13 ms·

Dear Mark Zuckerberg

743 points by johns 14y ago

sdqali 14y ago
Could you care to elaborate on what the app/service you were demoing to FB?
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  Presumably this: http://app.net/home/ http://app.net/home/
  - sdqali 14y ago
    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'?
    - tijs 14y ago
      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/ http://app.net/features/facebook/
  - jopt 14y ago
    Really? What makes you think that?
- quartus 14y ago
  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.
  - natep 14y ago
    And how is it related to join.app.net? I'm very confused that these two different things have the same name.
  - ryanmerket 14y ago
    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.
    - mikegreenspan 14y ago
      Aren't you always extending Facebook's core features when building with their API? The point of leveraging Facebook platform is to build amazing products that Facebook doesn't have the time or resources to create (see zuck's statement on the importance of Facebook platform during the earnings call).
    - quartus 14y ago
      We used Facebook's APIs and Open Graph in our app discovery service. It was built and released before Facebook's App Center was announced, and Facebook dev-relations employees had previously been supportive of our endeavor.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
tjic 14y ago
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 direction? Why should Facebook - or any competitor - do either of these things? Seems to me like they acted pretty reasonably here. Of all the things you said, this struck me as the weirdest: > Strangely, your “platform developer relations” executive made no attempt to defend my position. What do you think the purpose of the “platform developer relations” executive is? To advocate AGAINST Facebook and for random outside developers? I'm not a fan of the Facebook app (not a member) or the company...but in this case, the firm seems to be acting 100% reasonably.
- larrys 14y ago
  "the firm seems to be acting 100% reasonably." And, as a for profit business, they don't even have to hit anywhere near 100%. They just have to do well enough in how they operate not to loose business or somehow jeopardize what they have. It's really that simple. This is a story that prior to the Internet nobody would ever hear about. No journalist would tell this story except in a magazine piece maybe that had an agenda and wanted to paint a picture. This tale goes nowhere near even scratching the surface of how business operates. Spying. Payoffs. "Cut off their air supply" (Microsoft/Netscape) Here's a story from when I started in business years ago. I called a friend of my fathers for a reference on someone who had worked with him in the past. He said "hmm, Bob left his job? Hmm." and then gave me a nice reference on him. Before I knew it he had hired Bob and basically told him "he's a startup you are wasting your time". I lost out on hiring Bob. This was a friend of the family. That may or may not be how any one of us would operate but in business as you say you can't be "a precious snow flake".
- WiseWeasel 14y ago
  It seems like Dalton was under the impression that he was rather explicitly threatened with being denied access to the Facebook platform through a change in terms of service, in a way that is critical to his business. That's a strong-handed negotiation tactic for a supposed business infrastructure provider.
ajross 14y ago
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 for them to buy an existing player, ditto. And if so, clearly they'd want to acquire that player at a good price, right? I just don't see the ethical problem here. They didn't lie, and they offered a check (that it happens the OP didn't want).
- josephlord 14y ago
  It is bullying tactics. We are big and will crush you unless you give us what we want. It's legal (probably) but isn't a classy move and there are long term costs. It makes FB less attractive to developers (unless they are trying to get acqui-hired). Also get a reputation as a bully rather than a good fun company may make it harder to attract good staff (or they may charge more if they are not being paid in cool). It's also the tactic of the mafia and of Microsoft (1990s when people were still scared of them). It would be a shame if anything happened to your company... Basically it is the big bully move not the cool kid everybody wants to be on his team move.
  - jarek 14y ago
    Facebook is still attractive to developers?
    - josephlord 14y ago
      I don't know, I wouldn't develop for it but they do have a large audience for the moment. Edit: Added "for the moment".
- cube13 14y ago
  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.
lewisflude 14y ago
Mark will probably see this, but will anything change? Probably not. The simple fact is that as a company, FB have to meet their targets and Dalton's app is a bit of a conflict of interest. So, no surprises there. However, I agree with his point about big "media company" social networks being eventually replaced by a much larger number of specific micro-networks. One network for photo sharing, music sharing (Soundcloud?), messaging etc. Even once you have all these niches, I'm sure there's space for two or three due to the fact that people have different priorities and visual tastes. As a company, Facebook aren't on course to die but I'm sure we're going to continue to see decisions like this being made that surprise us as the tech community due to the fact that they don't align with the vision we thought the company once had.
deveac 14y ago
Step 1) Code features for a large platform that is actively iterating and implementing new features at an incredibly rapid pace. Step 2) Complain when there is eventual feature overlap.
joeblau 14y ago
I wonder if this style of negotiation tactic motivated companies like Spool, Face.com, Karama, Glancee, and Lightbox to join? It seems like Dalton's strong entrepreneurial spirit (or hard hardheadedness--however you see it) kept him from falling into that category.
johnbenwoo 14y ago
These dynamics are part of what is referred to in corporate development as the Golden Rule - he who has the gold, makes the rules
codezy 14y ago
I find building a product using a 3rd party API can be totally awesome or a complete disaster. In my case I had two experiences that stood out: RDIO: These guys are awesome. Their API is awesome, their support of devs who build on it is awesome. Their product is awesome. Kudos to Ian who works on it. We built Anthm on this and it has worked out great! FreshBooks: These guys made me furious. We found that there were no good OSX based timers for this product so we built one. In the end they refused to put us up on their site, each time with a different excuse (we have promised exclusivity to this other app, or we are changing our app system). The developer relations guy was just a total jerk. In the end they asked us to change our name because they did not like it and even after immediately doing that, no love from them. In short - it is getting tough to base a business on any of these third party API's that can change under your feet - yet there are still some out there that are tremendous.
lubujackson 14y ago
Don't build a house on a river and then blame the water. There has never been a company-controlled ecosystem that has EVER thrived for long without the company swooping in to get that easy money. In fact, now that Facebook is public, its their fiduciary duty to do just that. They could get sued if they DIDN'T try to cheaply build out their own versions of successful products. The only surprise is that anyone is surprised by this, or thinks that Facebook has "lost their way", or had any other intentions when they started their platform. This is standard business practice - make a little ecosystem, let people futz around in it for a while. If it fails, shut it down; if it succeeds, go pick the low-hanging fruit.
- slantyyz 14y ago
  I agree. It's risky to bet a company on someone else's platform, whether it be Facebook, Craigslist or someone else. You are at that company's mercy. Even the most stable company can decide to pivot their strategy, change management (i.e., your cheerleader/sponsor retires, gets fired or worse), and at that point, you're just collateral damage.
Aaronontheweb 14y ago
If Facebook's plan B was to lock out Dalton using a TOS change, then it seems awfully stupid to have held this meeting in the first place. I get the talent acquisition as a defensive play to keep a potential threat out of the market, but if Dalton's story is true then Facebook's execution around this entire engagement seems stupid and ham-fisted through and through.
Moseman23 14y ago
Mega-meh. I find this "open" letter to be as totally self-serving as "Open" Graph will ever be. You got a meeting with a lot of FB poo-bahs. Whatever you thought it was going to be about, if you were unprepared for the crushing embrace of the Big Face, it's on you. Of course they want to intimidate you into an "aqui-hire." It's called hardball. Their "platform" is what it is. A highly flawed way to instantly reach astounding numbers of people for potentially deep or shallow exchanges of questionable value. Many your age have made millions for a half-year's work on this "joke" platform, as you call it. This is known, and blaming their tanking stock price for their behavior seems like a cheap shot at execs you don't even name. I would advise you to get ready in case Apple calls. Unlike FB, they won't apologize after they gutpunch you.
Kelliot 14y ago
Getting bored of Hackernews being used as an internet slander machine. I think the age old rule of 'Not your personal army' needs to be enacted here =(
mbesto 14y ago
