

Facebook shows even more fear (of Google+, etc.) - fpgeek
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/12/facebook-quietly-updates-platform-policies-developers-take-note/

======
dannyr
“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.

~~~
JoeCortopassi
Is this not an extremely anti-competitive statement? Just curious how often
this has to happen to be trigger anti-trust/monopoly scrutiny.

------
smidwap
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."

Right...

~~~
Meai
> a shred of logic behind they're actions

You should know that "they're" stands for "they are"

------
ender7
I'll start worrying for Facebook when I no longer see "find us on Facebook!"
at the end of every TV ad.

~~~
tiles
Same flag as when we stopped hearing about AOL keywords in mass media.

~~~
oldstrangers
The similarities between Facebook and the old AOL should be alarming to anyone
working for Facebook. Or maybe just anyone in general.

~~~
mostlycarbon
Relevant article: <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2375715,00.asp>

Dvorak argues that Facebook is AOL. I disagree, and think it's inferior to
AOL. Mainly because Facebook neither provides an entry into the internet (like
AOL's ISP did/does) nor has a viable, general purpose email system. Facebook
messaging couldn't replace something like Gmail. I think the lack of those
systems make it easy to abandon the service for something else.

Having 100+ "friends" on Facebook isn't a compelling reason to stay when most
people probably wouldn't notice if 90% of those individuals disappeared from
one day to the next. Most of your social network online is an illusion.

I'm testing out Google+ right now, but I'm doing so under an alias. The alias
is known to my friends and everything I post and share is authentic. My change
in attitude comes from 4 years of having a real identity presence online; I
don't really see the benefit of shedding anonymity.

------
jc4p
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.

~~~
patrickaljord
I agree but to be honest, it's not like Facebook is printing money either so
far.

------
victoro
Will facebook take down Obama's page when they are finally hit with a Federal
Anti-Trust suit?

------
DanielRibeiro
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.

[1] [http://platformsandnetworks.blogspot.com/2011/07/business-
mo...](http://platformsandnetworks.blogspot.com/2011/07/business-model-
analysis-part-2.html)

~~~
ristretto
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.

~~~
sliverstorm
How is it _not_ understandable? To say something is simply not understandable
is to say you cannot even begin to conceive of why they would do such a thing.

Whether or not we agree with FB, I think just about everyone sees where they
are coming from.

~~~
ristretto
Yes, causality is generally not broken, so i assumed the meaning "justifiable"
for "understandable". My comment was not so much a response to the comment but
to the general "free pass" that the "new ethics" get in mainstream media.

~~~
DanielRibeiro
I really meant understandable. By no means i think it is "good" or desirable.
I even think it can harm Facebook in the mid/long term.

------
plainOldText
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.

------
ristretto
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.

~~~
guywithabike
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?

~~~
ristretto
How is it not (for developers), when competing networks make less than half in
revenue than adsense and are provably much less safe (the excuse they used for
the ban). For your second question, users are harmed when they are disallowed
from doing things they want to. The fact that they are the only ones in the
world doing that makes it evil (to me).

You may think that kicking the other drivers out of the race is a valid way to
win an F1 game, but that's evil.

~~~
guywithabike
Following your analogy, Facebook isn't kicking people out of an F1 race,
they're disallowing competitors from adding their own engine parts to
Facebook's car. Sounds reasonable, right?

Still, that's a tortured metaphor.

~~~
nkassis
A better (still horrible) analogy would be more like saying if you build cars
for F1 you can't do it for NASCAR and use the same parts or use the same
drivers and sponsors etc...

~~~
chc
A better analogy would be a software company that makes the leading operating
system who penalized OEMs that produced computers with competing software
installed.

------
anymoonus
Pretty cool editorializing bro

