Facebook ends platform policy banning apps that copy its features(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Facebook ends platform policy banning apps that copy its features
https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/04/facebook-allows-competitors/
113 comments
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.
They put an enforceable promise in there that they wouldn't do that. Wait no, they could have but didn't.
Why would a company ever impose binding restrictions on itself?
Hypothetically, or in the specific case of facebook?
Companies imposing binding restrictions on themselves is vital to loads of types of business. An insurance company binds themselves to pay out if you make a valid claim, for example.
Companies imposing binding restrictions on themselves is vital to loads of types of business. An insurance company binds themselves to pay out if you make a valid claim, for example.
To convince customers that they're not just trying to trick them?
It's a PR move. Probably proposed by one of many third party agencies that Sandberg 'wasn't aware of but takes full responsibility for'.
I think it's more likely this is to avoid problems with the slew of dating apps that depend on Facebook now that they're starting to roll out their dating feature.
When they’ve already burned their reputation and need to convince portential partners that they won’t do it again.
I can’t think of any real world examples, though. So this is all hypothetical.
I can’t think of any real world examples, though. So this is all hypothetical.
Well basically every company releasing code under an open source or free software license does so it is quite common. I guess the answer to the "why?" is the same as always: they believe doing so is more valuable than not doing so.
To ward off government regulation.
Great, if anyone has any spare cycles - please rip out Events from Facebook into another app so I don't have to open Facebook anymore.
This and messenger are the only reasons I haven't closed my account.
Same, but recently discovered you can continue using Messenger if you deactivate your account.
That might not be the case. A friend recently closed her account and I found out because Messenger gave an error (of course the type of error that really didn't convey what happened, but that's another story).
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.
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.
Bandsintown does seem to have the small acts, at least near me. It does send these obnoxious 20-character notifications/emails that will only let you read the actual message via their site though.
Yes! That and the groups. The only reason I still have a Facebook account is because of groups and events.
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).
"I hated Facebook before it was uncool" is certainly a new twist on an old trope.
"Ambivalent" is the word I used. I'm older than the original facebook demographic. I was well into adulthood when facebook took off. It took me a few years to even open an account, and then only because friends, mostly younger friends, were using it to organize stuff that I wanted to be involved in. I didn't hate it, I just didn't really see the point in it. I figured it was yet another social network that I could ignore forever, because it would fail in a few years to be replaced by the next social network.
This is great timing.
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.
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.
Even if you were targeted with racist misinformation, isn't it your responsibility not to be easily convinced?
I would say it's our responsibility to have an electoral system that can't be so easily fooled
https://outlookzen.com/2018/11/18/a-democracy-that-cannot-be...
https://outlookzen.com/2018/11/18/a-democracy-that-cannot-be...
Evidence would say this isn't the most secure form of defense for our societies.
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.
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.
>they’ll be smarter this time around.
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.
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.
Source on that 5% figure? Can't find it with a couple of quick searches.
Made an estimate from my personal experience. Simply saying, "only a fraction of developers..." would be a weaker statement.
I consider more accurate statements to be stronger statements.
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.
- 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.
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.
I switched to Facebook's own Messenger Lite app a while back and it's a huge improvement. I think it's aimed at third world users but it does everything I need it to do.
> - Third party Facebook and messenger apps
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.
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.
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"?
It’s the idea of being descriptive instead of prescriptive. Could care less and couldn’t care less are equally correct according to the descriptivist.
It’s like when someone says that the enemy was “decimated”. The prescriptivists would say that means they lost 10%. The descriptivists would say they lost a lot.
It’s like when someone says that the enemy was “decimated”. The prescriptivists would say that means they lost 10%. The descriptivists would say they lost a lot.
[deleted]
No, people just say it incorrectly. It should be 'couldn't care less'.
But if enough people say it incorrectly long enough, it becomes correct, no?
Not that I disagree that it hasn't happened yet. I too find it quite annoying when people say they "could care less".
Not that I disagree that it hasn't happened yet. I too find it quite annoying when people say they "could care less".
Exactly!
It really is suppose to be "couldn't care less". Meaning, that they are at level 0/100 of the caring meter.
But as languages go, we tend to move towards an easier way to say the same thing.
"could care less" sounds similar, means the same, and that most people associates it with the former phrase.