> As I understood at the time, the purpose of the meeting was for me to present/demonstrate a new iOS app & service I have been building on the Facebook Platform. Previously, I had been reassured by Facebook dev-relations employees that the service I was building was an interesting/ valuable use of Open Graph & Facebook Platform. What evidence does the author have to support this? Is there communication from such VPs saying "We would like you to come in to meet us to measure the value of your service"? > I was hoping the outcome of this meeting would be executive-level support for my impending product launch. Again, who set the authors expectations here? And what exactly does "executive-level" support mean? Would they feature the app, simply because it was valuable for them? Note - Expecation setting is one of the hardest things to do in business. And can also be used for negotiation tactics. I'm sorry, but all I read from this is just (another) example of how a company with different corporate interests (read-> shareholder value) no longer puts time into something that doesn't drive bottom line. Is it a great example of what an IPO does to a company's interest? Absolutely. But I don't necessarily feel bad for the author nor do I feel like any unjust has been done. He's proved his point, seems extremely smart and will move on to the next cool and interesting project.
vishaldpatel 14y ago
Aw.. it's a love letter!
zem 14y ago
First Apple, then Twitter, and now Facebook ... the landscape right now seems positively littered with people who have bet the farm on a sharecropping strategy, gotten burnt and are now complaining about the landlord rather than learning the underlying lesson.
smber1 14y ago
"I believe that future social platforms will behave more like infrastructure, and less like media companies." Great, line. Exactly what I was thinking as I was reading the letter. Completely necessary to to create an eco-system that developers/consumers will want to use. Monetizing the eco-system can come later, just as it did with Google search.
jgrahamc 14y ago
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.
- ilaksh 14y ago
  They spent a lot of time working on a product and then had the choice of either giving it to Facebook (selling) or writing off the entire effort. From a business standpoint, that's just the way our society works. The problem is the concept of business and how it controls all aspects of our lives and opposes technological progress.
- caleywoods 14y ago
  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.
  - natep 14y ago
    No, he didn't want to be acquired, and he didn't want to go to an aggressive acquisition negotiation meeting, since there would be no terms he would accept. He only went to the meeting because he thought it was a demo. Edit: actually, we're both right, according to the alleged contents of a phone call http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4325586 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4325586
  - natrius 14y ago
    Nothing in the post suggests that Facebook threatened to turn off access.
    - cbr 14y ago
      They threatened this in a phone call, but he didn't record it so he didn't include it in the letter: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4325593 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4325593
- 14y ago
marcusf 14y ago
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 to see it.
- alttab 14y ago
  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 create variants of it and use it with your friends as long as they understand your dialect. "Social Infrastructure" would require a common social protocol as a specification. This would open up an entire ecosystem of smaller players to contribute to it, providing delicious synergy and innovation along the way. Kind of like modding Minecraft, etc. Not every company wants to become a billion dollar start up. There are many IT service providers and MSPs that are perfectly comfortable servicing 30 clients and making a lifestyle business for everyone involved. If its a commodity, it opens up locality and niche markets easier than a monolithic implementation. Nothing but good would come from a true technological social protocol. Right now online social behavior is dictated through the mind of one man, which isn't really social at all. The user value is in that the users have all the power. If social service providers are a commodity, if they misbehave or provide a bad user experience they could simply take their social graph somewhere else. This empowers the user. This is also why Facebook does everything in its power to retain hegemony.
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    The users of Facebook are people, and as far as I know, Facebook does not change or compromise the conversations among people. I've never seen a status, comment, photo, friend request, etc. changed by Facebook. Businesses who build on the Facebook platform are not users. They are attempting to extract value from the users--just like Facebook itself is. It is not surprising that they sometimes find themselves competing with Facebook. The sort of open "infrastructure" Dalton advocates for would be great for platform businesses...of course they would love to have all the advantages of a platform (aggregated audience, aggregated data, well-defined API, etc.), without the downsides (changes to the API, competition from the platform owner). But it doesn't really matter that much to users. I can easily take my personal social graph with me...I know who my friends and family are, and I can find them again on whatever new service seems better than Facebook. After all, Facebook did it to MySpace--and without access to MySpace's social graph.
ivankirigin 14y ago
To clarify for those confused comments here: app.net is in part a platform to showcase your app. Facebook's AppCenter is similar. If they were building an open platform, app.net could build into Facebook's AppCenter. Offering a aquihire and refusing to make an open platform is what Dalton doesn't like. His critique is tied to his project at http://join.app.net http://join.app.net because the reason the platform isn't open according to Dalton is because Facebook needs the ad revenue to hit its performance numbers.
- natrius 14y ago
  "Offering a aquihire and refusing to make an open platform is what Dalton doesn't like." Typically, when someone doesn't like an acquisition offer, they decline it. Is it wrong for Facebook to build a platform that isn't open? I don't see why Mark Zuckerberg (or the public, as the comments on this submission indicate) would read this letter and decide that his employees acted improperly, which the letter seems to expect.
  - natep 14y ago
    Typically, when someone knows they will not accept any acquisition offers, they do not waste their time by going to meetings whose sole purpose is to discuss an acquisition. FB misled him into thinking it was a demo meeting.
    - natrius 14y ago
      That's not what this letter is about. Writing an open letter because someone wasted your time would seem a bit silly to me. This is about Facebook threatening to revoke API access, which the letter didn't mention, but his comments here have.
shock3naw 14y ago
Let's be clear, the only purpose of this post is to bring attention to App.net. Calling Facebook 'rotten-to-the-core' isn't a great way to capture the sympathy of its CEO.
- notJim 14y ago
  I agree. This post comes across as very self-serving. He attacks Facebook for not being something they never claimed to be, and then offers a competing product that fulfills that need. Gross.
  - petegrif 14y ago
    That's not quite true tho is it? FB does offer something it represents as being a platform. And bear in mind that he didn't just blindly build a product assuming that he could trust the platform. He solicited and continually received assurances that his product would be welcomed and valued on the platform. It was only after he had invested time and money building it that the rules changed. And it was that experience that resulted in his conviction of the need for a competing product.
- zachwill 14y ago
  Dalton seems like a really smart guy, but I do agree. The post feels like nothing more than an App.net attention grab.
alttab 14y ago
Sounds like the author's righteousness has worn off and now he regrets not negotiating with Facebook more. To make himself feel like he got something out of it, he posts a blog about how Facebook is the enemy, and not-so-subtly brags that his creation was wanted for acquisition by Facebook.
HistoryInAction 14y ago
Interesting, are you arguing that Facebook and Twitter are going to be the 'electricity infrastructure' of the Internet in terms of their role as platforms for development?
mindcrime 14y ago
Your team doesn’t seem to understand that being “good negotiators” vs implying that you will destroy someone’s business built on your “open platform” are not the same thing. That's probably a true statement, but who the heck actually considers Facebook to be any sort of "open platform" in the first place? Honestly, how many times have we seen this lesson re-iterated here on HN in the past few months: It is very dangerous to build a product that depends on a platform that someone else controls. And this isn't a new lesson either... remember "DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run?" (And it doesn't really matter if Microsoft were actually breaking Lotus on purpose or not... the risk was - and still is - there, and has to be accounted for).
notJim 14y ago
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 ridiculous. It sucks that you were naïve about this, but that's hardly Facebook's fault.
- natep 14y ago
  He's upset that what he thought was a demo meeting was actually their way of luring him into an acquisition meeting. And he doesn't seem to have a problem with FB having their own app store, he's going to compete with them regardless. Actually, he phrases it better here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4325566 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4325566
- ryanmerket 14y ago
  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.
  - dalton 14y ago
    Um, yeah pretty sure I was talking to the right people. Marc Andreessen is on my board.
    - ryanmerket 14y ago
      What does that have to do with anything? In your letter to Mark you said, "I had been reassured by Facebook dev-relations employees" -- as an ex-Facebook Dev Relations employee I can assure you that you were not talking to the right people.
    - airnomad 14y ago
