TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

The sad story of Facebook Platform

335 pointsby rpsubhubalmost 12 years ago

31 comments

austenallredalmost 12 years ago
It&#x27;s worth noting that a lot of the apps that Facebook &quot;killed off&quot; (iLike, Social Reader, RockYou, Zynga games, etc.) really did detract from the user experience. Let&#x27;s take Washington Post&#x27;s <i>Social Reader</i> as a case study. You had to authorize the app in order to read the articles (that were often loaded with linkbait-y titles), and any time you <i>did</i> read (or click on) an article it automatically shared it with all of your Facebook friends. Zynga is another example; I&#x27;m sure I wasn&#x27;t the only one constantly bombarded with invites to Whateverville. I had to unfriend some people to avoid them, because there was no way to turn them off.<p>It felt like these apps had found a hack that was taking advantage of the platform, but really this was just the result of the platform being poorly designed itself. The selling point for developers who picked up on it was, &quot;You can make everyone who uses you spam all of their Facebook friends.&quot; Unfortunately spam, especially when it&#x27;s coming from your friends, works like a charm. Facebook eventually had to stop allowing that before it let itself turn into a MySpace filled with little widgets.<p>Facebook&#x27;s real problem wasn&#x27;t just that it wanted to own everything itself, but that it didn&#x27;t build the platform the right way in the first place.
评论 #6092407 未加载
评论 #6094578 未加载
评论 #6092450 未加载
mratzloffalmost 12 years ago
Facebook made three clear mistakes:<p>- Not building in a revenue model into their platform, like Apple did with iOS. This is so stupid.<p>- Not creating clear and consistent access rules around the social graph and notifications, with the ability to throttle down (but not altogether remove) access for offenders. They could even automate the throttling based on user feedback (in the form of clicks).<p>- Breaking things <i>constantly</i>. My brief, frustrating experience maintaining a Facebook application consisted of the app breaking every two weeks as Facebook somewhat randomly changed things without warning.<p>All of these were pretty foreseeable.
评论 #6091823 未加载
评论 #6091643 未加载
评论 #6091688 未加载
评论 #6092109 未加载
评论 #6092088 未加载
评论 #6092240 未加载
freshhawkalmost 12 years ago
Facebook’s inconstant behavior on Platform, however, has never been malicious. Rather, it is a result of an engineering-led culture&quot;<p>Seems me and pandodaily have a different definition of &quot;engineer&quot;. I&#x27;m not an engineer, as I don&#x27;t have an engineering degree, but I do feel bad for my friends who do, are professionals, and get grouped in with the type of programmers who are just haphazardly winging it to this degree.<p>&quot;has never been malicious&quot;: heh, the argument is that encouraging businesses to rely on a platform that intentionally and knowingly doesn&#x27;t deliver isn&#x27;t malicious because the root cause is incompetence or not caring. Not sure about that one.
评论 #6094706 未加载
评论 #6092580 未加载
s3r3nityalmost 12 years ago
&lt;dropping knowledge&gt; What many people don&#x27;t know is that the motto never was intended to be &quot;move fast &amp; break things.&quot; Rather, it&#x27;s &quot;move fast and don&#x27;t be afraid to break things.&quot; Slightly less bold, yes, but definitely more empowering to feel confident and not be afraid to take risks.<p>There&#x27;s a bit of internal debate that now that the phrase has been shortened that it&#x27;s used as an excuse to be sloppy for the sake of &quot;getting shit done&quot; (as they say at Box). Still, given that I used to work at places where mistakes were consistently held against you, I like the idealism here. &lt;&#x2F;dropping knowledge&gt;
评论 #6092646 未加载
callmeedalmost 12 years ago
Here is the money line (IMO):<p><i>&gt; Outside of games, there has been no killer Facebook app.</i><p>Given the current policies, I&#x27;m not sure what killer app <i>could</i> exist other than maybe dating.<p>I&#x27;ve done a lot of fiddling and prototyping on the Facebook platform and API (albeit mostly on the business&#x2F;page side). With every-changing policies and API specs, no startup founder should consider anything more than Facebook &quot;features&quot;–never anything your business model hinges on.
评论 #6092701 未加载
评论 #6091807 未加载
评论 #6092589 未加载
评论 #6093236 未加载
aaronbrethorstalmost 12 years ago
This is ridiculous. Facebook is the de facto identity provider for a large fraction of mobile and web. If Facebook had let their platform continue in the original direction it was going, it would&#x27;ve choked off their core value prop (social networking) with spam.<p>And the Facebook Platform has provided significant value for non-games, too. Spotify, for instance, is only as popular as it is because of its early integration with Facebook.<p>Could FB have handled their platform better? Yes absolutely. The constant API changes and failures caused no end of headaches for developers and significantly reduced their platform&#x27;s value. But, I think the claims in this article are ridiculous.
