“I.11. Apps on Facebook may not integrate, link to, promote, distribute, or redirect to any app on any other competing social platform.”
I wonder if apps that check you in into multiple services (e.g. Foursquare, Gowalla, etc.) would violate this agreement. Once Google+ opens its Checkin API, I bet these services would integrate with it too.
I think the implications are still unclear. It's hard to tell if they're specifically targeting apps that are "badge-arrific" and use Facebook to market themselves, if they're referring to canvas apps, or if this a wholesale attack on all apps that use Facebook data. For instance, I'm working on an application that will eventually integrate (hopefully) data from Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc., in a similar fashion as Summify. It is the power of combining all of this data that interests many users.
All that said, there is a shred of logic behind they're actions...Logic in a very self-serving way, however. I am certainly biased, but I can't see this helping anyone but Facebook!
I'll end with the first line of their platform policies: "Facebook Platform is an extension of Facebook, whose mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected."
I work at a social gaming company who currently has an app on Facebook and other social networks. When I saw that Techcrunch had quoted Alex St. John I started laughing out loud and made every one else in the office come and see because it's amazingly hilarious to hear Hi5 say Facebook is terrified of them. Hi5's user base monetizes incredibly badly, and their API and support staff are terrible.
Well, that is understandable due the network effects business model[1]: a platform must be proprietary—controlled by a single company—for its provider to capture value created through network growth
Of course, there is the alternative: sharing the market than conducting an expensive winner-take-all battle, but as the current market leader, it surely wasn't in Facebook's intereset.
I dont understand why facebook gets a green card from the blogosphere, while nobody of its competitors or any other top-10 website reaches anywhere near this sort of evilness. Myspace didnt ban facebook ads, google doesnt ban facebook ads, hi5 doesnt, the majority of social apps advertise other apps; why is it "understandable" for fb? That's not a good way to build "open" app ecosystem.
And that's why competition is good in almost any area :) It forces the players to give their best. When you are the only one on the track you are competing against yourself and the motivation is not as powerful because you're always No. 1.
Wow, that is evilness to new highs. First they dont allow google adsense on apps, then they ban 3rd party virtual currency, then they ban G+ ads on facebook, and now this. This company is going straight to technological hell. In any case, it is foolish of them to think that this will in any way harm the growth of g+.
If G+ proves to be a good platform alternative, we 'd rather quit the fb platform altogether and force users to migrate than put up with this stuff all the time. FB has managed to turn lots of developers against them.
I don't think it represents them going to hell, I think it represents some 'quick' things they can do which may mitigate the impact of G+ in the short term while deeper and perhaps more integrated barriers are put into place.
No one should be surprised that Facebook considers Google a competitor, and while I don't think they are 'terrified' I don't think anyone is still thinking this is a 'half hearted' effort by the big G to move in on Facebook's turf. Its 'game on' as they say and let the most agile win.
Looking at Facebook's arsenal of existing properties, combined with their large installed base advantage, and a bit of 'coolness' advantage too, the situation isn't as dire as TC would want you to believe. It does mean they will need to bring their best game to this particular dance. And somewhere in Facebook headquarters there should be a 'war room' where the folks who are co-ordinating this particular response are sharing strategies, making plans, and contingency plans, and feeding that back into the company and following through to make sure the company is executing on all cylinders.[1]
Of course that isn't rocket science, its management 101.
[1] I count the mix of metaphors at 3 sort of a sports-social-vehicular motif :-)
How is controlling what advertising appears on your site "evil"? I don't get all the hand-wringing over companies that want to build profitable platforms. Are users harmed when Facebook disallows Google+ ads on their site?
[+] [-] dannyr|14 years ago|reply
I wonder if apps that check you in into multiple services (e.g. Foursquare, Gowalla, etc.) would violate this agreement. Once Google+ opens its Checkin API, I bet these services would integrate with it too.
[+] [-] JoeCortopassi|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smidwap|14 years ago|reply
All that said, there is a shred of logic behind they're actions...Logic in a very self-serving way, however. I am certainly biased, but I can't see this helping anyone but Facebook!
I'll end with the first line of their platform policies: "Facebook Platform is an extension of Facebook, whose mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected."
Right...
[+] [-] Meai|14 years ago|reply
You should know that "they're" stands for "they are"
[+] [-] ender7|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tiles|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jc4p|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patrickaljord|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] victoro|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielRibeiro|14 years ago|reply
Of course, there is the alternative: sharing the market than conducting an expensive winner-take-all battle, but as the current market leader, it surely wasn't in Facebook's intereset.
[1] http://platformsandnetworks.blogspot.com/2011/07/business-mo...
[+] [-] ristretto|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] plainOldText|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ristretto|14 years ago|reply
If G+ proves to be a good platform alternative, we 'd rather quit the fb platform altogether and force users to migrate than put up with this stuff all the time. FB has managed to turn lots of developers against them.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|14 years ago|reply
No one should be surprised that Facebook considers Google a competitor, and while I don't think they are 'terrified' I don't think anyone is still thinking this is a 'half hearted' effort by the big G to move in on Facebook's turf. Its 'game on' as they say and let the most agile win.
Looking at Facebook's arsenal of existing properties, combined with their large installed base advantage, and a bit of 'coolness' advantage too, the situation isn't as dire as TC would want you to believe. It does mean they will need to bring their best game to this particular dance. And somewhere in Facebook headquarters there should be a 'war room' where the folks who are co-ordinating this particular response are sharing strategies, making plans, and contingency plans, and feeding that back into the company and following through to make sure the company is executing on all cylinders.[1]
Of course that isn't rocket science, its management 101.
[1] I count the mix of metaphors at 3 sort of a sports-social-vehicular motif :-)
[+] [-] guywithabike|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anymoonus|14 years ago|reply