      You wrote this post 40+ days after the meeting took place. That imply your timing is chosen for reasons you didn't disclose in the blog post. Hence you try to manipulate public while pursuing hidden agenda.
AznHisoka 14y ago
The purpose of a business is to make money for their shareholders. Repeat 10 times until this becomes obvious.
- dave1619 14y ago
  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."
  - bthomas 14y ago
    Are there good examples other than Apple?
  - jarek 14y ago
    Of course Ive is going to say that. He's a designer. You think Oppenheimer gets on investor calls and says "Sorry guys, we don't actually care about your money, we're just here to make what we think are great products" and they believe him?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
slurgfest 14y ago
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!
EvanMiller 14y ago
Dalton Caldwell sends email the hard way.
jcdavis 14y ago
Surely he must have signed some sort of NDA before going into said meeting, which he is now breaching?
- smalter 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure I signed an NDA at the front desk as the cost of walking into Facebook.
- ryanmerket 14y ago
  Almost certainly.
dalton 14y ago
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 folks don't see the issue with building something that is encouraged by employees of a company, and then, in the matter of months, being told "never mind". That is not good for an ecosystem.
- notJim 14y ago
  Hey dalton, I've posted my thoughts in this thread, and I'm also considering writing a blog article about this, but I have one meta thing to share with you. This letter doesn't make two things clear to me: 1) what exactly it is you're upset about and 2) what you think should have happened. Because of this, people in this thread are making a lot of assumptions which are uncharitable and inaccurate, and you come across as looking more naive than I suspect you actually are. Clarifying in the thread is good, but it's damage control. I'm not sure if you wrote the letter when you were angry, or if it was originally written to people with more context, but I just wanted to share a part of why I think this thread is going the way it is.
  - dalton 14y ago
    1) I am unhappy that I wasted my time and energy building on a platform that encouraged me to do so, and within the matter of months changed their mind. This is the same thing that makes me unhappy with what Twitter is doing to their ecosystem: http://daltoncaldwell.com/what-twitter-could-have-been http://daltoncaldwell.com/what-twitter-could-have-been 2) Once Mark Zuckerberg gave personal blessing, he shouldn't have changed his mind. I have an interesting email thread along these lines.
    - loceng 14y ago
      It's a game to them. Don't initiate games with children if you don't want to be involved where childish things can be done. Children can do nasty things. They don't understand or possibly don't care of the consequences. Their goal is to create and maintain a controlled ecosystem. They know legally where they stand and they have billions of dollars now to drag out any lawsuit, if anyone decides to waste their energy on such a thing. I am sure they feel invincible, and I can understand how that could develop with what they have power of / are in control of. I recently had an issue with a local group of 'investors' / tech people, and after learning more details I was clearly mislead into presenting to them.. What they were looking to invest in was absolutely not a match to what I am doing. Sure, it was under confidential and private settings, though I know I taught them a lot and exposed a lot I rather would not have - simply because I don't think these people have good intentions or are honest people - and I don't want to support that as a human being, because I don't think that's good for society.
snorkel 14y ago
Tying your business fortunes to the goodwill of Facebook is like having the fate a toothbrush bird that feeds from the mouth an alligator. The toothbrush bird will never grow to be as big as the alligator and it eats only as much as the alligator allows.
yuvadam 14y ago
These are the types of stories that Silicon Valley generates that never cease to amuse me. What we have here is a typical example of how agents act in a competitive capitalist environment. In a system where profit is all that matters, I find it amusing to hear people bitch about 'ethics' and 'bad faith'. We have long known Facebook's model, and the warning signs are everywhere. Facebook is a surveillance conglomerate, and it is granting you certain privileges - either as a so-called 'user' or as a developer - at its behest. Get in bed with that thing, and you just might get the cooties.
kevinalexbrown 14y ago
Why wait 1.5 months to make an open letter after a "June 13th, 2012 at 4:30pm" meeting? Did you try communicating directly with Facebook for 45 days, then let it go? What makes now the best time to incite public wrath against Facebook (I'm assuming that was the intent in resolving never to write another line of code for a "rotten to the core" company) in an open letter that was anything but conciliatory? It sounds like Facebook used some hard-handed tactics, but I'm more curious as to your choice of timing. Edit: not trying to be snarky, genuinely curious.
- dalton 14y ago
  I have been waiting because I have been afraid. I have been blogging extensively about platform-risk issues for the past month, but have never come out and said this part: http://daltoncaldwell.com/ http://daltoncaldwell.com/
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - petegrif 14y ago
    Very understandable.
orangethirty 14y ago
Though I still don't understand that well what Dalton's product really is, I do respect him for the tough choice he made. It takes guts to turn down a lot of money from some big player. Good luck, Dalton.
surferbayarea 14y ago
The issue is that facebook and twitter have derailed from their earlier stated mission of connecting people and facilitating communication. Their goal as public businesses is making money from advertising, anything else is just feeding into that. This kind of misalignment of goals results in end users experience suffering. A thing like a social network is part of the fundamental fabric of the internet As a result the organization running this infrastructure should have very clear goals. It doesn't have to be a non-profit, but the goal should not be to generate 30% growth and billions in profits. The goal should be to make it easier for people to communicate. Given the decrease in the cost of computing, there is no reason that it should cost billions of $ to run an infrastructure like facebook. What we need is a linux for the internet. Fundamental infrastructures like social network and search engine being run by entities with no hidden agendas! It will happen!
- mtrn 14y ago
  I too think it will happen. This post illustrates that a) the web is not really a welcoming place for large walled gardens, b) if you want to build on someone else's infrastructure, pay them, so you become their customer, so their goal is to make your life easier.
unreal37 14y ago
We are moving into an era of the walled garden. Apple has it's iTunes Store and Mac Store, Microsoft will have a Windows store when Windows 8 launches, FB has its platform and apps that run on its platform, Twitter, on and on... All companies are looking to build walls and moats around their "platforms" because walls mean profits. Now you need to blessing of the landlord, and not be competing against them in any way.
- jarek 14y ago
  Web 3.0 bubble expected around 2019 once the walled gardens fail yet again
badabam 14y ago
here goes Dalton..... again.
jay_kyburz 14y ago
Hrrm.. much of the discussion here is missing what I think is the important point. If you build on Facebooks platform, there is a good chance you will end up competing with Facebook. Or Twitter. We need a social platform that is distributed and that nobody "owns".
chollida1 14y ago
I'm having trouble seeing why Dalton seems so put out by this If you try to look at this from facebook's perspective the most likely out come looks something like: > Ok, we've decided to go this app route. Wow app.net is really going to be steam rolled by this. We already have a relation ship with them, what can we do to help them out? > Well I guess we can offer to aquire them, they probably have some expertise we can use and it will generate a lot of good will for us from our own developer community. Yes, this seems like a win win. > Well this is a pretty delicate conversation so bringing it up over the phone is pretty bushleague. Let's do teh right thing and tell him face to face. I see we've already got them scheduled for a meeting in a couple of weeks. > This seems to be working out perfectly for both of us. How much do you think we'll need to offer them to acquire their company? I'm really having trouble seeing how people don't see this as the most likely way things happened.
mikeleeorg 14y ago
I know it's been pointed out endlessly elsewhere, but it seems necessary to highlight this excerpt of the OP's post: As someone that wants to build quality social software, software that doesn’t force users to re-create their friends list, or not use oAuth, etc., I have to endure huge platform risk.
DenisM 14y ago
Dalton, thanks for having warned the rest of us. The opinions may differ on whether this sort of bait and switch is a legitimate tactic, but I think we can all agree we're better off knowing about this sort of things than not. Good luck with your business.
zobzu 14y ago
All I know is that I'd be irritated if someone started each paragraph with my first name, specially without knowing me personally. That's impolite, authoritative and just annoying. My 2cts :P
hxf148 14y ago
I've dealt with people at App.net during my own development projects (Infostripe) and they seem one of the few who were good at communicating back. They even featured IS at one point. Which might go to explain how they are apparently excellent at putting themselves in the news as an heir to Twitter and a major Facebook competitor. Yet aren't actually either of those things. At least so far.. fascinating.
RyanMcGreal 14y ago