评论 #6092069 未加载
DominikRalmost 12 years ago
My experience with building an alternative Android Facebook client (which naturally uses almost every part of the API):<p>1) Just keeping up with documented and undocumented breaking changes is probably a full time job.<p>2) Expect that some feature of the API breaks every 2 weeks, especially login on their Android SDKs cannot be relied upon.(reliable for me is the industry standard for server uptime usually advertised - 99.99999%) If your application just uses few parts of the API it probably once every 1 or 2 months.<p>3) Substract 0.5 to 1.0 points from the rating of your app in the Android or iOS app store, depending on how heavy you rely on Facebook, because of the instability of their APIs.<p>4) Expect to spend at least a day per month writing bug reports. (Or just give up like I did)<p>5) You will do lots of reverse engineering to work around the bugs which they are constantly creating at a mind blowing rate.<p>My final conclusion after almost 2 years of working with their APIs (as a good actor) for my app (link: <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.flipster&amp;hl=en" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;play.google.com&#x2F;store&#x2F;apps&#x2F;details?id=com.flipster&amp;h...</a>) is that I will never ever ever build again something that relies that much on Facebook.<p>If I need a friends list in a future project, I&#x27;ll just use the users telephone book, like I already did on a VoIP&#x2F;Messaging app for mobile that I built for the company I work for.<p>If I need private messaging I&#x27;ll just set up my own XMPP server.<p>If I need login, I will sure as hell save myself the headache of using their fucked up (and even when it is working - bad converting) login, and build one myself!
zachalliaalmost 12 years ago
The two most painful patterns over the course of Platforms early life were:<p>1. The lack of timely bug fixes and the lack of internal Facebook developer contact with external developers. The only consistent employee at Facebook in the IRC channel was Joel Seligstein. I also actually directly heard one of the Platform PMs say that she thought &quot;triage&quot; meant high priority. They did hold events but that was more a social gathering than anything.<p>2. The ridiculous lack of spam control and enforcement of policies on the large developers. It&#x27;s easy to see why people started disliking apps looking back at how much time users had to spend sifting through spam notifications!
at-fates-handsalmost 12 years ago
“We’ve designed Facebook Platform so that applications from third-party developers are on a level playing field with applications built by Facebook&quot;<p>I can&#x27;t imagine people were so naive they would think Facebook would let this platform be a &quot;level playing field&quot;.
评论 #6091730 未加载
评论 #6091631 未加载
评论 #6093214 未加载
jgrahamcalmost 12 years ago
Back in 2007... <a href="http://blog.jgc.org/2011/08/my-email-to-mark-zuckerberg-about.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.jgc.org&#x2F;2011&#x2F;08&#x2F;my-email-to-mark-zuckerberg-abou...</a>
评论 #6092742 未加载
dasil003almost 12 years ago
Admittedly I did not make it through the whole article, but the comparison to iOS early on is laughable. The difference is A) access to a social graph of your friends and their trivial online activities vs B) a powerful touch screen computer in your pocket.<p>The Facebook API did not have some incredible mishandled potential. Instead, it was a very cool and forward-thinking API that had to constantly be modified to fight spam and keep up with Facebook&#x27;s rapidly evolving product (which is a couple orders of magnitude more engaging now than it was in 2007 I might add).<p>Sure the Facebook API could have been better managed. Documentation and stability could have been better for sure. Maybe even the features could have been better. But the Facebook API is not a world changer. The Twitter API is more along the lines of a world changer, but they decided they needed to build the most profitable business possible and being plumbing was not in the cards. The Facebook API is a way to bolster the core Facebook product (which is amazing, probably the most engaging product ever created in human history short of addictive substances). This idea that if they just did right by developers it could have been so much more amazing is just a cyberpunk fantasy. The Facebook API could never be more than a reflection of a product.<p>Looking back on the mashup era, the future is not going to be from the goodwill of corporations to provide amazing APIs. Rather it will be open source, open protocols and open data that allow for true advancement in the state of the art.
