9 ms·

One of the leaked emails threads related to Vine: Justin Osofsky (Facebook vice president): "Twitter launched Vine today which lets you shoot multiple short v

One of the leaked emails threads related to Vine: Justin Osofsky (Facebook vice president): "Twitter launched Vine today which lets you shoot multiple short video segments to make one single, 6-second video... Unless anyone raises objections, we will shut down their friends API access today. We've prepared reactive PR, and I will let Jana know our decision." Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook chief executive): "Yup, go for it."

x220 8y ago
This is what a monopoly looks like.
- ajkjk 8y ago
  In what way?
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    I believe OP mens abusing market power to prevent competition. Although if it is or not a monopoly and an abuse of market power is dubious, but it clearly is anti-competitive. This is similar to Amazon shutting off Google Products from any retailers using its platform. It is anti-competitive, but the jury is out on whether it is abusing market power. TL;DR: you can try to shut off your competitors from the market, as long as you're not abusing your market power to do so. PS: The Hacker News definition of monopoly has nothing to do with the economics, policy and antitrust definition of monopoly.
    - twodave 8y ago
      How is it anticompetitive to stop sharing data you own with another business who has taken a more competitive stance against you? It’s not like Facebook is a public service that everyone is entitled to. And I say that as someone who deleted his own account long ago. I dislike Facebook for a lot of reasons but this isn’t one of them.
      - ucaetano 8y ago
        It is retaliation for another business competing with you. That is literally using your market power to try to reduce competition. But taking anti-competitive actions by itself isn't necessarily an issue, but it is a problem if you're deemed to have significant market power in a defined market. Essentially: if Facebook is deemed to have significant market power, this could be a problem, if it doesn't have, then it isn't a problem. Anti-trust relies heavily on the precise definition of a market (which is a subject that Hacker News comments generally ignore when crying wolf, I mean, monopoly).
        spunker540 8y ago
        I don't think its anti-competitive considering they don't need to provide any third party APIs at all. Plus it's not like to create a social app you absolutely need FB login or FB data. I think if your company can't make it and you're blaming FB for not giving you enough data maybe your business model was a little too dependent on Facebook in the first place.
        ucaetano 8y ago
        > I don't think its anti-competitive considering they don't need to provide any third party APIs at all. Removing the access of a competitor in retaliation for them competing with you, when you give it to other players is anti-competitive by definition.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    * Monopolistic action Facebook is still far from the textbook definition of monopoly, but this anti-competitive behavior is not good.
  - jazzyjackson 8y ago
    quacking like a monopoly acting with the knowledge that they can stem the growth of a competitor and flipping the switch
- robertAngst 8y ago
  Careful, we don't want to start using the word Monopoly wrongly. When real monopolies exist and are dangerous, we need to be able to tell them apart.
  - uxhack 8y ago
    Maybe you can try to explain why, but Adamm Smith who defined the concept of Monopoly would disagree with you. The purpose of the government is to stop firms ever being able to create one.This means before a monopoly is created.
  - InclinedPlane 8y ago
    Facebook is unquestionably a monopoly. They have unquestionably engaged in illegal anti-competitive behavior. It isn't even subtle.
arayh 8y ago
This seems like retaliation for Twitter blocking Instagram from using its API (after Facebook recently acquired Instagram in 2012). (Source: https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/26/3189340/twitter-blocks-instagram-friend-finding-api https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/26/3189340/twitter-blocks-in...)
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  Did Twitter shut down everyone's access to that API, or just Facebook's?
- spullara 8y ago
  Facebook had blocked Twitter from accessing their API in 2010.
SilasX 8y ago
Interestingly, I remember Google's employee training[1] was written to warn against stuff this, something to the effect of: "Hey, don't leave a papertrail about 'crushing' or 'destroying' competitors. We do not seek to monopolize markets and run afoul of antitrust laws. Instead, talk about how your product can better satisfy users and meet a demand." (Another common theme I remember was that you shouldn't route stuff through Switzerland to get around export controls.) [1] I contracted there via a startup.
- mc32 8y ago
  While true companies don't want to leave this kind of trail of actions, whether its in written form or not, ephemeral or recorded, people will have these kinds of communication. It's not like they should just ignore the competition or act via implicit understanding and winks and nods (they are not covered by anti-collusion like airline pricing is)
