4 ms·

Nice quote at the end: Gates praised Zuckerberg’s drive, but described him as “more of a product manager”, insisting that he was more of a coder starting with

Nice quote at the end: Gates praised Zuckerberg’s drive, but described him as “more of a product manager”, insisting that he was more of a coder starting with architecture where Zuckerberg “starts with products, and Steve Jobs started with aesthetics.”

thenmar 13y ago
That is a funny quote, although a little sad when you look at the terrible product failures Microsoft has released in recent years.
- moron4hire 13y ago
  Which might be part of why Gates is getting more involved again.
mercer 13y ago
Which, in my view, expresses where my main concerns about facebook's future lie (if I were an investor, I guess). When Facebook introduced its plan to be a platform for developers to work on, I loved the idea. It reminded me of Yegge's post on Amazon, and seemed to me like a great way for Facebook to evolve to be the 'social layer' of the web. Of course, they torpedoed that whole effort and kept going with their walled-garden facebook-as-a-product approach. And now that Facebook seems to lose some momentum/popularity (or is perceived to be, which is still bad), they end up implementing part of the 'platform model' anyways, except still within their walled-garden with facebook-made apps. It's quite possible that I'm missing the real reason why they are taking this approach, but seeing Zuckerberg as a product-first guy might be a partial explanation.
- tsunamifury 13y ago
  From what Zuckerberg said at Disrupt in 2011 it seemed like the Facebook-as-a-Platform strategy was the plan they would have stuck with if not for mobile. They knew they had to make a huge switch to mobile or they'd be forgotten before their IPO, and the locked-down simple nature of mobile ecosystems turned them back towards Facebook as product(s).
  - mercer 13y ago
    What exactly is the difference between developers integrating mobile apps with facebook, and developers integrating websites or web apps? In fact, mobile apps can make it easier (and safer) for users to link to facebook. In fact, what with the need to develop apps that pull from the same source as the website, they probably had to focus more on the (private) API anyways. Or was it more a matter of development priorities?
- wpietri 13y ago
  I too loved the idea, but I think Facebook's naive implementation of it ruined it for them. In the early wave of Facebook apps there was a lot of stuff built that users hated. In 2010, when my cofounder and I started doing user tests of some Facebook app ideas, it turned out that people were very averse to using new apps. If you use a regular app and it sucks, you remove it. But if you used a Facebook app and it does something bad, you look like an idiot in front of all your friends. It was a classic tragedy of the commons: the viral behaviors that made early apps successful rapidly depleted the goodwill of users. And people didn't blame the obscure companies doing the BS; they blamed Facebook. The lesson we took from our user studies was to build something that was an external website, and only mention Facebook integration once we'd had a chance to get them more comfortable with us. And I'm sure the lesson Facebook took was "don't let other people ruin our brand".
  - aryastark 13y ago
    > It was a classic tragedy of the commons seven hells...
  - mercer 13y ago
    Indeed. I spent two months on a feature that was basically 'push every pageview of x to the user's timeline', and facebook understandably removed that feature just before launch. However, it still doesn't really make sense to me. First of all, why not just remove the abuse, or implement more app-store like curation to ban abusers. And second, they didn't really seem to be too committed from the start, what with the constant API changes that broke stuff left and right.

thenmar 13y ago

That is a funny quote, although a little sad when you look at the terrible product failures Microsoft has released in recent years.

moron4hire 13y ago
Which might be part of why Gates is getting more involved again.

mercer 13y ago

Which, in my view, expresses where my main concerns about facebook's future lie (if I were an investor, I guess). When Facebook introduced its plan to be a platform for developers to work on, I loved the idea. It reminded me of Yegge's post on Amazon, and seemed to me like a great way for Facebook to evolve to be the 'social layer' of the web. Of course, they torpedoed that whole effort and kept going with their walled-garden facebook-as-a-product approach. And now that Facebook seems to lose some momentum/popularity (or is perceived to be, which is still bad), they end up implementing part of the 'platform model' anyways, except still within their walled-garden with facebook-made apps. It's quite possible that I'm missing the real reason why they are taking this approach, but seeing Zuckerberg as a product-first guy might be a partial explanation.

tsunamifury 13y ago
From what Zuckerberg said at Disrupt in 2011 it seemed like the Facebook-as-a-Platform strategy was the plan they would have stuck with if not for mobile. They knew they had to make a huge switch to mobile or they'd be forgotten before their IPO, and the locked-down simple nature of mobile ecosystems turned them back towards Facebook as product(s).
- mercer 13y ago
  What exactly is the difference between developers integrating mobile apps with facebook, and developers integrating websites or web apps? In fact, mobile apps can make it easier (and safer) for users to link to facebook. In fact, what with the need to develop apps that pull from the same source as the website, they probably had to focus more on the (private) API anyways. Or was it more a matter of development priorities?
wpietri 13y ago
I too loved the idea, but I think Facebook's naive implementation of it ruined it for them. In the early wave of Facebook apps there was a lot of stuff built that users hated. In 2010, when my cofounder and I started doing user tests of some Facebook app ideas, it turned out that people were very averse to using new apps. If you use a regular app and it sucks, you remove it. But if you used a Facebook app and it does something bad, you look like an idiot in front of all your friends. It was a classic tragedy of the commons: the viral behaviors that made early apps successful rapidly depleted the goodwill of users. And people didn't blame the obscure companies doing the BS; they blamed Facebook. The lesson we took from our user studies was to build something that was an external website, and only mention Facebook integration once we'd had a chance to get them more comfortable with us. And I'm sure the lesson Facebook took was "don't let other people ruin our brand".
- aryastark 13y ago
  > It was a classic tragedy of the commons seven hells...
- mercer 13y ago
  Indeed. I spent two months on a feature that was basically 'push every pageview of x to the user's timeline', and facebook understandably removed that feature just before launch. However, it still doesn't really make sense to me. First of all, why not just remove the abuse, or implement more app-store like curation to ban abusers. And second, they didn't really seem to be too committed from the start, what with the constant API changes that broke stuff left and right.