Reminded of this Chamath quote attributed to Bill Gates in an interview with Semil Shah about Facebook's platform.
"I remember when we raised money from Bill Gates...and Gates said something along the lines of, 'That’s a crock of shit. This isn’t a platform. A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it. Then it’s a platform.'"
> "I remember when we raised money from Bill Gates...and Gates said something along the lines of, 'That’s a crock of shit. This isn’t a platform. A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it. Then it’s a platform.'"
Interesting. But Facebook's platform != Facebook, so I don't understand the maxim that "the value of everybody that uses the platform must exceed the value of the company that created it" in order for it to be true.
You could say Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store are platforms, they even offer services (api/web-services, libs, frameworks, etc.) and devs build on-top and make living off it. But that ISN'T the company. Google has search, cars, ads, etc. Apple has it's own crap going.
Furthermore, Apple is worth 1 trillion dollars. Must the value of the platform as determined by "everybody that uses it" exceed 1 trillion? Or must it exceed the yearly revenue of Apple instead?
Or "eating your lunch". You make something that overlaps with FB functionality, but people use it instead of the FB version because it works better/has additional features. You make some $$ and all is well. Then FB takes a look and says "Hmm, we should add those features." Now no one needs to use your version anymore.
This! Similar events is the only thing I miss about fbook.
I was told that an app / site "bandsNearMe" or something like that would replace.. but I don't think it's gets the smaller acts / DJs / events that I would really like to attend.
Meetup does a better job of notifying me. As long as people are going to use fbook to post about upcoming events it would be nice to have access to things coming locally, since I rarely use fbook I miss some good shows.
They had a platform. Then they killed it by killing anybody who did something better than them on the platform. Now they have a burned out husk of a platform. Who wants to live and work in that? The kids don't even like facebook, anymore (perhaps partly because it's been stagnant due to lack of fresh outside ideas, I dunno...it's not really my area, and I've always been ambivalent about facebook even when it was still cool).
Alas, they can still add and remove such a policy, or tuned variants thereof, at their own discretion at any time. And have done so in the past. And would be keenly motivated to do so in the future.
So them not-having-the-policy on a particular day N isn't really much comfort for those who'd like to build functionality for day N+1, when Facebook may have rewritten the rules to its own advantage again.
Will they contractually commit to a policy for a specified period of time?
My new startup, EvilCorp is just about to launch a new social platform where we give your private data directly to Russians trying to subvert our Democracy.
Now we can just launch directly on Facebook since they no longer ban us from copying this core feature.
So Facebook copies every major app and service and then destroys its lifeline immediately killing the work of creators who innovated. Immediately after that Facebook copies the exact same service resulting in little risk, ingenuity and an almost certainty of success.
Sad truth is many great developers will trust them again because there’s a huge opportunity here but they’ll be smarter this time around. Don’t put all the eggs in the same basket and plan ahead a solid pivot when (not if) Facebook renegs.
Nah. There's a fool born every second. Just 5% of developers actually follow tech news. The rest have allowed their jobs to take over their lives.
If people bothered to pay attention to the past, the world would be a much better place. Google, Apple, FB... wouldn't be this dominant because we would have learned from the recent past.
Of course Facebook would made this change now. They have the freedom to do this now. They have effectively won social at this point. They control 3 of the biggest mobile social apps in the world: Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook itself. No startup really poses a realistic threat to them anymore. This policy change is just FB saving face in the eyes of regulators (and developers like here on HN).
Facebook's market position is certainly enviable but I (perhaps naively) think they will eventually be dethroned. WalMart was the retail king... until Amazon came along. I haven't heard a "WalMart kills small businesses" rant in at least five years. They've been replaced. Facebook will eventually suffer the same fate.
This is awesome. Maybe then we can finally have a separate group / events app without getting the crappy Facebook feed and notifications. I think most people use facebook either for messenger, or for the group and event features.
Funny, I use Facebook for the exact inverse of this. I actively avoid messenger, group, and event features. I use it to keep in touch with family and share family photos.
+1. A lightweight events app that also features better Calendar integration would be fantastic. If I sync events with my calendar now I need to log-in to Facebook to change my RSVP response. Event suggestions only if they don't conflict with my calendar and a way to convert calendar events to Facebook events to share with friends would be killer features too.