Building your business in an unexploited niche on another business's platform is sharecropping, pure and simple. http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePlace http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePla...
csmeder 14y ago
A lot of people seem to be missing Dalton's point. Dalton isn't complaining Mark's behavior is bad (in the short term). He knows why Mark did what he did, it makes sense if you are thinking short term. It makes sense if you think Facebook is worth 110 Billion. This isn't a letter so much to convince Mark that he is heading down the wrong path. I think Dalton is convinced FB as an organization has made too many promises. It's too late for FB too change direction. They are headed for and iceberg at 110 billion dollar speed and can't course correct in time. Rather this is a letter to us. Dalton is pointing out the prediction that Facebook won't be around in 10 years. So don't build your apps on it. If you build your apps using Facebook you will be at its mercy. And as Facebook starts to die, you will feel the pain it inflicts on its closest "partners" as it scrambles to squeeze blood from turnips. It will use every nasty trick in the book to keep a monopoly on its market and squeeze every last drop of money and value (your personal info) it can from users. Dalton has seen what people who run a company, with a dying business model, are capable of before. The Record/Music companies... He knows what a company, that is seeing its monopoly slip through its fingers, is willing to do to keep that monopoly just a little longer. Intimidation and dishonest negotiation tactics are just the start. Will we soon see Facebook suing users? Lobbying congress for SOPA like laws to protect its monopoly? Remember GoDaddy was a main supporter of SOPA. It saw SOPA as a way to keep its URL retailing monopoly. Dalton is warning you. Dalton cares about you. He has given up on saving Mark. Mark wants to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Dalton wants to raise the goose that lays the silver egg. And share those eggs with us. Well, that's my interpretation of this open letter to Mark. I could be wrong, I often am.
- jpdoctor 14y ago
  > So don't build your apps on it. The other reason: Putting a company with FB's reputation in your critical path is just asking for trouble.
  - petegrif 14y ago
    Which is his point.
- lucisferre 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
halis 14y ago
Did you even talk price? It may have been worth your while...
tjmc 14y ago
A fish rots from the head down. Zuckerberg has well-known form screwing over those he does business with. That you're surprised speaks more to your business acumen than his I'm afraid. Your open letter comes across as entitled and puerile - as they usually do.
arquebus 14y ago
I dont know much about how a venture capitalist estimates the value of a startup that has not yet marketed their product. But we all see how big name tech companies are stuck paying huge amounts to buy up competition: ie MS paying $9B for Skype, Facebook buys Instagram for $1B. Clearly Daltan wants to create value for his company that it does not yet have. The only way he can do this is by promoting himself on social media under the guise of a "this could happen to you" story.
zmmmmm 14y ago
I honestly think many people have lost the real idea of what a "platform" is these days. In my mind, in it's truest sense, a platform is something stable - a rock solid base on which to build. That's why you build on it - because you can trust it, even if you turn enemies with it, the key parts you rely on aren't going to change. So to me, Facebook never was a "platform", nor was Twitter, nor iOS. All these things are just gambles, business bets on the future based on things you hope are true. They may be good ones, profitable ones, but you were never guaranteed anything and you should be prepared to lose it all the minute your interests and your landlord's no longer coincide. What do I consider "true" platforms? The closest are Android, Windows (not counting future versions), OSX (up until ML), in some sense the JVM and the browser. I don't know if the new versions of OSX and Windows will qualify as true platforms ... it remains to be seen how the effect of tightening controls on them plays out. tldr; I wish we could stop calling playing in somebody else's ever changing walled garden with no guarantee of anything a "platform".
joe-mccann 14y ago
These open letters to a CEO of a massive corporate conglomerate need to stop please. No CEO gives two fucks about your blog post. Cry me a river, J Tim...
digitalpython 14y ago
This is the most juvenile rant i've heard in a long time. What do you expect from FB? This is business. They wasted your time? Do you think nobody has ever wasted Mr Zuckerberg's time? They ambushed you? Do you think Mr Zuckerberg has never been ambushed? Anybody who has done anything of real value has had sh!t thrown in their face many many times. If you expect to be successful and do well you will have worse things happen to you than this. Your rant reflects very poorly on you, I for one wouldn't want to do business with someone of this attitude. Suck it up, assess your options, make strategic decisions and move forward. Stop asking for somebody to hold your hand.
TheCondor 14y ago
I don't know about airing the laundry like this, it seems more and more common and there is always a lot of missing context. And you can't really undo it, but to each his own. Am I reading this correctly that the platform ad vp has $1billion number on his head and he is a little nervous about some competition? It looks a lot like fb is on tilt, from the bot clicks to different charge for friends to see content stories it doesn't look like all is well.
joering2 14y ago
So Facebook is more or less like a Casino: its fun to play, you are welcome to come and bring your friends along, have fun, win some, lose some and then go home. And don't forget to come back. But if you are bringing your genius gambling skills, plan on making money here, and you keep on winning one after another, you will be kindly asked to leave, or removed with force. At the end of the day, its nothing new. Its a bit of a ponzi scheme where a company offers something (in case of Facebook or Twitter: an access to their dataset) under a false promise of achieving fame and/or fortune if you built something fun and cool and attract large audience. So you are welcome to try while we keep on building our company on this "don't be evil, connect people" promise. But rest assured if somehow someway you come close to making it a reality and bump on our radar, we will gladly shut you down this or another way. And I'm having hard time blaming Facebook here. Perhaps that would be weird before IPO and an audience of stockholders watching their every move, but especially now where there is a crack in the boat and it runs 40% underwater, all eyes are on captain's hands. He needs to be as fierce and violent in his moves as possible and if someone even remotely comes close to eating up even little bit of his advertising cheddar, he/she will be torpedoed down.
kkotak 14y ago
Seriously? Are you so delusional? So, what's bothering this guy is that Facebook wants to pay him to buy what he's built? AND he can walk away from it? Spending an hour of his life in that meeting? That really gives raises the bubble to a new level. The one that this guy and a lot of the valley lives in. _K
akandiah 14y ago
Here's Vic Gundotra's take on this: https://plus.google.com/107117483540235115863/posts/EstNjiL2uon https://plus.google.com/107117483540235115863/posts/EstNjiL2...
petegrif 14y ago
Having a bunch of software is one thing. Representing yourself as a platform is something very different. A platform a representation that you are providing a set of services on which others can safely build. It is a form of contract. And this representation has to be trusted because who in their right minds would otherwise invest on a 'platform' that turns out to be a flag of convenience? If a company loses this trust they ultimately lose the right to be called a platform. They lose developers and are ultimately left with a bunch of unused APIs. Incidents like these described by DC are extremely important and should be publicly voiced because they bear directly upon the decision making of others who may be in the process of weighing their options. Should they or shouldn't they trust this alleged 'platform.' It is a huge strategic decision that can make or break a company. So people like DC who are prepare to go public with his experience are doing us all a favor because they are providing more perfect information, without which the market cannot operate accurately. People can choose to criticize this or that dimension of the way various people played their parts, but that really isn't the key point, is it? Surely the key point is, can you trust the 'platformness' of FB? Did they imply one thing - that he was building a valuable product that they would be supporting - THEN choose to compete and wipe him out? That's the key point. The manners, the exact detail of how the wipeout was conducted aren't the point. If the story is accurate it is surely the breach of faith the is important. Some may argue that to expect otherwise is naive. But without some such faith there is no platform. You can't have your cake and eat it.
dgudkov 14y ago
One more proof that no one knows how to monetize social networks correctly (maybe besides LinkedIn).
hendrik-xdest 14y ago
It worked: http://allthingsd.com/20120801/facebook-platform-exec-ethan-beard-departs/ http://allthingsd.com/20120801/facebook-platform-exec-ethan-...
arunoda 14y ago
I just felt that this is a marketing tac-tic by dalton to promote his new app.net Just a random thought.
freyr 14y ago
Facebook built a developer platform, and developers trusted Facebook -- dumb f*s.
doonrothmani 14y ago
holy cow, getting a meeting at Facebook and having them offer to acquire my business $$$ would be a dream come true!!! This guy sounds like the guys who complain that the super-models that come on to them are only looking for a physical relationship. Get over yourself dude. btw, Facebook is evil, but that's all beside the point

