5 ms·
Seems incredibly naive for a company who's core business is data, to grant apps full access to all of friend's data. Did nobody realize that was a bad idea?
by raarts 9y ago
Seems incredibly naive for a company who's core business is data, to grant apps full access to all of friend's data. Did nobody realize that was a bad idea?
- aylmao 9y agoI think ambition beat them. The idea was a two-way data exchange; if you use the facebook platform to build apps with user's data, a. it might be in your interest to help keep the data updated. Say, if your app depends on an accurate home address, you'll ask the user to update it. b. you might generate more data or content. Say, to publicize your app you might ask the user to post on facebook. Moreover, it's always advantageous to have other developers depend and build on your platform. It makes your platform richer by adding functionality you may not have the resources to develop, and gives you leverage (ie, Apple and Google's mobile OSes). If I recall correctly it wasn't "full access to all of friend's data", but similar access to what you had on the user? I thought it was very exciting. I could think of a ton of potential apps, and got to use it at a hackathon once before they limited the access. Back then I thought it was a bummer, but the move made a lot of sense.
- exclusiv 9y agoMost of this applied years ago when the API was more open. I built a lot of apps on their platform for big brands. They were all chasing likes and building FB apps. Their third party app platform really helped with user growth and engagement over the years but now it's come back to bite them. So it was both a good idea and a bad idea.