should order a few copies). Now, if I build a business which connects shop inventories to FB chat, I might be in trouble. FB can tear me apart in a heartbeat by building a small-business-inventory-chat-bot. And that's the way the world goes. Don't build a company on Messenger that FB can replicate. Build connections to other businesses. FB won't be a bank. FB won't be a restaurant. FB won't be an Amazon. FB won't be a local small business. FB won't be a caterer. FB won't be a plumber. EDIT: I'm tired, and this came out poorly formed. I may write another response later that's clearer once I've rested and reread this.
- ascendantlogic 11y ago
  And that may be perfectly fine right now. But if they change their TOS tomorrow that says you're not allowed to do that and shut you down because of it you're good and fucked. They have all the users. They have the platform the users are on. Therefore they hold all the cards.
  - blisse 11y ago
    I'm ignorant, but how does this differ for something like the Play Store where Google can just not let you publish your app on a whim?
  - Jtsummers 11y ago
    They're unlikely to do that. First, it's practically impossible to enforce a "don't use other messaging platforms" clause. I mean, they'll be pulling in a lot of companies early on that use SMS or similar to interface with customers already. Messenger is just going to be one part of those companies' communication arsenal. Second, if they did, you'd see lawsuits or major players leaving (for the same reason as #1, they're already on other platforms, they don't want to shut them down). A business needs to connect with as many customers as possible. If 80% of customers are on FB, and 70% are on Google, and 99.9% are on SMS, connecting to each of those platforms makes sense. But only one of them makes sense to use exclusively. Those are made up and wildly wrong numbers, but the real numbers will bear this concept out. FB won't have 100% of a business's chat-based customers, and unless they have > 90 or 95%, then exclusivity would be absurd.
    - ascendantlogic 11y ago
      As I said in my original comment, Twitter made a spectacular show of getting immense traction thanks to their universe of third party developers and then changing their TOS to effectively shut them down once they felt they didn't need them anymore. The situations aren't 100% the same (they never are), but my concerns aren't unfounded.
cheapsteak 11y ago
The Twitter debacle doesn't seem entirely relevant here Twitter's API was being used to build apps that replicated and competed with Twitter's own functionality and created a conflict of interest between Twitter and 3rd party developers There isn't much else you can do with this Messenger API other than to create channels of communication between businesses and their existing and potential customers. Those businesses likely wouldn't know how to make this themselves, so you could make a bit of money there. This wouldn't compete with Facebook, but rather ties both customers and businesses tighter to Facebook, making FB more valuable to those businesses and and perhaps encourage them to spend more on promoting user engagement. There'd be no reason Facebook would want to shut you down. They certainly don't want to get into the nitty gritty business of connecting chat messages to all the various ways different businesses could function.

Jtsummers 11y ago

> You build anything meaningful on this and Facebook has you by the you-know-whats and can pull the rug out from under you at will. Is that accurate? If I build a chat-based application, why can't I build out interfaces to various services? It may not be trivial, since some will offer features that others don't, but what's the principal problem preventing me from building a chat-based application that works over Google Hangouts, Facebook Messenger, Kik, etc. so long as they each provide an API for connecting these bots, beyond time?

