When the Facebook platform launched two years ago there were hundreds of copycats of successful applications that popped up almost instantaneously. Two years later we are back in the same position except this time it’s big app developers stealing from each other. Flixster and iLike have literally stolen entire chunks of Living Social’s extremely popular Pick 5 application which has attracted over 14 million users in a couple of weeks.
Early on the Facebook platform was considered the wild west but it appears that not much has actually changed. Large developers publicly steal from other developers which occasionally end up in costly legal battles. This time around there’s no indication that it will end up in court but for large developers with millions of dollars of funding and cash flow, directly ripping off other companies seems like a pretty weak strategy. Then again Facebook directly rips off features of other companies, such as the “Like” feature on feed stories which was lifted from FriendFeed.
Violate The Rules First, Apologize Later
The best practice on the Facebook platform has become “break the rules, apologize later” and now that has apparently become the rules between leading developers. It’s an unfortunate situation for developers because they are forced to constantly push the limits until Facebook or another company arbitrarily decides to take action.
It’s a similar environment to becoming an international company and having to learn about government corruption and bribery in the country of operations. Is it a best practice to bribe public officials? Is it worth the risk? There are a lot of questions that take place when a company expands internationally and there are starting to be just as many when a company decides to build a social application.
Examining The Evidence
So before I criticize these companies of flagrant ethical violations, it would probably be a good idea to post screenshots comparing the various applications. The two areas where iLike and Flixster are ripping off LivingSocial is in the feed and within the applications. First lets examine the application interface where users select their favorite authors, artists, actors, movies, and other things.
LivingSocial Pick 5 Interface
Flixster Pick 5 Interface
iLike Pick 5 Interface
So we’ve displayed it in the order of LivingSocial, who created the original design, then Flixster followed by iLike. Do these three look similar to you? iLike appears to have gone the furthest to avoid duplicating LivingSocial by removing the centrally located search box and by switching the primary phrase of “Pick your [category]” to “Name your [category]“. Flixster however has essentially created and exact duplicate of LivingSocial’s design. Next up we’ll look at the feed stories that are created by each of these applications.
LivingSocial Pick 5 Feed Screenshot
Flixster Feed Screenshot
iLike Feed Screenshot
We’ve displayed the feeds in the same order as last time. As you’ll notice this time around, iLike has a much more similar design. They’ve actually gone so far as to directly steal the “Pick Your 5″ icon directly from LivingSocial. The two icons are indistinguishable. Flixster however has gotten “creative” and has switched the icon yet has kept the same phrase: “Pick Your 5″.
Aren’t These Companies Supposed to Be Creative?
Living Social now runs the fastest growing application on the Facebook platform since the redesign and the other large developers want to get a piece of the action. In my own opinion though they’ve crossed the line and have literally stolen assets and the interface of LivingSocial’s Pick 5 application. If you’re going to steal then I guess steal from the best.
While the Facbeook platform is still a relatively volatile environment (Facebook makes changes regularly), you would hope that the leading developers would set a moral and ethical precedent. Apparently we’re still playing in an environment anything goes though. If that’s the case, I just came up with a great new design for Living Social’s Movies application below. What do you think about my creative design?
![[Inside Social Apps 2012]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/ISA2012_336x100_F_RegisterNow.gif)
![[AllFacebook Stats: Facebook Analytics for Your Business]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/stpro_allfacebookstats.gif)
![[How can Facebook change your business?]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/FMB_A_MAY2011_336x100_F.gif)
hrmmm,
Wouldnt it have been better for ilike and flixster to make a partnership with livingsocial?
i dont understand why peaple 'steal' when its easier to call them and ask!
Comment by Chris Clayton — April 6, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
You are so right about the apps that are complete copys. How many of those "Friend Facts" and "Yes/No" apps are out there! The developer platform is a place where you get away with it for as long as you can.
Comment by Facebook User — April 6, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
This was hardly a creative idea in the first place, just one that happened to work well on Facebook's latest newsfeed.