743 points by johns 14y ago

sdqali 14y ago

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

MatthewPhillips 14y ago
Presumably this: http://app.net/home/ http://app.net/home/
- sdqali 14y ago
  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'?
  - tijs 14y ago
    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/ http://app.net/features/facebook/
- jopt 14y ago
  Really? What makes you think that?
quartus 14y ago
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.
- natep 14y ago
  And how is it related to join.app.net? I'm very confused that these two different things have the same name.
- ryanmerket 14y ago
  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.
  - mikegreenspan 14y ago
    Aren't you always extending Facebook's core features when building with their API? The point of leveraging Facebook platform is to build amazing products that Facebook doesn't have the time or resources to create (see zuck's statement on the importance of Facebook platform during the earnings call).
  - quartus 14y ago
    We used Facebook's APIs and Open Graph in our app discovery service. It was built and released before Facebook's App Center was announced, and Facebook dev-relations employees had previously been supportive of our endeavor.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]

tjic 14y ago

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 direction? Why should Facebook - or any competitor - do either of these things? Seems to me like they acted pretty reasonably here. Of all the things you said, this struck me as the weirdest: > Strangely, your “platform developer relations” executive made no attempt to defend my position. What do you think the purpose of the “platform developer relations” executive is? To advocate AGAINST Facebook and for random outside developers? I'm not a fan of the Facebook app (not a member) or the company...but in this case, the firm seems to be acting 100% reasonably.

larrys 14y ago
"the firm seems to be acting 100% reasonably." And, as a for profit business, they don't even have to hit anywhere near 100%. They just have to do well enough in how they operate not to loose business or somehow jeopardize what they have. It's really that simple. This is a story that prior to the Internet nobody would ever hear about. No journalist would tell this story except in a magazine piece maybe that had an agenda and wanted to paint a picture. This tale goes nowhere near even scratching the surface of how business operates. Spying. Payoffs. "Cut off their air supply" (Microsoft/Netscape) Here's a story from when I started in business years ago. I called a friend of my fathers for a reference on someone who had worked with him in the past. He said "hmm, Bob left his job? Hmm." and then gave me a nice reference on him. Before I knew it he had hired Bob and basically told him "he's a startup you are wasting your time". I lost out on hiring Bob. This was a friend of the family. That may or may not be how any one of us would operate but in business as you say you can't be "a precious snow flake".
WiseWeasel 14y ago
It seems like Dalton was under the impression that he was rather explicitly threatened with being denied access to the Facebook platform through a change in terms of service, in a way that is critical to his business. That's a strong-handed negotiation tactic for a supposed business infrastructure provider.

ajross 14y ago

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 for them to buy an existing player, ditto. And if so, clearly they'd want to acquire that player at a good price, right? I just don't see the ethical problem here. They didn't lie, and they offered a check (that it happens the OP didn't want).

josephlord 14y ago
It is bullying tactics. We are big and will crush you unless you give us what we want. It's legal (probably) but isn't a classy move and there are long term costs. It makes FB less attractive to developers (unless they are trying to get acqui-hired). Also get a reputation as a bully rather than a good fun company may make it harder to attract good staff (or they may charge more if they are not being paid in cool). It's also the tactic of the mafia and of Microsoft (1990s when people were still scared of them). It would be a shame if anything happened to your company... Basically it is the big bully move not the cool kid everybody wants to be on his team move.
- jarek 14y ago
  Facebook is still attractive to developers?
  - josephlord 14y ago
    I don't know, I wouldn't develop for it but they do have a large audience for the moment. Edit: Added "for the moment".
cube13 14y ago
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.

lewisflude 14y ago

Mark will probably see this, but will anything change? Probably not. The simple fact is that as a company, FB have to meet their targets and Dalton's app is a bit of a conflict of interest. So, no surprises there. However, I agree with his point about big "media company" social networks being eventually replaced by a much larger number of specific micro-networks. One network for photo sharing, music sharing (Soundcloud?), messaging etc. Even once you have all these niches, I'm sure there's space for two or three due to the fact that people have different priorities and visual tastes. As a company, Facebook aren't on course to die but I'm sure we're going to continue to see decisions like this being made that surprise us as the tech community due to the fact that they don't align with the vision we thought the company once had.

deveac 14y ago

Step 1) Code features for a large platform that is actively iterating and implementing new features at an incredibly rapid pace. Step 2) Complain when there is eventual feature overlap.

joeblau 14y ago

I wonder if this style of negotiation tactic motivated companies like Spool, Face.com, Karama, Glancee, and Lightbox to join? It seems like Dalton's strong entrepreneurial spirit (or hard hardheadedness--however you see it) kept him from falling into that category.

johnbenwoo 14y ago

These dynamics are part of what is referred to in corporate development as the Golden Rule - he who has the gold, makes the rules

codezy 14y ago

I find building a product using a 3rd party API can be totally awesome or a complete disaster. In my case I had two experiences that stood out: RDIO: These guys are awesome. Their API is awesome, their support of devs who build on it is awesome. Their product is awesome. Kudos to Ian who works on it. We built Anthm on this and it has worked out great! FreshBooks: These guys made me furious. We found that there were no good OSX based timers for this product so we built one. In the end they refused to put us up on their site, each time with a different excuse (we have promised exclusivity to this other app, or we are changing our app system). The developer relations guy was just a total jerk. In the end they asked us to change our name because they did not like it and even after immediately doing that, no love from them. In short - it is getting tough to base a business on any of these third party API's that can change under your feet - yet there are still some out there that are tremendous.

lubujackson 14y ago

Don't build a house on a river and then blame the water. There has never been a company-controlled ecosystem that has EVER thrived for long without the company swooping in to get that easy money. In fact, now that Facebook is public, its their fiduciary duty to do just that. They could get sued if they DIDN'T try to cheaply build out their own versions of successful products. The only surprise is that anyone is surprised by this, or thinks that Facebook has "lost their way", or had any other intentions when they started their platform. This is standard business practice - make a little ecosystem, let people futz around in it for a while. If it fails, shut it down; if it succeeds, go pick the low-hanging fruit.

slantyyz 14y ago
I agree. It's risky to bet a company on someone else's platform, whether it be Facebook, Craigslist or someone else. You are at that company's mercy. Even the most stable company can decide to pivot their strategy, change management (i.e., your cheerleader/sponsor retires, gets fired or worse), and at that point, you're just collateral damage.

Aaronontheweb 14y ago

If Facebook's plan B was to lock out Dalton using a TOS change, then it seems awfully stupid to have held this meeting in the first place. I get the talent acquisition as a defensive play to keep a potential threat out of the market, but if Dalton's story is true then Facebook's execution around this entire engagement seems stupid and ham-fisted through and through.

Moseman23 14y ago

Mega-meh. I find this "open" letter to be as totally self-serving as "Open" Graph will ever be. You got a meeting with a lot of FB poo-bahs. Whatever you thought it was going to be about, if you were unprepared for the crushing embrace of the Big Face, it's on you. Of course they want to intimidate you into an "aqui-hire." It's called hardball. Their "platform" is what it is. A highly flawed way to instantly reach astounding numbers of people for potentially deep or shallow exchanges of questionable value. Many your age have made millions for a half-year's work on this "joke" platform, as you call it. This is known, and blaming their tanking stock price for their behavior seems like a cheap shot at execs you don't even name. I would advise you to get ready in case Apple calls. Unlike FB, they won't apologize after they gutpunch you.