habermanalmost 12 years ago
This article fails to consider the (possibly very legitimate) reasons why Facebook backed away from this.<p>To me, the two biggest ones are:<p>1. As others have said, spammy apps hugely detracted from the experience of using Facebook.<p>2. I haven&#x27;t seen this discussed elsewhere, but I think it&#x27;s huge: Facebook apps were never allowed to serve dynamic content on people&#x27;s profile pages. This significantly impaired how rich, useful, and &quot;social&quot; these apps could actually be.<p>For example, I used to work for BillMonk, which was a way of tracking social, informal debt between friends. It should have been a perfect app for Facebook. But it wasn&#x27;t possible for us to serve content in our widget that would give you up-to-date information about how much you owed a friend (or they owed you). You had to &quot;push&quot; your updates to this content, as I recall, but it wasn&#x27;t technically feasible for us to push content updates to Facebook every time there was a change to our database.<p>I think Facebook imposed this limitation very deliberately for a very good reason: if an app could serve dynamic content, it could also monitor how users were using Facebook. Someone could create a &quot;stalker&quot; app to tell you who was visiting your profile. If such a thing existing it would significantly deter people from using Facebook. You&#x27;d have to think before every click about the social implications of visiting the next page.<p>It&#x27;s an important part of Facebook&#x27;s model that you can look at whatever you want without looking like a stalker.
mindcrimealmost 12 years ago
Facebook Platform, as conceived, was just a bad idea anyway. Zuck nailed it when he said that &quot;today social networks are closed systems&quot; but here&#x27;s the kicker - Platform didn&#x27;t really do anything to change that. They wanted people to build apps to run <i>inside of</i> Facebook, not to communicate <i>with</i> Facebook. They weren&#x27;t ever tearing down the garden walls, they were asking everybody else to move into the garden with them. And most people didn&#x27;t and the people who did (mostly) realized that it was a mistake.<p>I think they finally moved on from that a bit, but the &quot;let&#x27;s run an app inside a social network&quot; thing was always of very limited value.
jgonalmost 12 years ago
Reading this article the one idea that persisted in my head was that this was a case of people not really knowing anything about ecology trying to create an ecosystem. Sure they used the word &quot;Platform&quot; and maybe that was actually the first clue, but what they really wanted was an ecosystem of actors creating increased value for their domain.<p>I think that my favorite piece of writing by Cory Doctorow is his essay &quot;All Complex Ecosystems Have Parasites&quot; and I thought of it early into this piece. Any ecosystem of any interest will always have parasites within it. When you attempt to indiscriminately remove them all you almost invariably end up with something sterile and far less interesting. When I discover a weed on my lawn, my reaction isn&#x27;t to burn the lawn and pave it. Sure I wouldn&#x27;t have any weeds that way, but a concrete sheet is far less interesting (to me at least) than a lush lawn. So I suck it up and deal with the weeds on a case by case basis, because that is the only way to do it without torching the rest of the ecosystem that I want to maintain. It seems like Facebook, when faced with the weed problem, went the concrete sheet route, torching both the parasites and the rest of the actors that actually made up the ecosystem. Sure, it means that there are no more weeds, but it means that there also aren&#x27;t any of the other organisms that create value in your ecosystem.<p>Another thing to consider is the energy cost of &quot;putting down roots&quot; so to speak in an ecosystem and evolving with changes. An organism has to spend energy to establish itself within an ecosystem, and it also has to spend energy changing itself to adapt to changes in the environment. Every joule of energy it spends doing this is a joule it doesn&#x27;t spend enriching the ecosystem it is a part of. Going back to my lawn, I don&#x27;t change the soil composition every year, and I also don&#x27;t pull up the grass and set it back down to resod every 6 weeks. Eventually it would die, because I would be forcing it to spend all of its energy adapting to changes I introduce rather than helping the ecosystem thrive. And then I&#x27;m back to my barren field problem.<p>I don&#x27;t have a good ecosystem analogy for competing against their developers, but I will note that it can be framed in energy terms again. Any other organism, after watchers other repeatedly expend their energy in a particular ecosystem only to be crushed will likely decide against attempting to establish themselves in your ecosystem and instead choose one of several other competing ecosystems, even those that appear initially less attractive, because what is the use if you likely end up failing anyway?<p>So, my takeaway given only my shallow knowledge of what happened based on this article is that other organizations attempting to establish an ecosystem (and that is really what they want when they say platform) and reap the numerous benefits that an ecosystem can produce should spend some time thinking about how ecosystems become established and thrive in the real world before charging clumsily forward with their own naive attempts.
评论 #6093274 未加载
评论 #6094437 未加载
sidcoolalmost 12 years ago
I have had a difficult reading relationship with pandodaily. After some good initial articles, they started producing trash. This article, for a change, is reasonably good.
