
Facebook Blocks Path’s “Find Friends” Access Following Spam Controversy - Lightning
http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/04/path-blocked/
======
hello_newman
When Path first came out, I was frankly, kind of excited to try it out. I
thought with Path's sleek UX/UI, the 150 friend limit being inspired by actual
psychology research, and how it was "branded" to not be the next Facebook, but
to run in unison with users' existing networks, that this was something that
was going to explode.

They pretty much ruined their chances of that happening. It never ceases to
amaze me that developers/companies think that they can spam users to increase
traction. Users know when they are being spammed which leaves an extremely
bitter taste in user's mouths.

"Twitter’s userbase skews more toward early adopters who might be interested
in Path than Facebook users." This might be true, but I think people are going
to remember this. Maybe it would work, because I could see Path just re-
branding into a more intimate version of twitter, but only time will tell. For
the most part, I think Path shot themselves in the foot pretty fucking well.

~~~
CaveTech
Most companies resort to spam because their growth just isn't happening. Seems
more like path is getting desperate as its early hype has long since faded.

~~~
nickconfer
They've had incredibly strong growth since the release of Path 3.0 (in Path
growth terms that is). They've been growing at 1 million users a week
recently. They were also moving consistently into the top grossing apps in the
app store.

I agree that spam can be used by companies sometimes in desperation, but there
doesn't seem to be much evidence this was the case. Of course, we have no idea
what really happened behind the scenes.

~~~
dhbanes

      They were also moving consistently into the top grossing apps in the app store.
    

This is interesting. How is revenue calculated for free apps?

~~~
hboon
In-app purchase (IAP). Path.app sells stickers and filters.

------
shawnreilly
I think this is starting to become an interesting experiment with regards to
User Privacy, and Awareness of Privacy. This is the 2nd time that Path has
been blasted for shady collection / use of User Data. It reminds me of the
saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

The first time it happened was back in Feb 2012. It was discovered Path would
Download the User's entire Address Book, collecting Information about all the
User's Contacts without the User's knowledge. Path CEO Dave Morrin apologized,
stating "We believe you should have control when it comes to sharing your
personal information. We also believe that actions speak louder than words".
Here we are, a little over a year later, and Path is at it again. But it does
not seem like Path learned anything from the last incident. Once again, Users
are complaining about shady use of their Address Book Data.

I am curious to see how the Users react. I've always had a strong stance on
User Respect, and I must admit I find this entire scenario a bit distasteful.
I think the "Golden Rule" applies; Treat others how you would want to be
treated. But even with this said, I question weather the Users even care. My
own personal customer validation for unrelated projects seem to indicate that
User Awareness of Privacy and issues like this is quite low.

~~~
droithomme
It's actually the third time that's been publicized. Dave Winer blogged about
Path's stealing user address books back in 2010.

[http://scripting.com/stories/2010/11/15/theTechIndustryIsAVi...](http://scripting.com/stories/2010/11/15/theTechIndustryIsAVirus.html)

------
nhangen
Good.

I was a Path evangelist to all of my friends and family, but once I learned
about their spamming tactics, immediately deleted the app and canceled my
account. Not necessarily because of the incident, but because of their
response to it.

I've also lost a lot of respect for journalist that refused to cover the story
because of their ties to Dave, the company, and/or the investors.

Typically I'd be harsh towards Facebook for this, but I don't blame them one
bit. That is, if the spam is indeed the reason for this action.

~~~
mukmuk
I'd be interested in knowing which journalists you're referring to.

------
joeblau
If you build your platform on another platform; You're inevitably going to
have a bad time. I don't use Path so I don't know how much of a blow this is
to their platform, but it can't be good. Hopefully, Path has enough traction
that it can grow without $FB's social graph.

~~~
fjk
I think the statement "if you're building your platform on another platform;
you're at the mercy of the underlying platform" is more accurate.

Facebook and Twitter have changed their Terms of Services/APIs multiple times
which has resulted in bad times for Facebook applications like Vintage Camera
and MessageMe[1] and Twitter services like Flattr[2].

However, Tapbots has been successful in adapting its Tweetbot client to comply
with Twitter's API changes[3]. While the API changes cost Tapbots extra
development time to bring Tweetbot up to snuff, their core business was not
adversely affected. I don't think Tapbots has a bad time because they make
Twitter clients that rely on third-party API access, but they are at the mercy
of Twitter continuing to allow third-party API access.

[1]
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732439280457836...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324392804578363033497647670.html)

[2] [http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/04/16/flattr-twitter-
paym...](http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/04/16/flattr-twitter-payments-
ban/)

[3] <http://tapbots.com/blog/news/dont-panic>

~~~
joeblau
So I love TapBots and I have paid for all of their mobile apps. When you look
at their Twitter products, the amount of software they can sell is restricted
by Twitters API limit. If you look at the Tweetbot For Mac[1] post it says:

> If you’ve used the Alphas/Betas and have decided not to purchase, please do
> us a huge favor and Revoke access; that frees up extra tokens for potential
> customers.

I don't think it's good when you have an awesome development team like TapBots
who makes products that are, in My opinion better than Twitter's native
clients, and you're capped to 100,000 device installs "just because". I know
it's not "just because"; Twitter needs to become a business and generate
revenue, but the same companies that helped build the brand and popularity are
now punished.

[1] <http://tapbots.com/blog/news/tweetbot-mac>

~~~
fjk
Great point. The API access restriction hasn't stung TapBots yet but the token
caps are frustrating and potentially stifling to future growth.

I'm interested to see what Twitter will do when Tweetbot starts to approach
the maximum number of tokens allowed. My guess is Twitter will grant Tapbots
extra tokens. I think the API restrictions are geared towards preventing new
companies from using Twitter's APIs in unintended ways (like Flattr) than
shutting down established Twitter clients like Tweetbot and Echofon.

------
habsfbgha
yeah absolutely

------
OGinparadise
My guess is that Path people sat down and decided that nothing good was
happening so 2013 was going to be it, either grow and get acquired or shut it
down (no Foursquare scenario).

To grow they chose spam and fishy growth numbers in countries like Venezuela.
I hope it doesn't work out for them.

------
jgalt212
Not sure if this is FB punishing Path for bad behavior, or more that they see
Path as a potentially credible competitor with Path growing as fast as FB is
shrinking

~~~
xxbondsxx
FB hit 1.1 billion the other day as reported in their quarterly earnings -- a
growth of 100 million is not exactly "shrinking"

~~~
jgalt212
Fair enough, but in developed markets (where the money is) FB is shrinking and
Path is growing (and very quickly if one is to believe their numbers). Of
course, given FB's user base (most every adult who has access to a computer)
there is really only one way to for their numbers to go.

All that being said, FB's priority these days has to be increasing revenues
per user (regardless of whether it's desktop or mobile) and for Q1 revenues
were $1.33 per user--so there's plenty of room for upside there.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/technology/mobile-
efforts-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/technology/mobile-efforts-help-
propel-facebook-earnings.html?_r=0)

In any event, it's hard to root for Path (or even think using their service is
a good value proposition) given their nefarious business methods. My main
point was that I doubt FB was making it harder for Path to operate purely out
of altruistic customer privacy concerns.