Kelliot 14y ago

Getting bored of Hackernews being used as an internet slander machine. I think the age old rule of 'Not your personal army' needs to be enacted here =(

mbesto 14y ago

> As I understood at the time, the purpose of the meeting was for me to present/demonstrate a new iOS app & service I have been building on the Facebook Platform. Previously, I had been reassured by Facebook dev-relations employees that the service I was building was an interesting/ valuable use of Open Graph & Facebook Platform. What evidence does the author have to support this? Is there communication from such VPs saying "We would like you to come in to meet us to measure the value of your service"? > I was hoping the outcome of this meeting would be executive-level support for my impending product launch. Again, who set the authors expectations here? And what exactly does "executive-level" support mean? Would they feature the app, simply because it was valuable for them? Note - Expecation setting is one of the hardest things to do in business. And can also be used for negotiation tactics. I'm sorry, but all I read from this is just (another) example of how a company with different corporate interests (read-> shareholder value) no longer puts time into something that doesn't drive bottom line. Is it a great example of what an IPO does to a company's interest? Absolutely. But I don't necessarily feel bad for the author nor do I feel like any unjust has been done. He's proved his point, seems extremely smart and will move on to the next cool and interesting project.

vishaldpatel 14y ago

Aw.. it's a love letter!

zem 14y ago

First Apple, then Twitter, and now Facebook ... the landscape right now seems positively littered with people who have bet the farm on a sharecropping strategy, gotten burnt and are now complaining about the landlord rather than learning the underlying lesson.

smber1 14y ago

"I believe that future social platforms will behave more like infrastructure, and less like media companies." Great, line. Exactly what I was thinking as I was reading the letter. Completely necessary to to create an eco-system that developers/consumers will want to use. Monetizing the eco-system can come later, just as it did with Google search.

jgrahamc 14y ago

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.

ilaksh 14y ago
They spent a lot of time working on a product and then had the choice of either giving it to Facebook (selling) or writing off the entire effort. From a business standpoint, that's just the way our society works. The problem is the concept of business and how it controls all aspects of our lives and opposes technological progress.
caleywoods 14y ago
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.
- natep 14y ago
  No, he didn't want to be acquired, and he didn't want to go to an aggressive acquisition negotiation meeting, since there would be no terms he would accept. He only went to the meeting because he thought it was a demo. Edit: actually, we're both right, according to the alleged contents of a phone call http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4325586 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4325586
- natrius 14y ago
  Nothing in the post suggests that Facebook threatened to turn off access.
  - cbr 14y ago
    They threatened this in a phone call, but he didn't record it so he didn't include it in the letter: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4325593 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4325593
14y ago

marcusf 14y ago

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 to see it.

alttab 14y ago
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 create variants of it and use it with your friends as long as they understand your dialect. "Social Infrastructure" would require a common social protocol as a specification. This would open up an entire ecosystem of smaller players to contribute to it, providing delicious synergy and innovation along the way. Kind of like modding Minecraft, etc. Not every company wants to become a billion dollar start up. There are many IT service providers and MSPs that are perfectly comfortable servicing 30 clients and making a lifestyle business for everyone involved. If its a commodity, it opens up locality and niche markets easier than a monolithic implementation. Nothing but good would come from a true technological social protocol. Right now online social behavior is dictated through the mind of one man, which isn't really social at all. The user value is in that the users have all the power. If social service providers are a commodity, if they misbehave or provide a bad user experience they could simply take their social graph somewhere else. This empowers the user. This is also why Facebook does everything in its power to retain hegemony.
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  The users of Facebook are people, and as far as I know, Facebook does not change or compromise the conversations among people. I've never seen a status, comment, photo, friend request, etc. changed by Facebook. Businesses who build on the Facebook platform are not users. They are attempting to extract value from the users--just like Facebook itself is. It is not surprising that they sometimes find themselves competing with Facebook. The sort of open "infrastructure" Dalton advocates for would be great for platform businesses...of course they would love to have all the advantages of a platform (aggregated audience, aggregated data, well-defined API, etc.), without the downsides (changes to the API, competition from the platform owner). But it doesn't really matter that much to users. I can easily take my personal social graph with me...I know who my friends and family are, and I can find them again on whatever new service seems better than Facebook. After all, Facebook did it to MySpace--and without access to MySpace's social graph.

ivankirigin 14y ago

To clarify for those confused comments here: app.net is in part a platform to showcase your app. Facebook's AppCenter is similar. If they were building an open platform, app.net could build into Facebook's AppCenter. Offering a aquihire and refusing to make an open platform is what Dalton doesn't like. His critique is tied to his project at http://join.app.net http://join.app.net because the reason the platform isn't open according to Dalton is because Facebook needs the ad revenue to hit its performance numbers.

natrius 14y ago
"Offering a aquihire and refusing to make an open platform is what Dalton doesn't like." Typically, when someone doesn't like an acquisition offer, they decline it. Is it wrong for Facebook to build a platform that isn't open? I don't see why Mark Zuckerberg (or the public, as the comments on this submission indicate) would read this letter and decide that his employees acted improperly, which the letter seems to expect.
- natep 14y ago
  Typically, when someone knows they will not accept any acquisition offers, they do not waste their time by going to meetings whose sole purpose is to discuss an acquisition. FB misled him into thinking it was a demo meeting.
  - natrius 14y ago
    That's not what this letter is about. Writing an open letter because someone wasted your time would seem a bit silly to me. This is about Facebook threatening to revoke API access, which the letter didn't mention, but his comments here have.

shock3naw 14y ago

Let's be clear, the only purpose of this post is to bring attention to App.net. Calling Facebook 'rotten-to-the-core' isn't a great way to capture the sympathy of its CEO.

notJim 14y ago
I agree. This post comes across as very self-serving. He attacks Facebook for not being something they never claimed to be, and then offers a competing product that fulfills that need. Gross.
- petegrif 14y ago
  That's not quite true tho is it? FB does offer something it represents as being a platform. And bear in mind that he didn't just blindly build a product assuming that he could trust the platform. He solicited and continually received assurances that his product would be welcomed and valued on the platform. It was only after he had invested time and money building it that the rules changed. And it was that experience that resulted in his conviction of the need for a competing product.
zachwill 14y ago
Dalton seems like a really smart guy, but I do agree. The post feels like nothing more than an App.net attention grab.

alttab 14y ago

Sounds like the author's righteousness has worn off and now he regrets not negotiating with Facebook more. To make himself feel like he got something out of it, he posts a blog about how Facebook is the enemy, and not-so-subtly brags that his creation was wanted for acquisition by Facebook.

HistoryInAction 14y ago

Interesting, are you arguing that Facebook and Twitter are going to be the 'electricity infrastructure' of the Internet in terms of their role as platforms for development?

mindcrime 14y ago

Your team doesn’t seem to understand that being “good negotiators” vs implying that you will destroy someone’s business built on your “open platform” are not the same thing. That's probably a true statement, but who the heck actually considers Facebook to be any sort of "open platform" in the first place? Honestly, how many times have we seen this lesson re-iterated here on HN in the past few months: It is very dangerous to build a product that depends on a platform that someone else controls. And this isn't a new lesson either... remember "DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run?" (And it doesn't really matter if Microsoft were actually breaking Lotus on purpose or not... the risk was - and still is - there, and has to be accounted for).

notJim 14y ago

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 ridiculous. It sucks that you were naïve about this, but that's hardly Facebook's fault.

natep 14y ago
He's upset that what he thought was a demo meeting was actually their way of luring him into an acquisition meeting. And he doesn't seem to have a problem with FB having their own app store, he's going to compete with them regardless. Actually, he phrases it better here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4325566 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4325566
ryanmerket 14y ago
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.
- dalton 14y ago
  Um, yeah pretty sure I was talking to the right people. Marc Andreessen is on my board.
  - ryanmerket 14y ago
    What does that have to do with anything? In your letter to Mark you said, "I had been reassured by Facebook dev-relations employees" -- as an ex-Facebook Dev Relations employee I can assure you that you were not talking to the right people.
  - airnomad 14y ago
    You wrote this post 40+ days after the meeting took place. That imply your timing is chosen for reasons you didn't disclose in the blog post. Hence you try to manipulate public while pursuing hidden agenda.

