« Facebook Needs to Open the Newsfeed
hi5 Development Platform Goes Live »

Facebook Walks Fine Line With App Developers

Posted by Nick O'Neill on March 31st, 2008 10:04 AM

Imagine spending a couple months building a Facebook application only to wake up one day and see it launched as part of Facebook’s core feature set. That’s what happened to Amin Ariana who built the Friendmates application. Amin launched a friend suggestion and soon enough it was launched on Facebook. While I think this service is an obvious feature that would eventually launch, Amin did not sound to happy in his email to News.com.

This wasn’t the only time that Facebook has stepped on developers’ toes. With the upcoming launch of the Facebook chat application, many developers will find it a challenge for their application to succeed. There are currently over 1,200 chat application listed in the Facebook application directory. While most of the chat applications have failed at attracting a sizable user base, a few creative ones have grown significantly.

Babuki Desktop Instant Messenger is one application that has been able to attract a substantial user base within a matter of days. They are avoiding competition with Facebook by launching a desktop chat application that integrates with Facebook. This contrasts with Facebook’s upcoming chat application which resides completely within Facebook.

For now Facebook has avoided angering too many application developers but as time passes and Facebook rolls out new features they are continuously at risk of backlash. Have you seen other applications suffer from new Facebook features?

Posted in Chat, News
Digg Icon Digg this article Del.icio.us Icon Save to del.icio.us Share Share on Facebook

This entry was posted on Monday, March 31st, 2008 at 10:04 am and is filed under Chat, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 6 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    This is exactly what Mitch Kapor warned could happen to developers of a platform in his address to the CommunityNext conference back in October. The AllFacebook Video is here for those who missed it: http://www.viddler.com/explore/allfacebook/vide...
    • ^
    • v
    What do you think about the new profile pages as a way to marginalize the hugely popular Super Wall and Fun Wall applications? It looks like Facebook is worried about giving up a highly monetizable asset and they are deliberately trying to undermine those applications.
    • ^
    • v
    I am not sure if the profile revamp is a deliberate play by Facebook to attack their own developers, as much as a response to the cry of users. Profiles have grown out of control, and I think that their first priority is preventing the "MySpace"-ing of Facebook.

    As for IM, it's just too sweet a service to hold back on. It's a fine line, but it's the same fine line as Walmart busting into a small community. The mom & pops / app devs need to become creative to compete.
    • ^
    • v
    @Erik - The first thing I thought of when reading this was Kapo's keynote.

    At the end of the day if your app could be a "core" feature then you are at risk.

    I loved Kapor's speech @ CN. I am not sure how many people were listening because it did not seem to make the impact that it deserved. Some of my notes in case you don't have time to watch the whole vid:


    Fundamental tensions:

    1) The platform owner has fundamental power over application developer
    2) Innovations migrate over time to the core platform
    3) Some platform owners want to control the whole ecosystem
    4) Platform owners need platform users but platform owners are destined to encroach on their users

    Examples:
    * MSFT incorporating IE into windows to cut off netscape
    * MSFT Incorporated media player into OS cutting off real player (lawsuit still in cour in EU)
    * Linden labs incorporated money exchange services into businesses because ti was core - pushed startups out
    • ^
    • v
    Fair enough to do it, IMO, but there ought to be some profit-sharing.

    This is what Blizzard does with WoW addons, its equivalent of applications: if a WoW addon becomes so universally popular that most people who have at least a few addons installed, have that one, they might make it part of the basic game UI. Given there's no financial relationship between WoW developers and Blizzard, the developers tend to not mind much. Also to some degree it's a recognition of having "made it".

    In the case of Facebook though, it's clear that many application developers--all, in the case of the invite-spamming applicrappies--are in it for the bukkz. Since most of their applications are useless by definition, they won't make it into the base UI.

    On the other hand, the applications of greatest usefulness are, broadly speaking, intended by their authors to fill a need, to do something Facebook does not do that they believe it ought; and it turns out, in the cases we're talking about, that they are correct. Such authors can, like the WoW addon authors, consider themselves vindicated and complimented. They weren't making money out of it anyhow.

    So this only adversely affects applications that are actually useful, and on the other hand, are somehow capable of driving advertising revenue or something to the author. In which case, IMO, Facebook really ought to have the right to subsume the addon, but the responsibility to share the revenue gained thereby with the author. This maintains the incentive all around, for all parties concerned.
    • ^
    • v
    The chat application on Facebook is only useful if everyone on Facebook is using it. It's useless if it's only you and maybe 10 of your friends who are using it. If only a few of my friends are in it, then I won't bother using it. The problem with applications developed by outside developers is that not everyone is using it. In fact, many people simply ignore application invites that come into their inbox. The only way for a Facebook chat to function, is to have everyone having it, so it has to be something that Facebook provided themselves. Actually I also think that Courses apps should also be provided by Facebook, instead of outsourced. The outsourced apps are cool, but useless if no one else is using it.

Trackbacks

blog comments powered by Disqus