It already exists, and is made by FB. It is called Local, and I’ve been using it exclusively for almost 2 years so far. Haven’t had the actual FB app installed on my phones in forever, as Local+Messenger combo satisfies all my FB-related needs.
I think this is facebook getting scared of regulation and so thinking that if facebook's "features" get adopted more so, then they can be pinpointed by authorities less. My thoughts only.
This announcement comes just days after FB hired a crack team of anti-trust defense lawyers, of course it's a move to defend against potential regulation/litigation. I'm not saying their defense team caused this change either, just that there this fits a pattern that shows FB's leadership is very concerned about potential government action against them.
To whatever degree that's true, I would assume it's to get some momentum of support -- dependency if you will -- generated to peel off some of the people who would just as soon see FB go the way of Friendster. Purely usage juicing.
I'd have to read the actual policy, but i think this would enable two cool things:
- Third party Facebook and messenger apps
- Bridges between Facebook and other social networks (where you have a FB proxy account that you don't touch manually)
Thinking of it, it seems unlikely that this is actually going to be allowed. More likely, they are talking about if Facebook makes e.g. their own Candy Crush, you are still allowed to keep the original on FB.
I'd love a 3rd party Messenger client.
I absolutely despise their app. It isn't even an IM client anymore - there are tons of irrelevant features that make it hard to use, e.g. the Games tab, the tab with bots and the Days.
And for the love of whatever, please let me use my phone's camera app.
Before you try to prove me wrong - are you sure you didn't just get used to it? Because I don't like to get used to stuff I don't like.
Anybody that builds an app on a "platform" that can be taken away overnight is a fool. Facebook has made it clear that if they want to change a policy, they could care less about your "business".
Off topic, but as a non-english native speaker the phrase "could care less" always bothers me as I read it literally to mean someone does indeed care, since they can care less. Is this one of those cases where the meaning changes through actual use like "literally" now meaning not necessarily "to be taken literally"?
Facebook is a software company and any successful software built on top of it will be copied and integrated into the core platform. They are just looking for their next "inspiration"
So Facebook realizes that it’s namesake website isn’t producing as much value as it used to, and that by enabling users to customize their experience they retain control of the data. But how can they monetize the third party apps? Acquisitions? Betting most users will continue using the core website?
They're becoming Yahoo...they need insane qtr to qtr growth or else its stock gets smashed, and takes everything else with it. Who wants to work for a has-been?
Google escaped it by adding ads virtually on 100% of the page and added ads one by one on mobile pages and didn't do them much harm. How many ads are now on mobile, 4 or 5? Google still can monetize Maps and Translate and people are doing more of their stuff online.
I guess FB can add more ads but "everyone" has or had FB so adding new users is a challenge. Not sure how Whatsapp can be monetized, in a way that is worth trying.
Cue the beginning of the end. This is a strategic, not tactical decision, and one I wasn’t expecting Facebook to make anytime soon...unless they are in worse shape than even the naysayers suggest.
Given all the awesome tech to come out of Facebook, I often wonder why their platform can be so hard to build against.
I want to like this move, but a platform is only as good as its API, and for years their API offers have been poor. The Cambridge Analytica scandal didn't exactly help in this regard.
This feels like a mixed message. One of wanting to be open, but also one of knowing that they can't allow access to personal data because they cannot (or will not) police its use. The cynic in me (and everyone else it seems) believes this is a regulation thing, and nothing to do with letting people build on their platform.
[+] [-] subdane|7 years ago|reply
"I remember when we raised money from Bill Gates...and Gates said something along the lines of, 'That’s a crock of shit. This isn’t a platform. A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it. Then it’s a platform.'"
http://haystack.vc/2015/09/17/transcript-chamath-at-strictly...
[+] [-] mehblahwhatevs|7 years ago|reply
Interesting. But Facebook's platform != Facebook, so I don't understand the maxim that "the value of everybody that uses the platform must exceed the value of the company that created it" in order for it to be true.
You could say Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store are platforms, they even offer services (api/web-services, libs, frameworks, etc.) and devs build on-top and make living off it. But that ISN'T the company. Google has search, cars, ads, etc. Apple has it's own crap going.
Furthermore, Apple is worth 1 trillion dollars. Must the value of the platform as determined by "everybody that uses it" exceed 1 trillion? Or must it exceed the yearly revenue of Apple instead?