- dekhn 8y ago
  Even so, I still saw my Google manager's emails in the Oracle trial: http://www.fosspatents.com/2016/05/heres-mountain-of-willful-infringement.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2016/05/heres-mountain-of-willful...
  - how_many_times 8y ago
    A quick search for the word Facebook on that website reveals an uncomfortably pro-Facebook and anti-Google stance, couched amidst lots and lots of other stuff so the pattern cannot be discerned unless someone actually does a search. If the author is truly neutral as he claims, Facebook must be a saint when it comes to patent applications, which would be completely out of character. Or the author may be sponsored by a Google competitor who just happens to be pro-Facebook. Hmm... I wonder who that company might be. Not that it makes Google's actions any better. But nowadays I doubt every single self proclaimed independent entity.
- fipple 8y ago
  Yeah, Wall Street has much more experience in this. Whenever there would be something illegal to discuss, there’d be a phone call between our personal cell phones (company lines were recorded).
mc32 8y ago
I get it. they are the 400# gorilla and when they act competitively like this, it looks bad. However, for most competitive organizations, this would be standard procedure. You see an upstart which is using what sets you apart from others (their social graph) to compete against you, you take actions. I don't see anything extraordinary about this exchange. The data collection and selling --that's what people should be upset about and lobby against. This kind of thing is a sideshow and will only interest the most hard-core anti-FB people. To get regular folks on board with changing the culture around user data, talk about user data and privacy, concentrate on that.
- Joakal 8y ago
  Zuckerberg said Facebook was about connecting the world. This looks like its about walling off the world?
  - mc32 8y ago
    Ok? So? We have all pivoted, changed minds and made changes because of external inputs. Maybe he had bad motives (get everyone hooked and then dump the suckers) but it's still competitive measures. It's not even illegal like dumping scooters and bikes all over a city.
- Chinjut 8y ago
  How does it benefit the public to allow this kind of competition? Corporate competition exist to serve the public, and when it doesn't, we may as well make rules to force it to. Competition isn't an intrinsic good.
a13n 8y ago
This seems extremely reasonable to me. Vine was launched in January 2013. Back then FB and Twitter were significantly more competitive than they are now. Twitter must have been terrifying to Facebook. Of course they would shut down their API access for Vine. It's a no brainer. The point of building a platform is to create more value for your users, your partners, and your own business. Not to make it easier for your competition to catch up...
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  That's the sort of thing that got Microsoft deemed an abusive monopoly, isn't it? Handicapping APIs when used by competitors?
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  It's not unreasonable when you consider this in terms anticompetitiveness and related laws. Imagine if Microsoft just came along one day and literally banned any office software, including LibreOffice etc. from running on it's OSs. Imagine if Nissan bought up a bunch of gas chains in the US and refused to sell gas to ... to let's say ... GM cars. Or the electric company, which had invested in some solar panel outlays, decided to ban all other 3rd party solar panels from the grid. These things are always a little fuzzy, but they are real. Also - the lack of user clear consent is another one ie telling users that apps 'cannot extract their data' but in reality, they are selling it to Netflix. FB can legitimately explain a way a lot of issues lately, but this one is bad. I think it's far worse than the Cambridge Analytica scandal in which case they weren't really doing anything wrong, just late to maybe close off said APIs.
  - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
    The difference is that the Windows and Office are (or were) stand alone products that used no MS resources after the sale. A free online service running on hardware you don't control isn't obligated to provide free service for everyone indefinitely. Same as "No shirt, no shoes, no service". A proprietor can refuse dealings with toxic customers.
mzs 8y ago
I'm thinking about this in light of the IRA troll activity on FB & twitter during the '16 elections. They were pretty comical at times yet they seemed to fool enough people. I think it would have been near impossible for people in Saint Petersburg to fool almost anyone with short videos instead. Shame that vine was crushed.
spullara 8y ago
They had blocked Twitter itself from searching for friends on Facebook in 2010: https://www.adweek.com/digital/twitter-facebook-friends/ https://www.adweek.com/digital/twitter-facebook-friends/

x220 8y ago

This is what a monopoly looks like.