free2rhyme214 11y ago
You can but FB has the most MAU's. I believe after FB Skype is the biggest. Is it easy to build bots on multiple platforms? Personally I'm staying away from Kik. Their MAU is low and I really dislike their constant spam.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- michaelmior 11y ago
  I'm blanking on any names right now, but I've seen a few startups recently working on platforms for building bots with integrations to multiple different services. No doubt one or more of these will add Messenger support. There are also open source projects like Lita[0], BotBuilder[1], and Hubot[2] which give a nice abstraction layer. [0] https://www.lita.io/ https://www.lita.io/ [1] https://dev.botframework.com/ https://dev.botframework.com/ [2] https://hubot.github.com/ https://hubot.github.com/
theseatoms 11y ago
If you have a way of siphoning users from FB to other platforms, then yes, you can win. Otherwise, when the gate shuts, your users are locked out.
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  Ok, I must be missing something. How is FB Messenger here anything other than a means of connecting to customers? If the concern is that FB will ape your app, then your app isn't sufficiently differentiated from their offerings. I want to write a game server, say for Go (the game, not the language). I want to make one (or the sole) method of connecting to it FB Messenger (hypothetical, not actually doing this, and the real game server is just for my edification on learning Erlang). Yeah, this won't go very far. Once FB decides to pull a Yahoo! Games clone out they'll crush me unless I offer something sufficiently different to Go players, but outside a network of players, there's not much to offer that FB can't copy (and FB can, in fact, offer that network of players so I'm lost there too). However, if I'm Papa Johns or Marcos Pizza or ..., FB can't shut me out. They're not going to get into the food production and delivery business. And if they did, those companies are hardly tied uniquely to FB's platform. They already have their websites, phone apps, phone numbers and other means of placing orders.
  - Zikes 11y ago
    Google Reader was one of many means of connecting to RSS. It became the de facto means for a lot of people, and it was a serious blow to RSS when it shut down despite the existence of alternatives.
    - Jtsummers 11y ago
      This strikes me as a non sequitur. No one built a business dependent on RSS except for people in the business of building RSS aggregators. No content provider was effectively shut out of the marketplace (of content providing) by the death of Google Reader. My point was that anyone building a business on top of Messenger that cannot stand alone is, probably, in trouble. But that's always been the case regardless of the base technology. What apps can be built on Messenger? Content delivery, potentially. Random data connectors like weather updates or where's-my-package. How can those apps stand alone against a behemoth like FB or Google or anyone else? They can't. The point, then, is to build applications that make use of Messenger, but are not replicable by FB. Facebook isn't going to replace my FLGS. So how about I connect my inventory to an chat app so people can ask me if I have something they want? It cuts into my spur-of-the-moment sales when people come in, can't find Settlers of Catan, but see Dominion and buy it instead. But it also gives customers a better experience, and me a better understanding of what customers want (I got 20 queries for Catan this week, I should order a few copies). Now, if I build a business which connects shop inventories to FB chat, I might be in trouble. FB can tear me apart in a heartbeat by building a small-business-inventory-chat-bot. And that's the way the world goes. Don't build a company on Messenger that FB can replicate. Build connections to other businesses. FB won't be a bank. FB won't be a restaurant. FB won't be an Amazon. FB won't be a local small business. FB won't be a caterer. FB won't be a plumber. EDIT: I'm tired, and this came out poorly formed. I may write another response later that's clearer once I've rested and reread this.
ascendantlogic 11y ago
And that may be perfectly fine right now. But if they change their TOS tomorrow that says you're not allowed to do that and shut you down because of it you're good and fucked. They have all the users. They have the platform the users are on. Therefore they hold all the cards.
- blisse 11y ago
  I'm ignorant, but how does this differ for something like the Play Store where Google can just not let you publish your app on a whim?
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  They're unlikely to do that. First, it's practically impossible to enforce a "don't use other messaging platforms" clause. I mean, they'll be pulling in a lot of companies early on that use SMS or similar to interface with customers already. Messenger is just going to be one part of those companies' communication arsenal. Second, if they did, you'd see lawsuits or major players leaving (for the same reason as #1, they're already on other platforms, they don't want to shut them down). A business needs to connect with as many customers as possible. If 80% of customers are on FB, and 70% are on Google, and 99.9% are on SMS, connecting to each of those platforms makes sense. But only one of them makes sense to use exclusively. Those are made up and wildly wrong numbers, but the real numbers will bear this concept out. FB won't have 100% of a business's chat-based customers, and unless they have > 90 or 95%, then exclusivity would be absurd.
  - ascendantlogic 11y ago
    As I said in my original comment, Twitter made a spectacular show of getting immense traction thanks to their universe of third party developers and then changing their TOS to effectively shut them down once they felt they didn't need them anymore. The situations aren't 100% the same (they never are), but my concerns aren't unfounded.

cheapsteak 11y ago

The Twitter debacle doesn't seem entirely relevant here Twitter's API was being used to build apps that replicated and competed with Twitter's own functionality and created a conflict of interest between Twitter and 3rd party developers There isn't much else you can do with this Messenger API other than to create channels of communication between businesses and their existing and potential customers. Those businesses likely wouldn't know how to make this themselves, so you could make a bit of money there. This wouldn't compete with Facebook, but rather ties both customers and businesses tighter to Facebook, making FB more valuable to those businesses and and perhaps encourage them to spend more on promoting user engagement. There'd be no reason Facebook would want to shut you down. They certainly don't want to get into the nitty gritty business of connecting chat messages to all the various ways different businesses could function.