DISQUS

Erik Giberti · 1 year ago

This is exactly what Mitch Kapor warned could happen to developers of a platform in his address to the CommunityNext conference back in October. The AllFacebook Video is here for those who missed it: http://www.viddler.com/explore/allfacebook/vide...

Anonymous · 1 year ago

What do you think about the new profile pages as a way to marginalize the hugely popular Super Wall and Fun Wall applications? It looks like Facebook is worried about giving up a highly monetizable asset and they are deliberately trying to undermine those applications.

Neil @ Facebook Insight · 1 year ago

I am not sure if the profile revamp is a deliberate play by Facebook to attack their own developers, as much as a response to the cry of users. Profiles have grown out of control, and I think that their first priority is preventing the "MySpace"-ing of Facebook.

As for IM, it's just too sweet a service to hold back on. It's a fine line, but it's the same fine line as Walmart busting into a small community. The mom & pops / app devs need to become creative to compete.

Pete Mauro · 1 year ago

@Erik - The first thing I thought of when reading this was Kapo's keynote.

At the end of the day if your app could be a "core" feature then you are at risk.

I loved Kapor's speech @ CN. I am not sure how many people were listening because it did not seem to make the impact that it deserved. Some of my notes in case you don't have time to watch the whole vid:


Fundamental tensions:

1) The platform owner has fundamental power over application developer
2) Innovations migrate over time to the core platform
3) Some platform owners want to control the whole ecosystem
4) Platform owners need platform users but platform owners are destined to encroach on their users

Examples:
* MSFT incorporating IE into windows to cut off netscape
* MSFT Incorporated media player into OS cutting off real player (lawsuit still in cour in EU)
* Linden labs incorporated money exchange services into businesses because ti was core - pushed startups out

Ash · 1 year ago

Fair enough to do it, IMO, but there ought to be some profit-sharing.

This is what Blizzard does with WoW addons, its equivalent of applications: if a WoW addon becomes so universally popular that most people who have at least a few addons installed, have that one, they might make it part of the basic game UI. Given there's no financial relationship between WoW developers and Blizzard, the developers tend to not mind much. Also to some degree it's a recognition of having "made it".

In the case of Facebook though, it's clear that many application developers--all, in the case of the invite-spamming applicrappies--are in it for the bukkz. Since most of their applications are useless by definition, they won't make it into the base UI.

On the other hand, the applications of greatest usefulness are, broadly speaking, intended by their authors to fill a need, to do something Facebook does not do that they believe it ought; and it turns out, in the cases we're talking about, that they are correct. Such authors can, like the WoW addon authors, consider themselves vindicated and complimented. They weren't making money out of it anyhow.

So this only adversely affects applications that are actually useful, and on the other hand, are somehow capable of driving advertising revenue or something to the author. In which case, IMO, Facebook really ought to have the right to subsume the addon, but the responsibility to share the revenue gained thereby with the author. This maintains the incentive all around, for all parties concerned.

Aussie · 1 year ago

The chat application on Facebook is only useful if everyone on Facebook is using it. It's useless if it's only you and maybe 10 of your friends who are using it. If only a few of my friends are in it, then I won't bother using it. The problem with applications developed by outside developers is that not everyone is using it. In fact, many people simply ignore application invites that come into their inbox. The only way for a Facebook chat to function, is to have everyone having it, so it has to be something that Facebook provided themselves. Actually I also think that Courses apps should also be provided by Facebook, instead of outsourced. The outsourced apps are cool, but useless if no one else is using it.