“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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think it represents them going to hell, I think it represents some 'quick' things they can do which may mitigate the impact of G+ in the short term while deeper and perhaps more integrated barriers are put into place.
No one should be surprised that Facebook considers Google a competitor, and while I don't think they are 'terrified' I don't think anyone is still thinking this is a 'half hearted' effort by the big G to move in on Facebook's turf. Its 'game on' as they say and let the most agile win.
Looking at Facebook's arsenal of existing properties, combined with their large installed base advantage, and a bit of 'coolness' advantage too, the situation isn't as dire as TC would want you to believe. It does mean they will need to bring their best game to this particular dance. And somewhere in Facebook headquarters there should be a 'war room' where the folks who are co-ordinating this particular response are sharing strategies, making plans, and contingency plans, and feeding that back into the company and following through to make sure the company is executing on all cylinders.[1]
Of course that isn't rocket science, its management 101.
[1] I count the mix of metaphors at 3 sort of a sports-social-vehicular motif :-)
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?
I have a problem with not allowing integration. That requires no link. That would mean that if I play an mmorpg on Facebook and Google+, I can't use my same character.
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.
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?
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...
A better analogy would be a software company that makes the leading operating system who penalized OEMs that produced computers with competing software installed.
I wasn't making an analogy at all. The fact is, facebook has lured developers to work for free in their "open" platform and now prevents them from expanding to other platforms. Reasonable but unethical, a little courtesy towards developers wouldn't hurt. SN is not such a saturated market that they can afford to impose a monopoly. Maybe they'll remember that when they are losing developers.
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.