
Apple's Jobs says 'onerous terms' kept Facebook ties out of Ping - evo_9
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/02/apples_jobs_says_onerous_terms_kept_facebook_ties_out_of_ping.html
======
mrkurt
Coming up with a broad sample of "terms that would be considered onerous by
one Steve Jobs" turns out to be a fun mental exercise.

~~~
andreyf
Wild guess: facebook wanted Apple to have an open API to retrieve users' music
listening preferences.

~~~
brownleej
That seems unlikely if the breakdown in negotiations was as last-minute as
others have speculated. Asking someone to implement an open API the night the
product ships would be a bit extreme. It's possible that Apple had implemented
such an API, but cancelled it at the last minute, but I don't think so. If
Jobs didn't want an open API, he wouldn't agree to it in the first place.

With these two companies, it's hard to say who was in the wrong until we have
details on what the sticking point was. It could be privacy, it could be
advertising, it could be revenue-sharing, etc.

------
jonknee
The irony of Steve Jobs not liking onerous terms for getting app approval is
almost too much.

~~~
tptacek
Not really. Jobs didn't set up a lobbying effort to get Facebook to change its
mind. He doesn't appear to have even blinked. Instead, he just implemented his
own social network.

What's happened here appears entirely consistent with Apple's worldview. They
own iTunes and their (huge) slice of the online music sales channel. They're
going to do things their way. They'll suffer or succeed accordingly.

------
jiganti
Apple seems to be one of the few companies facebook won't be able to push
around so easily.

~~~
Qz
Facebook seems to be one of the few companies Apple won't be able to push
around so easily.

~~~
trevorcreech
I guess they deserve each other.

------
siglesias
Last night's delay of iTunes 10 may well have been due to some last minute
hardball negotiating by Apple to get their terms. Facebook must have drawn a
line in the sand, forcing Apple to flip off the FB connect button.

------
andreyf
Obvious question the author was somehow too lazy to research: what kind of
terms could facebook ask for that Apple wouldn't agree to? Is anyone qualified
enough to chime in?

~~~
minalecs
this is the exact question all should be asking.. how do we know that apple
was looking for terms that facebook wouldn't agree to. To me.. Apple already
knows the terms prior to implementing FB connect. I find it unlikely that
Facbook is changing their terms from company to company.

------
joey_bananas
I suspect the fact that Ping seems to be engineered to be strictly top-down
has more to do with it.

------
kristopher
When I first launched Ping it asked me to connect via Facebook -- I did, and
it worked perfectly.

I noticed that immediately after I had connected that the connect button and
surrounding UI to that feature had become a search box.

The Ping community on Facebook is still up and running[1], so isn't this just
a problem with Ping and its UI?

[1]
[http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=146879158663...](http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=146879158663523)

------
alexyim
Unless I'm missing something, this title is misleading. The article itself
doesn't say anything about Jobs making that statement, only the fact that Cult
of Mac speculates that FB's terms became onerous.

~~~
CodeMage
The article links to the following article:
[http://kara.allthingsd.com/20100902/steve-jobs-on-why-
facebo...](http://kara.allthingsd.com/20100902/steve-jobs-on-why-facebook-is-
not-part-of-apples-new-ping-music-social-network-onerous-terms/)

Here's the relevant quote from that article:

 _When I asked Jobs about that, he said Apple had indeed held talks with
Facebook about a variety of unspecified partnerships related to Ping, but the
discussions went nowhere.

The reason, according to Jobs: Facebook wanted "onerous terms that we could
not agree to."_

~~~
alexyim
Thanks

------
Axelnm
In related news. Irony is apparently dead.

------
aditya
Whoa. What?

Apple agrees to onerous terms from the studios, who are about as decidedly on
the extreme side of onerous as anything on the planet, and failed to negotiate
with Facebook? Jobs probably yelled at Zuck and they got into a fight.

~~~
jsz0
Apple needs the movie studios and music labels. They don't really need to make
a deal with FB.