评论 #6092100 未加载
评论 #6092831 未加载
dano414almost 12 years ago
My problem with facebook; it&#x27;s a reminder of how much our current society bothers me. At first is was cute-- kind of, but as the time went on it just got nauseating. The narcissism The birthdays The baby picture--animals fine, but enough with your spawn. The touching quotes The pictures of what you ate. The head tilted portrait. The reminder that people don&#x27;t change.<p>Actually, the only facebook posts I can stomach are from the Amish--sad, but true.
评论 #6092823 未加载
评论 #6092269 未加载
jeenaalmost 12 years ago
Back then I also was working on a Facebook app, not only working but I even finished it. You were find restaurants in whole europe and book a table right from facebook inviting your friends and stuff. We were just kicking in the advertising machinery when we found out that one of our core features, messaging your friends (about that you got a table for all of you) wasn&#x27;t allowed anymore. This was one of the main reasons our application never took of, the other was that FBML was really slow, so while I had a normal HTML view which rendered in perhaps 300 ms the roundtrip for FBML from the browser to a facebook server then to our server then back to facebook and finally to the browser always took more then two seconds.<p>But honestly, even if I was disappointed about all the fuckups we as developers had to deal with, as a user I am really happy about the fact that there are no attention claiming apps on Facebook, it is actually therefore I still use Facebook, in my free time as a normal user.
killermonkeysalmost 12 years ago
For all this article&#x27;s many faults, at least it is long-form and has more than two sources. I hope PandoDaily continues to support long-form journalism and I hope they inspire other tech blogs to do the same.
steven2012almost 12 years ago
This has unfortunately been my experience with the Facebook Platform as well. I remember talking with someone 5 years ago, saying that Facebook would be the one site that they log into in the morning, they would get their daily news, their friends updates, their word processing, etc. They would never have to leave the site.<p>Instead, it hasn&#x27;t done any of this, and their best attempt at monetization is &quot;Would you like to buy your friend a gift on their birthday?&quot;<p>It was obvious with Zynga how quickly things could go viral, and yes, sometimes things were extremely spammy, but for the most part, you could have a lot of fun apps on Facebook. Now, there are almost no apps left, except core Facebook. The only thing people appear to use it for is to get login information, or for mobile-type contacts information.<p>I tried making my own Facebook app, and ran into a bunch of issues, including really poor documentation. You couldn&#x27;t even google for things, because things changed so quickly that you couldn&#x27;t tell which was the most recent information. It wasn&#x27;t a pleasant experience at all. It&#x27;s too bad, because like the article says, there was so much more potential than what it has turned into. And I know people have been saying this for years, but I really am seeing a lot more of my friends simply stop logging into Facebook now, because it&#x27;s boring. It will be interesting to see if they have what it takes to make bold, innovative moves to make the platform more attractive again.
coldcodealmost 12 years ago
Maybe Microsoft will buy Facebook and kill two birds with one stone.
评论 #6091950 未加载
mathattackalmost 12 years ago
I think the &quot;Release now, figure it out later&quot; came to haunt them. By accepting so many crappy apps, the overall experience declined. They also got no revenue out of it. Yes, some of the 3rd party apps were leeches on the motherships. Many more were innocent victims. Now we have an environment of diminishing utilization, and no apps. How many people really use Facebook now more than 12 months ago? Or 3 years ago?
lazyBillyalmost 12 years ago
Their platform is ok. It jittered a lot, and I&#x27;m really not a big fan of the social graph, but some stuff is good, some stuff is bad, it&#x27;s on the balance ok.<p>The problem is that they&#x27;re selling advertising access to their people. That&#x27;s all they&#x27;re selling, via direct ads or graph access and &#x27;sharing&#x27;. Impressions. Period. So there&#x27;s a very natural friction between people who are investing a bunch of dev time and expecting their impressions for free and facebook, who doesn&#x27;t want you to piss off their users with a bunch of spammy ads without at least paying them for it. So facebook is locking it down, little by little, and all the devs who were used to getting something for nothing are seeing their marketing vector dwindle little by little (unless you pay).<p>The whole &#x27;review process&#x27; I found extra annoying, though. I will tolerate that shit from Apple, but not from facebook.
shmerlalmost 12 years ago
<i>“Right now, social networks are closed platforms,” Zuckerberg said. “And today, we’re going to end that.”</i><p>Impossible (for Facebook). Open platforms are open decentralized social networks like Diaspora. Facebook will always have profiles exploitation interest and it&#x27;s a failure by default for anyone caring about openness of the Web.
thetrumanshowalmost 12 years ago
Facebook likely used the platform as a way to spam you and all your friends by proxy. Thus, the apps took the heat and Facebook got the boost in growth it needed. Well executed I say.