It really is suppose to be "couldn't care less". Meaning, that they are at level 0/100 of the caring meter.
But as languages go, we tend to move towards an easier way to say the same thing.
"could care less" sounds similar, means the same, and that most people associates it with the former phrase.
So literally everyone using a hosted service of any sort?
Usually the free sort. But even paid hosted services aren't exempt. Amazon competes with sellers on marketplace. And also competes with some of its cloud customers.
The key is level of competition or dominance. It's wise to start looking for or creating alternatives when a company has less competition and becomes more dominant. Because if its power reaches a certain point, everyone loses. The company loses cos it won't innovate any more. Customers will lose on many fronts - customer service, features, stability, price, stupid restrictions...
The key is level of competition or dominance. It's wise to start looking for or creating alternatives when a company has less competition and becomes more dominant. Because if its power reaches a certain point, everyone loses. The company loses cos it won't innovate any more. Customers will lose on many fronts - customer service, features, stability, price, stupid restrictions...
"It's a trap!"
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"
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"
Facebook: The Last Chapter
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
Just check my article regarding Facebook Live https://thinkery.me/mayurbhattseo/5b7fddd81cb602f862000c50
Facebook is acting scared.
Wait. There are apps on the Facebook platform? Haven't they crippled any and all capabilities of the platform by ensuring that you can't build anything useful on it?
Deleted my Facebook account long back, so I’m curious: are FB apps still a big thing? Is the quality any better because of stricter rules or is it pretty much the same?
too little, too late.
the exodus has already begun
the exodus has already begun
Yeah...ends the policy just to restart it later!
Facebook API are becomed more irrilevant year after year. This change want change the situation.
Could lead to turtles all the in..
infinite recursion to the centre...
infinite recursion to the centre...
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.
Don't you share your family photos in a group? Then you and I have the same use (except for the events).
Or do you share your family photos with all your friends?
Or do you share your family photos with all your friends?
+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.
Local doesn't work for managing your groups I think, it is restricted to events isn't it ?
Ya Local is just events. But it is quite a good app.
there's also a facebook app called Group
I don't have it on my Play Store. Are you sure?
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?
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?
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?
> Betting most users will continue using the core website?
This is my guess. A desperate attempt to bring back its core users.
This is my guess. A desperate attempt to bring back its core users.
Good idea, they'll get even more data on emerging competitors than they used to get from their traffic-sniffing VPN app before Apple pulled it from the App Store a few months ago: https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/12/facebook-starts-pushing-it...
a Facebook VPN? what an oxymoron. how is this not a bigger story/discussion?
It was pretty big news at the time, but this being the year of outrageous news and all...
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.
But there is very little left to innovate. Almost all kinds of apps are there. AGI is only possible by large corps because of the massive compute requirement.
The next Google/Facebook will be made when either of the following criteria are met:
1. They mess up hard, causing a critical mass to boycott it (highly unlikely)
2. New world changing communication technology is invented, similar to the internet. With similar applications AND government regulations delaying them from developing on the new technology
3. Processing chips become so fast that the average person is able to afford and run a 1 petaflop computer just like the cost of buying and running a PC's today.
Amazon was possible because of the internet. Facebook will remain the King until some communication related world changing technology arrives.
The low hanging fruit is already picked.
The next Google/Facebook will be made when either of the following criteria are met:
1. They mess up hard, causing a critical mass to boycott it (highly unlikely)
2. New world changing communication technology is invented, similar to the internet. With similar applications AND government regulations delaying them from developing on the new technology
3. Processing chips become so fast that the average person is able to afford and run a 1 petaflop computer just like the cost of buying and running a PC's today.
Amazon was possible because of the internet. Facebook will remain the King until some communication related world changing technology arrives.
The low hanging fruit is already picked.
But there is very little left to innovate
Famous last words.
Famous last words.
I think you're getting ahead of yourself. TikTok stands a real chance to dethrone them over the next X years.
I think TikTok is going to have the staying power of vine. While Im glad for the people that enjoy tiktok type content have an app where they can create and consume this kind of content, it offers no appeal to me.
I thought TikTok was sort of like, Vine mixed with Musical.ly - is it a robust enough offering to do messaging/events/groups/marketplace, etc?