ajkjk 8y ago
In what way?
- ucaetano 8y ago
  I believe OP mens abusing market power to prevent competition. Although if it is or not a monopoly and an abuse of market power is dubious, but it clearly is anti-competitive. This is similar to Amazon shutting off Google Products from any retailers using its platform. It is anti-competitive, but the jury is out on whether it is abusing market power. TL;DR: you can try to shut off your competitors from the market, as long as you're not abusing your market power to do so. PS: The Hacker News definition of monopoly has nothing to do with the economics, policy and antitrust definition of monopoly.
  - twodave 8y ago
    How is it anticompetitive to stop sharing data you own with another business who has taken a more competitive stance against you? It’s not like Facebook is a public service that everyone is entitled to. And I say that as someone who deleted his own account long ago. I dislike Facebook for a lot of reasons but this isn’t one of them.
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      It is retaliation for another business competing with you. That is literally using your market power to try to reduce competition. But taking anti-competitive actions by itself isn't necessarily an issue, but it is a problem if you're deemed to have significant market power in a defined market. Essentially: if Facebook is deemed to have significant market power, this could be a problem, if it doesn't have, then it isn't a problem. Anti-trust relies heavily on the precise definition of a market (which is a subject that Hacker News comments generally ignore when crying wolf, I mean, monopoly).
      - spunker540 8y ago
        I don't think its anti-competitive considering they don't need to provide any third party APIs at all. Plus it's not like to create a social app you absolutely need FB login or FB data. I think if your company can't make it and you're blaming FB for not giving you enough data maybe your business model was a little too dependent on Facebook in the first place.
        ucaetano 8y ago
        > I don't think its anti-competitive considering they don't need to provide any third party APIs at all. Removing the access of a competitor in retaliation for them competing with you, when you give it to other players is anti-competitive by definition.
- bduerst 8y ago
  * Monopolistic action Facebook is still far from the textbook definition of monopoly, but this anti-competitive behavior is not good.
- jazzyjackson 8y ago
  quacking like a monopoly acting with the knowledge that they can stem the growth of a competitor and flipping the switch
robertAngst 8y ago
Careful, we don't want to start using the word Monopoly wrongly. When real monopolies exist and are dangerous, we need to be able to tell them apart.
- uxhack 8y ago
  Maybe you can try to explain why, but Adamm Smith who defined the concept of Monopoly would disagree with you. The purpose of the government is to stop firms ever being able to create one.This means before a monopoly is created.
- InclinedPlane 8y ago
  Facebook is unquestionably a monopoly. They have unquestionably engaged in illegal anti-competitive behavior. It isn't even subtle.

arayh 8y ago

This seems like retaliation for Twitter blocking Instagram from using its API (after Facebook recently acquired Instagram in 2012). (Source: https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/26/3189340/twitter-blocks-instagram-friend-finding-api https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/26/3189340/twitter-blocks-in...)

mehrdadn 8y ago
Did Twitter shut down everyone's access to that API, or just Facebook's?
spullara 8y ago
Facebook had blocked Twitter from accessing their API in 2010.

SilasX 8y ago

Interestingly, I remember Google's employee training[1] was written to warn against stuff this, something to the effect of: "Hey, don't leave a papertrail about 'crushing' or 'destroying' competitors. We do not seek to monopolize markets and run afoul of antitrust laws. Instead, talk about how your product can better satisfy users and meet a demand." (Another common theme I remember was that you shouldn't route stuff through Switzerland to get around export controls.) [1] I contracted there via a startup.