ergitalmost 12 years ago
&quot;North America’s Kik&quot;<p>Why not just say Canada?
jliptzinalmost 12 years ago
A very well-written and judicious obituary of Facebook Platform. I started building for it shortly after it launched, in late 2007. I had high hopes for it; I felt I was at the forefront of &#x27;the next big thing,&#x27; like others, so I invested a lot of my time into it. I made apps that served millions of people, one of which reached #1 in DAU at one point among all apps (back when they ranked apps by DAU).<p>As a lone developer keeping up with the changes and additions wasn&#x27;t easy - I literally ran the gamut - from FBML to FBJS to FQL to xd_receiver.htm to the JS SDK to FB Credits to Graph API. Initially I cut them some slack - it was a new platform, and we all make mistakes.<p>But things never really got better. I couldn&#x27;t tell you how many times I came across 4, 5, 6 different ways to do the same (seemingly simple) interaction with the platform, only one of which worked, and of course not the officially documented method. Or inaccurate or nonexistent API docs. Or how many times my app would suddenly break without pushing any changes - I became accustomed to just waiting it out until Facebook would release a patch for whatever they broke, and have to tell my users to just wait it out. This would usually occur Tuesday night&#x2F;Wednesday if I remember correctly.<p>Solutions to problems would usually lie in an obscure forum post after about 10 minutes of googling, posted by another friendly developer who probably tore his hair out looking for a solution. Ah, the camaraderie. Here&#x27;s a recent one I just came across (and they&#x27;re not hard to find) <a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16649634/ios-url-scheme-fb-event-llu-no-longer-working-in-6-1-1" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;stackoverflow.com&#x2F;questions&#x2F;16649634&#x2F;ios-url-scheme-f...</a> Accepted answers that start with &quot;Facebook seems to have...&quot; and end with &quot;change or remove them completely at will&quot; tend to give developers more than a few gray hairs.<p>It also doesn&#x27;t help that Facebook tends to treat developers like sheep. At first this didn&#x27;t bother me - after all, they weren&#x27;t forcing me to build apps for them, and I was free to leave at any time. In the early days I&#x27;d contact developer support (I don&#x27;t think there&#x27;s a published number) to report bugs&#x2F;issues, suggest improvements, or genuinely ask for help with a problem. I never got a single non-automated response. Not once. So I stopped wasting my time and just became more and more bitter with every breaking change.<p>The 30% credits tax was the inflection point of the downfall. IMHO, that was a &quot;me too&quot; response to Apple&#x27;s iOS platform (coincidence that they came up with the same fee structure?) and was, for me, the tell-tale sign that they were no longer interested in their developers&#x27; well being. Yes, I understand they need to make money. I am all for ringing the cash register. But Apple and Facebook are different platforms. Apple has a highly trafficked worldwide app store. They let me put my app icon on my users&#x27; home screens (that&#x27;s valuable real estate), and I could push out unlimited notifications to my users&#x27; devices to keep them engaged and coming back with one click, among other things. Facebook has no such equivalents. I guess you could argue you&#x27;re paying for the viral distribution, but after they&#x27;ve heavily curtailed their viral channels and people have become more and more immune to app invites, there&#x27;s really no way to get free distribution anymore from Facebook. You still need to be buying ads, mostly from them.<p>If they wanted to make money and curtail spam, all they had to do was charge developers by each notification, invite, or newsfeed post they&#x27;d send out. Set a fixed price per message, or use a competitive auctioning system like adwords. The crapplications would never be able to afford their own spam.<p>I&#x27;ve since migrated my apps away from Facebook, either to mobile or on standalone web sites. Needless to say, my life as a developer has gotten a lot easier, and since I have more time to focus on improving my apps rather than keeping up with breaking changes, I&#x27;m doing better than I ever have before.
EGregalmost 12 years ago
<a href="http://qbix.com/blog/index.php/2013/04/a-new-kind-of-platform/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;qbix.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;index.php&#x2F;2013&#x2F;04&#x2F;a-new-kind-of-platfor...</a>
untilHellbannedalmost 12 years ago
Welcome, surprisingly honest reporting on facebook by tech press.
hansalmost 12 years ago
we really thought fB was going to become the user auth + data persistence layer for the entire web as they were pumping this platform idea: like noone would need to build user account storage ever again, and all the world would base their user accounts on top of fB ... that would&#x27;ve been worth billion$ but n0t g0nna happ3n.
_sabe_almost 12 years ago
It&#x27;s like a curse in the software industry to innovate oneself to death.
azeemkalmost 12 years ago
This is cool. On MSFT buying someone, I hope it ends up being bbry