AznHisoka 14y ago

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

dave1619 14y ago
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."
- bthomas 14y ago
  Are there good examples other than Apple?
- jarek 14y ago
  Of course Ive is going to say that. He's a designer. You think Oppenheimer gets on investor calls and says "Sorry guys, we don't actually care about your money, we're just here to make what we think are great products" and they believe him?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

slurgfest 14y ago

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!

EvanMiller 14y ago

Dalton Caldwell sends email the hard way.

jcdavis 14y ago

Surely he must have signed some sort of NDA before going into said meeting, which he is now breaching?

smalter 14y ago
I'm pretty sure I signed an NDA at the front desk as the cost of walking into Facebook.
ryanmerket 14y ago
Almost certainly.

dalton 14y ago

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 folks don't see the issue with building something that is encouraged by employees of a company, and then, in the matter of months, being told "never mind". That is not good for an ecosystem.

notJim 14y ago
Hey dalton, I've posted my thoughts in this thread, and I'm also considering writing a blog article about this, but I have one meta thing to share with you. This letter doesn't make two things clear to me: 1) what exactly it is you're upset about and 2) what you think should have happened. Because of this, people in this thread are making a lot of assumptions which are uncharitable and inaccurate, and you come across as looking more naive than I suspect you actually are. Clarifying in the thread is good, but it's damage control. I'm not sure if you wrote the letter when you were angry, or if it was originally written to people with more context, but I just wanted to share a part of why I think this thread is going the way it is.
- dalton 14y ago
  1) I am unhappy that I wasted my time and energy building on a platform that encouraged me to do so, and within the matter of months changed their mind. This is the same thing that makes me unhappy with what Twitter is doing to their ecosystem: http://daltoncaldwell.com/what-twitter-could-have-been http://daltoncaldwell.com/what-twitter-could-have-been 2) Once Mark Zuckerberg gave personal blessing, he shouldn't have changed his mind. I have an interesting email thread along these lines.
  - loceng 14y ago
    It's a game to them. Don't initiate games with children if you don't want to be involved where childish things can be done. Children can do nasty things. They don't understand or possibly don't care of the consequences. Their goal is to create and maintain a controlled ecosystem. They know legally where they stand and they have billions of dollars now to drag out any lawsuit, if anyone decides to waste their energy on such a thing. I am sure they feel invincible, and I can understand how that could develop with what they have power of / are in control of. I recently had an issue with a local group of 'investors' / tech people, and after learning more details I was clearly mislead into presenting to them.. What they were looking to invest in was absolutely not a match to what I am doing. Sure, it was under confidential and private settings, though I know I taught them a lot and exposed a lot I rather would not have - simply because I don't think these people have good intentions or are honest people - and I don't want to support that as a human being, because I don't think that's good for society.

snorkel 14y ago

Tying your business fortunes to the goodwill of Facebook is like having the fate a toothbrush bird that feeds from the mouth an alligator. The toothbrush bird will never grow to be as big as the alligator and it eats only as much as the alligator allows.

yuvadam 14y ago

These are the types of stories that Silicon Valley generates that never cease to amuse me. What we have here is a typical example of how agents act in a competitive capitalist environment. In a system where profit is all that matters, I find it amusing to hear people bitch about 'ethics' and 'bad faith'. We have long known Facebook's model, and the warning signs are everywhere. Facebook is a surveillance conglomerate, and it is granting you certain privileges - either as a so-called 'user' or as a developer - at its behest. Get in bed with that thing, and you just might get the cooties.

kevinalexbrown 14y ago

Why wait 1.5 months to make an open letter after a "June 13th, 2012 at 4:30pm" meeting? Did you try communicating directly with Facebook for 45 days, then let it go? What makes now the best time to incite public wrath against Facebook (I'm assuming that was the intent in resolving never to write another line of code for a "rotten to the core" company) in an open letter that was anything but conciliatory? It sounds like Facebook used some hard-handed tactics, but I'm more curious as to your choice of timing. Edit: not trying to be snarky, genuinely curious.

dalton 14y ago
I have been waiting because I have been afraid. I have been blogging extensively about platform-risk issues for the past month, but have never come out and said this part: http://daltoncaldwell.com/ http://daltoncaldwell.com/
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- petegrif 14y ago
  Very understandable.

orangethirty 14y ago

Though I still don't understand that well what Dalton's product really is, I do respect him for the tough choice he made. It takes guts to turn down a lot of money from some big player. Good luck, Dalton.

surferbayarea 14y ago

The issue is that facebook and twitter have derailed from their earlier stated mission of connecting people and facilitating communication. Their goal as public businesses is making money from advertising, anything else is just feeding into that. This kind of misalignment of goals results in end users experience suffering. A thing like a social network is part of the fundamental fabric of the internet As a result the organization running this infrastructure should have very clear goals. It doesn't have to be a non-profit, but the goal should not be to generate 30% growth and billions in profits. The goal should be to make it easier for people to communicate. Given the decrease in the cost of computing, there is no reason that it should cost billions of $ to run an infrastructure like facebook. What we need is a linux for the internet. Fundamental infrastructures like social network and search engine being run by entities with no hidden agendas! It will happen!

mtrn 14y ago
I too think it will happen. This post illustrates that a) the web is not really a welcoming place for large walled gardens, b) if you want to build on someone else's infrastructure, pay them, so you become their customer, so their goal is to make your life easier.

unreal37 14y ago

We are moving into an era of the walled garden. Apple has it's iTunes Store and Mac Store, Microsoft will have a Windows store when Windows 8 launches, FB has its platform and apps that run on its platform, Twitter, on and on... All companies are looking to build walls and moats around their "platforms" because walls mean profits. Now you need to blessing of the landlord, and not be competing against them in any way.

jarek 14y ago
Web 3.0 bubble expected around 2019 once the walled gardens fail yet again

badabam 14y ago

here goes Dalton..... again.

jay_kyburz 14y ago

Hrrm.. much of the discussion here is missing what I think is the important point. If you build on Facebooks platform, there is a good chance you will end up competing with Facebook. Or Twitter. We need a social platform that is distributed and that nobody "owns".

chollida1 14y ago

I'm having trouble seeing why Dalton seems so put out by this If you try to look at this from facebook's perspective the most likely out come looks something like: > Ok, we've decided to go this app route. Wow app.net is really going to be steam rolled by this. We already have a relation ship with them, what can we do to help them out? > Well I guess we can offer to aquire them, they probably have some expertise we can use and it will generate a lot of good will for us from our own developer community. Yes, this seems like a win win. > Well this is a pretty delicate conversation so bringing it up over the phone is pretty bushleague. Let's do teh right thing and tell him face to face. I see we've already got them scheduled for a meeting in a couple of weeks. > This seems to be working out perfectly for both of us. How much do you think we'll need to offer them to acquire their company? I'm really having trouble seeing how people don't see this as the most likely way things happened.

mikeleeorg 14y ago

I know it's been pointed out endlessly elsewhere, but it seems necessary to highlight this excerpt of the OP's post: As someone that wants to build quality social software, software that doesn’t force users to re-create their friends list, or not use oAuth, etc., I have to endure huge platform risk.

DenisM 14y ago

Dalton, thanks for having warned the rest of us. The opinions may differ on whether this sort of bait and switch is a legitimate tactic, but I think we can all agree we're better off knowing about this sort of things than not. Good luck with your business.

zobzu 14y ago

All I know is that I'd be irritated if someone started each paragraph with my first name, specially without knowing me personally. That's impolite, authoritative and just annoying. My 2cts :P

hxf148 14y ago

I've dealt with people at App.net during my own development projects (Infostripe) and they seem one of the few who were good at communicating back. They even featured IS at one point. Which might go to explain how they are apparently excellent at putting themselves in the news as an heir to Twitter and a major Facebook competitor. Yet aren't actually either of those things. At least so far.. fascinating.