mc32 8y ago
While true companies don't want to leave this kind of trail of actions, whether its in written form or not, ephemeral or recorded, people will have these kinds of communication. It's not like they should just ignore the competition or act via implicit understanding and winks and nods (they are not covered by anti-collusion like airline pricing is)
dekhn 8y ago
Even so, I still saw my Google manager's emails in the Oracle trial: http://www.fosspatents.com/2016/05/heres-mountain-of-willful-infringement.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2016/05/heres-mountain-of-willful...
- how_many_times 8y ago
  A quick search for the word Facebook on that website reveals an uncomfortably pro-Facebook and anti-Google stance, couched amidst lots and lots of other stuff so the pattern cannot be discerned unless someone actually does a search. If the author is truly neutral as he claims, Facebook must be a saint when it comes to patent applications, which would be completely out of character. Or the author may be sponsored by a Google competitor who just happens to be pro-Facebook. Hmm... I wonder who that company might be. Not that it makes Google's actions any better. But nowadays I doubt every single self proclaimed independent entity.
fipple 8y ago
Yeah, Wall Street has much more experience in this. Whenever there would be something illegal to discuss, there’d be a phone call between our personal cell phones (company lines were recorded).

mc32 8y ago

I get it. they are the 400# gorilla and when they act competitively like this, it looks bad. However, for most competitive organizations, this would be standard procedure. You see an upstart which is using what sets you apart from others (their social graph) to compete against you, you take actions. I don't see anything extraordinary about this exchange. The data collection and selling --that's what people should be upset about and lobby against. This kind of thing is a sideshow and will only interest the most hard-core anti-FB people. To get regular folks on board with changing the culture around user data, talk about user data and privacy, concentrate on that.

Joakal 8y ago
Zuckerberg said Facebook was about connecting the world. This looks like its about walling off the world?
- mc32 8y ago
  Ok? So? We have all pivoted, changed minds and made changes because of external inputs. Maybe he had bad motives (get everyone hooked and then dump the suckers) but it's still competitive measures. It's not even illegal like dumping scooters and bikes all over a city.
Chinjut 8y ago
How does it benefit the public to allow this kind of competition? Corporate competition exist to serve the public, and when it doesn't, we may as well make rules to force it to. Competition isn't an intrinsic good.

a13n 8y ago

This seems extremely reasonable to me. Vine was launched in January 2013. Back then FB and Twitter were significantly more competitive than they are now. Twitter must have been terrifying to Facebook. Of course they would shut down their API access for Vine. It's a no brainer. The point of building a platform is to create more value for your users, your partners, and your own business. Not to make it easier for your competition to catch up...

ceejayoz 8y ago
That's the sort of thing that got Microsoft deemed an abusive monopoly, isn't it? Handicapping APIs when used by competitors?
sonnyblarney 8y ago
It's not unreasonable when you consider this in terms anticompetitiveness and related laws. Imagine if Microsoft just came along one day and literally banned any office software, including LibreOffice etc. from running on it's OSs. Imagine if Nissan bought up a bunch of gas chains in the US and refused to sell gas to ... to let's say ... GM cars. Or the electric company, which had invested in some solar panel outlays, decided to ban all other 3rd party solar panels from the grid. These things are always a little fuzzy, but they are real. Also - the lack of user clear consent is another one ie telling users that apps 'cannot extract their data' but in reality, they are selling it to Netflix. FB can legitimately explain a way a lot of issues lately, but this one is bad. I think it's far worse than the Cambridge Analytica scandal in which case they weren't really doing anything wrong, just late to maybe close off said APIs.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  The difference is that the Windows and Office are (or were) stand alone products that used no MS resources after the sale. A free online service running on hardware you don't control isn't obligated to provide free service for everyone indefinitely. Same as "No shirt, no shoes, no service". A proprietor can refuse dealings with toxic customers.

mzs 8y ago

I'm thinking about this in light of the IRA troll activity on FB & twitter during the '16 elections. They were pretty comical at times yet they seemed to fool enough people. I think it would have been near impossible for people in Saint Petersburg to fool almost anyone with short videos instead. Shame that vine was crushed.

spullara 8y ago

They had blocked Twitter itself from searching for friends on Facebook in 2010: https://www.adweek.com/digital/twitter-facebook-friends/ https://www.adweek.com/digital/twitter-facebook-friends/