[+] [-] blatherard|7 years ago|reply
What's to stop them from reversing the policy change? Once bitten, twice shy.
[+] [-] cma|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ineedasername|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sehugg|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elliekelly|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] discordance|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrickert|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamesk14022|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevenicr|7 years ago|reply
I was told that an app / site "bandsNearMe" or something like that would replace.. but I don't think it's gets the smaller acts / DJs / events that I would really like to attend.
Meetup does a better job of notifying me. As long as people are going to use fbook to post about upcoming events it would be nice to have access to things coming locally, since I rarely use fbook I miss some good shows.
[+] [-] kilroy123|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SwellJoe|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SmellyGeekBoy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gojomo|7 years ago|reply
So them not-having-the-policy on a particular day N isn't really much comfort for those who'd like to build functionality for day N+1, when Facebook may have rewritten the rules to its own advantage again.
Will they contractually commit to a policy for a specified period of time?
[+] [-] burtonator|7 years ago|reply
My new startup, EvilCorp is just about to launch a new social platform where we give your private data directly to Russians trying to subvert our Democracy.
Now we can just launch directly on Facebook since they no longer ban us from copying this core feature.
[+] [-] kennxfl|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] propman|7 years ago|reply
Sad truth is many great developers will trust them again because there’s a huge opportunity here but they’ll be smarter this time around. Don’t put all the eggs in the same basket and plan ahead a solid pivot when (not if) Facebook renegs.
[+] [-] vezycash|7 years ago|reply
Nah. There's a fool born every second. Just 5% of developers actually follow tech news. The rest have allowed their jobs to take over their lives.
If people bothered to pay attention to the past, the world would be a much better place. Google, Apple, FB... wouldn't be this dominant because we would have learned from the recent past.
[+] [-] slackoverflower|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elliekelly|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hayksaakian|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elcomet|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matthuggins|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aylmao|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] filoleg|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] laythea|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cc439|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhizome|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] captainmuon|7 years ago|reply
- Third party Facebook and messenger apps
- Bridges between Facebook and other social networks (where you have a FB proxy account that you don't touch manually)
Thinking of it, it seems unlikely that this is actually going to be allowed. More likely, they are talking about if Facebook makes e.g. their own Candy Crush, you are still allowed to keep the original on FB.
[+] [-] throwmeback|7 years ago|reply
And for the love of whatever, please let me use my phone's camera app.
Before you try to prove me wrong - are you sure you didn't just get used to it? Because I don't like to get used to stuff I don't like.
[+] [-] aylmao|7 years ago|reply
Are private messages on the API though? I haven't checked recently, but a few years ago I remember they weren't or had just been removed.
> - Bridges between Facebook and other social networks (where you have a FB proxy account that you don't touch manually)
This could be interesting.
[+] [-] Justin_K|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] runeb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tw04|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ppeetteerr|7 years ago|reply
Facebook is a software company and any successful software built on top of it will be copied and integrated into the core platform. They are just looking for their next "inspiration"
[+] [-] CGamesPlay|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freyir|7 years ago|reply
This is my guess. A desperate attempt to bring back its core users.
[+] [-] onetimemanytime|7 years ago|reply
They're becoming Yahoo...they need insane qtr to qtr growth or else its stock gets smashed, and takes everything else with it. Who wants to work for a has-been?
Google escaped it by adding ads virtually on 100% of the page and added ads one by one on mobile pages and didn't do them much harm. How many ads are now on mobile, 4 or 5? Google still can monetize Maps and Translate and people are doing more of their stuff online.
I guess FB can add more ads but "everyone" has or had FB so adding new users is a challenge. Not sure how Whatsapp can be monetized, in a way that is worth trying.
[+] [-] Mtinie|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akabaka777|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cortesoft|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] everythingisbad|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mmmmmmmmm|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] EnderMB|7 years ago|reply
I want to like this move, but a platform is only as good as its API, and for years their API offers have been poor. The Cambridge Analytica scandal didn't exactly help in this regard.
This feels like a mixed message. One of wanting to be open, but also one of knowing that they can't allow access to personal data because they cannot (or will not) police its use. The cynic in me (and everyone else it seems) believes this is a regulation thing, and nothing to do with letting people build on their platform.
[+] [-] booleandilemma|7 years ago|reply