RyanMcGreal 14y ago

Building your business in an unexploited niche on another business's platform is sharecropping, pure and simple. http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePlace http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePla...

csmeder 14y ago

A lot of people seem to be missing Dalton's point. Dalton isn't complaining Mark's behavior is bad (in the short term). He knows why Mark did what he did, it makes sense if you are thinking short term. It makes sense if you think Facebook is worth 110 Billion. This isn't a letter so much to convince Mark that he is heading down the wrong path. I think Dalton is convinced FB as an organization has made too many promises. It's too late for FB too change direction. They are headed for and iceberg at 110 billion dollar speed and can't course correct in time. Rather this is a letter to us. Dalton is pointing out the prediction that Facebook won't be around in 10 years. So don't build your apps on it. If you build your apps using Facebook you will be at its mercy. And as Facebook starts to die, you will feel the pain it inflicts on its closest "partners" as it scrambles to squeeze blood from turnips. It will use every nasty trick in the book to keep a monopoly on its market and squeeze every last drop of money and value (your personal info) it can from users. Dalton has seen what people who run a company, with a dying business model, are capable of before. The Record/Music companies... He knows what a company, that is seeing its monopoly slip through its fingers, is willing to do to keep that monopoly just a little longer. Intimidation and dishonest negotiation tactics are just the start. Will we soon see Facebook suing users? Lobbying congress for SOPA like laws to protect its monopoly? Remember GoDaddy was a main supporter of SOPA. It saw SOPA as a way to keep its URL retailing monopoly. Dalton is warning you. Dalton cares about you. He has given up on saving Mark. Mark wants to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Dalton wants to raise the goose that lays the silver egg. And share those eggs with us. Well, that's my interpretation of this open letter to Mark. I could be wrong, I often am.

jpdoctor 14y ago
> So don't build your apps on it. The other reason: Putting a company with FB's reputation in your critical path is just asking for trouble.
- petegrif 14y ago
  Which is his point.
lucisferre 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

halis 14y ago

Did you even talk price? It may have been worth your while...

tjmc 14y ago

A fish rots from the head down. Zuckerberg has well-known form screwing over those he does business with. That you're surprised speaks more to your business acumen than his I'm afraid. Your open letter comes across as entitled and puerile - as they usually do.

arquebus 14y ago

I dont know much about how a venture capitalist estimates the value of a startup that has not yet marketed their product. But we all see how big name tech companies are stuck paying huge amounts to buy up competition: ie MS paying $9B for Skype, Facebook buys Instagram for $1B. Clearly Daltan wants to create value for his company that it does not yet have. The only way he can do this is by promoting himself on social media under the guise of a "this could happen to you" story.

zmmmmm 14y ago

I honestly think many people have lost the real idea of what a "platform" is these days. In my mind, in it's truest sense, a platform is something stable - a rock solid base on which to build. That's why you build on it - because you can trust it, even if you turn enemies with it, the key parts you rely on aren't going to change. So to me, Facebook never was a "platform", nor was Twitter, nor iOS. All these things are just gambles, business bets on the future based on things you hope are true. They may be good ones, profitable ones, but you were never guaranteed anything and you should be prepared to lose it all the minute your interests and your landlord's no longer coincide. What do I consider "true" platforms? The closest are Android, Windows (not counting future versions), OSX (up until ML), in some sense the JVM and the browser. I don't know if the new versions of OSX and Windows will qualify as true platforms ... it remains to be seen how the effect of tightening controls on them plays out. tldr; I wish we could stop calling playing in somebody else's ever changing walled garden with no guarantee of anything a "platform".

joe-mccann 14y ago

These open letters to a CEO of a massive corporate conglomerate need to stop please. No CEO gives two fucks about your blog post. Cry me a river, J Tim...

digitalpython 14y ago

This is the most juvenile rant i've heard in a long time. What do you expect from FB? This is business. They wasted your time? Do you think nobody has ever wasted Mr Zuckerberg's time? They ambushed you? Do you think Mr Zuckerberg has never been ambushed? Anybody who has done anything of real value has had sh!t thrown in their face many many times. If you expect to be successful and do well you will have worse things happen to you than this. Your rant reflects very poorly on you, I for one wouldn't want to do business with someone of this attitude. Suck it up, assess your options, make strategic decisions and move forward. Stop asking for somebody to hold your hand.

TheCondor 14y ago

I don't know about airing the laundry like this, it seems more and more common and there is always a lot of missing context. And you can't really undo it, but to each his own. Am I reading this correctly that the platform ad vp has $1billion number on his head and he is a little nervous about some competition? It looks a lot like fb is on tilt, from the bot clicks to different charge for friends to see content stories it doesn't look like all is well.

joering2 14y ago

So Facebook is more or less like a Casino: its fun to play, you are welcome to come and bring your friends along, have fun, win some, lose some and then go home. And don't forget to come back. But if you are bringing your genius gambling skills, plan on making money here, and you keep on winning one after another, you will be kindly asked to leave, or removed with force. At the end of the day, its nothing new. Its a bit of a ponzi scheme where a company offers something (in case of Facebook or Twitter: an access to their dataset) under a false promise of achieving fame and/or fortune if you built something fun and cool and attract large audience. So you are welcome to try while we keep on building our company on this "don't be evil, connect people" promise. But rest assured if somehow someway you come close to making it a reality and bump on our radar, we will gladly shut you down this or another way. And I'm having hard time blaming Facebook here. Perhaps that would be weird before IPO and an audience of stockholders watching their every move, but especially now where there is a crack in the boat and it runs 40% underwater, all eyes are on captain's hands. He needs to be as fierce and violent in his moves as possible and if someone even remotely comes close to eating up even little bit of his advertising cheddar, he/she will be torpedoed down.

kkotak 14y ago

Seriously? Are you so delusional? So, what's bothering this guy is that Facebook wants to pay him to buy what he's built? AND he can walk away from it? Spending an hour of his life in that meeting? That really gives raises the bubble to a new level. The one that this guy and a lot of the valley lives in. _K

akandiah 14y ago

Here's Vic Gundotra's take on this: https://plus.google.com/107117483540235115863/posts/EstNjiL2uon https://plus.google.com/107117483540235115863/posts/EstNjiL2...

petegrif 14y ago

Having a bunch of software is one thing. Representing yourself as a platform is something very different. A platform a representation that you are providing a set of services on which others can safely build. It is a form of contract. And this representation has to be trusted because who in their right minds would otherwise invest on a 'platform' that turns out to be a flag of convenience? If a company loses this trust they ultimately lose the right to be called a platform. They lose developers and are ultimately left with a bunch of unused APIs. Incidents like these described by DC are extremely important and should be publicly voiced because they bear directly upon the decision making of others who may be in the process of weighing their options. Should they or shouldn't they trust this alleged 'platform.' It is a huge strategic decision that can make or break a company. So people like DC who are prepare to go public with his experience are doing us all a favor because they are providing more perfect information, without which the market cannot operate accurately. People can choose to criticize this or that dimension of the way various people played their parts, but that really isn't the key point, is it? Surely the key point is, can you trust the 'platformness' of FB? Did they imply one thing - that he was building a valuable product that they would be supporting - THEN choose to compete and wipe him out? That's the key point. The manners, the exact detail of how the wipeout was conducted aren't the point. If the story is accurate it is surely the breach of faith the is important. Some may argue that to expect otherwise is naive. But without some such faith there is no platform. You can't have your cake and eat it.

dgudkov 14y ago

One more proof that no one knows how to monetize social networks correctly (maybe besides LinkedIn).

hendrik-xdest 14y ago

It worked: http://allthingsd.com/20120801/facebook-platform-exec-ethan-beard-departs/ http://allthingsd.com/20120801/facebook-platform-exec-ethan-...

arunoda 14y ago

I just felt that this is a marketing tac-tic by dalton to promote his new app.net Just a random thought.

freyr 14y ago

Facebook built a developer platform, and developers trusted Facebook -- dumb f*s.

doonrothmani 14y ago

holy cow, getting a meeting at Facebook and having them offer to acquire my business $$$ would be a dream come true!!! This guy sounds like the guys who complain that the super-models that come on to them are only looking for a physical relationship. Get over yourself dude. btw, Facebook is evil, but that's all beside the point