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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.