Comment by David Stillwell — April 6, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
Hi Nick -
First of all, let me just say that the LivingSocial guys have built a great set of applications and we admire and learn from them often. Obviously we compete with their app in the movie category, but that hasn't prevented us from having a positive business relationship and friendship.
To set the record straight here, Flixster.com launched in May of 2005 and we have had custom user-created movie lists since October of that time. Since then our users have created hundreds of thousands of lists on every topic imaginable. User-created lists on the internet were probably not a new invention when we launched them 3.5 years ago, and they were certainly not invented by LivingSocial last month.
Anyway, i agree with your broader point that too many developers focus on copying every short-run success rather than building deep, differentiated applications that provide real value to the user. I don't think the LivingSocial team does that and its certainly not what we're trying to do at flixster. You will see us continue to evolve and innovate this feature, along with all our others and some exciting new ones over the coming weeks and months.
Best,
Joe
Comment by Joe Greenstein — April 6, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
No feature is safe. That's why building IP and marketshare are most important for any developer. Best practices, ripping-off features, same thing.
Comment by True — April 6, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
Hey Joe,
You yapped away for 3 paragraphs and still didn't directly address why you ripped off the feed from LivingSocial. Is it true that once you get past a couple of million users developers need to attend a 'spin zone' class?
Comment by justin — April 7, 2009 @ 6:34 am
Ok…
Let's remind everyone that the internet is a medium, just like print, or television, although the internet is definitely the most vast, considering it offers the most accessibility to content ratio.
90% of advertising is copied, so seeing a trend in the way applications are motivating users, or creating a desirability for them, is not unexpected.
Applications are trying to offer more compelling content through the publisher, and as a result, since the publisher approach is new, we are seeing lots of the same things. One of the greatest opportunities here is to attract new markets of users to install the application that is delivering the said content that peaks the users interest.
While that paunch is at bay, the publisher encourages app-users to engage with the application more often then not.
If we think of the saturating concept of *top 5* in general, we probably would think of T-Mobiles hundred million dollar campaign, which foundated the awareness of a top 5 to begin with, since the delivery was not just internet, it had consumed all mediums.
In conclusion, there can definately be some negative impact on saturation and consistency of the top 5 delivery through apps who have run out of ideas, but by the time that saturation actually has an effect on users in a negative way, other apps will have broken the creative barrier already, setting a new trend…and the circle of piggy-backing would then march to that beat.
Comment by Michael — April 8, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
Here's the reality.
LivingSocial has spent about 2 years building a platform. It's very clean. Generally useful. And slightly boring.
They probably spent 2 hours building that feature, which, frankly, was just a well worded/illustrated news feed item. And it wasn't boring.
> 75% of their users likely came from that 2 hours of work.
Expecting the world (Flixster, iLike, etc) to sit around and lose out because their existing "like" news feed items previously included a variable number of entries and did not contain the words "pick 5" is rubbish.
It's just "News Feed Optimization!"
Comment by Bill — April 10, 2009 @ 4:09 am
And now we add…pieces of Flair to the list of those ripping off LivingSocial. Yikes.
As much as I dislike this example of it, here's a screenshot:
http://tinyurl.com/czgakd
Comment by Lisa — April 10, 2009 @ 4:45 am
I bought a discount coupon worth $150 for $50 of Optical Boutique, one Spring Street, Unit 101, New Brunswick, NJ 08901
To use the coupon, I bought one ray-ban sunglass at $279, which I later found that it is easily available at $129 ar ray-ban.com and $99.50 at amazon.com
Optical Boutique charged $150 more then the actual price which is more than double. Though they gave a discount of $150 on that making it equal to the ray-ban.com prices.
But I had to pay $50 for the coupon to livingsocial.com. So this extra money goes straight to livigsocial.com
So it looks livingsocial.com is associated with fraud shops and are making good amount of money.
So, this is a fraud site, just making fool of others. This is just a RIPOFF site.
Comment by pritish — November 5, 2011 @ 10:06 pm