I dont see my HAM radio group making the transition from FB to TikTok.
Iirc tiktok is just an evolution of musical.ly
"We've run out of ideas for how to improve Facebook. Maybe we should let developers come up with some ideas again so we can copy them."
Exactly what I thought.
"... and then, once we are satisfied for a couple more years, we can put the same policy back into place"
I doubt they need to, copying successful features is enough since their own version is the default and they can jam it in users faces in ways that third parties can't.
And just like their acquisitions based on Onvao data, they'll have a whole lot of information on what ideas are worth stealing.
And just like their acquisitions based on Onvao data, they'll have a whole lot of information on what ideas are worth stealing.
More so than for copying, my guess is that with the release of the dating feature this policy could've probably caused tensions and legal problems with essentially all other dating apps out there.
Dating apps heavily use Facebook not only to get hard-to-fake user info (age/real name) and content for a profile (photos/likes), but also to provide some validity to profiles since Facebook and the social graph in general do a good job of keeping bots and fake profiles at bay, and users know that.
Nonetheless, this could've certainly raised anti-competitive concerns, and Facebook probably figured they are in a dominant-enough position that saving the scrutiny is worth the risk.
Dating apps heavily use Facebook not only to get hard-to-fake user info (age/real name) and content for a profile (photos/likes), but also to provide some validity to profiles since Facebook and the social graph in general do a good job of keeping bots and fake profiles at bay, and users know that.
Nonetheless, this could've certainly raised anti-competitive concerns, and Facebook probably figured they are in a dominant-enough position that saving the scrutiny is worth the risk.
Speaking of platforms: In the Bernstein timeline someone went to Stockholm and convinced Notch that a cross between Steam and Kiva kicks off the next cultural revolution and all we need is a little “mancala money”
Yeah this is the same thing I thought as well. It worked well for Twitter.
More like .... "We're terrified of impending government regulation"
"Good composers borrow, great composers steal"
FB doesn't imitate and improve, it steals and spoils.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/06/artists-steal/
> great poets imitate and improve, whereas small ones steal and spoil
> Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different from that from which it was torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion.
> If you see a great master, you will always find that he used what was good in his predecessors, and that it was this which made him great.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/06/artists-steal/
> great poets imitate and improve, whereas small ones steal and spoil
> Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different from that from which it was torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion.
> If you see a great master, you will always find that he used what was good in his predecessors, and that it was this which made him great.
And then when your stealing is successful enough you have the laws changed so no one can do the same as you did.
[deleted]
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.'"
http://haystack.vc/2015/09/17/transcript-chamath-at-strictly...
"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...
> "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?
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?
I believe this use of the word "platform" in this context is a much more specific meaning where it's a counterpoint to the idea of an "aggregator." It comes up in discussions about modern large tech companies being "aggregators" or "platforms," and this is the point (allegedly) Gates is making here, that Facebook is much more an aggregator of content that users bring into the walled garden than they are an economic platform for other businesses, which is what Microsoft was/is.
If you believe that all this advertising spending and social media marketing activity actually adds more to companies on Facebook than it does to Facebook itself, then you sort of could call Facebook a platform per this definition. An advertising platform.
Right they are a multinational advertising corporation that tricks people into believing that Facebook.com = Facebook. It’s still a crock of shit however you want to slice it up.
right, Gates misspoke or it was misreported.
It should be something like - the economic value that everybody derives from using it exceeds the value the company derives from their use of it.
At the time though I believe all of Facebook's economic value came from Facebook, so that the was the worth of the company.
At the time though I believe all of Facebook's economic value came from Facebook, so that the was the worth of the company.
The amount of companies that have been burned from Facebook is staggering. And it not just fasgarewq
That's it. I'm leaving anything related to facebook. I mean a company should have minimum level of ethics. This is a absolute trash of a company.
So you didn't leave when they HAD the policy banning competitors, but decide to leave when the remove the ban?
Sounds rational to me. To GP's point, at least the former policy was somewhat honest. By announcing this "reversal" it's like a lie that involves time travel. That is, they just lied again, and will prove it so at some future point.
Because the ban limited their “ideas to clone” surface area and then someone realized it was a stupid move because they are out of substantive ideas to push the product forward?
What's to stop them from reversing the policy change? Once bitten, twice shy.