When will society FINALLY understand that we do NOT live in a perfectly ethical and egalitarian society.

Bottom line survival is not always ideal .

How many of us would do the same thing if we were honest about our drives

As a developer I didn’t mind the 20 invite cap so much as the forced adoption of Facebook’s invite panel. My own designed panel was super clean, with just names that you could check off. And no, there wasn’t any sort of nefarious forced inviting going on. Their own design is more cluttered, and it can be hard for a user to find the person they want.

The rate at which my users sent invites dropped by 75% after the forced adoption of their interface. This was a valuable (and painful) lesson in the power of good clean design.

this is the infamous drug dealer model.

let them in for free (everyone’s doing it - you will like it - trust me).

get them hooked.

make them pay.

Facebook’s 15 mins are up

The private sector isn’t a democracy and there only a few laws governing corporate favoritism which are easily skirted on the greedy road to riches–just ask Bill Gates. Stop whining when the capitalism you love and defend so much when it benefits you benefits the other party and hurts you. It’s the law fo the jungle in American Capitalism. Sissies.

Weird, if you pay money you get more stuff! Really, complaining about this is ridiculous. This isn’t about honesty or anything. It is about having multiple tiers of support for partners. For free you get a hell of a lot from Facebook as a developer. If you want more, pay one of the application ad networks or pay them for distribution.

it doesn’t have to be “fair” … facebook owns facebook and for all the demands of a free service i praise them for exploiting their imposed limits on others to make a buck… keep facebook free for those people who like it (of which, i am not one)… but lord knows they need a revenue model and if allowing “special rules” that circumvent facebook’s limits for a price then that to me seems as fair as tiered hosting plans that start at free and go upwards of hundreds of dollars per month.

nice one fb, keep up the smart revenue. i mean, right? isn’t that what happened here? by “partnership” please tell me that mark scraped a few bucks into the barrel… i swear the kid can be too damn nice… he could be swimming in cash if we’re a blood sucker.

John - actually no. there are no set tiers where competitors can also pay to get the same benefits as CBS did in this case.

Also, remember that Facebook put limitations in place to protect the users, not create a tiered service scheme. By making different rules for CBS, they are effectively saying that the interests of users are not as important as revenue. That may be penny wise, but pound foolish.

So what? Its their website. They can run it how they want. If your main revenue stream is through other people’s services then you need to reevaluate your business model.

it’s not a question of “fair” or “right or wrong” — it’s a question of tact. facebook has shown that where tact’s concerned, they’re not consistent. as a developer that would concern me. end of story.

Erick - I’m actually not so sure about that. I need to review the agreement between facebook and developers, but facebook promises access under certain rules in exchange for developers making time and capital commitments for facebook. This may be an express, or more likely implied, breach of contract.

they’re a private corporation, they can do whatever they want to. Sorry but companies trying to make applications on facebook as businesses are a joke

While the legal question is an interesting one.

I think that what Facebook is really saying here is that FB knows who CBS is and FB knows that CBS has built an app that FB have decided isn’t as prone to dangerous spamming. Furthermore, to the extent that the app does spam they know it has an expiration date, namely Thursday at noon (or the end of the tourney at the latest).

You could even go so far as so say this is a plus for users so that the app can build up a user base quickly and that that is more necessary here than normal (because of the time sensitive nature).

While that may be bad for the creators of competing aps, it doesn’t really seem like it is bad for users.

9; i conmpletely agree with

You know, it’s funny. I’ve got 200 friends on Facebook, and I received not a single invite to this site. Nor have I invited anyone to be on it. But, holy crap, people are using it. Me and my friends signed up.

Why?

I’m guessing it’s because it’s actually fun. It’s not a hatching egg or a vampire or some dumb “compare your friends” meme. 42% of the 433,825 users are listed as “active users.” That’s a pretty damn good ratio. My guess is that the bulk of those users came from the prominent placement the app has received on the site, not from the generous invite cap.

Finally, if Facebook users (not developers) are pissed about all the invites they’re receiving to take part in what has become the most exciting event in American sports — well, I’ve not seen any complaining. If you’ve got a link to a single blogger complaining about being spammed by the CBS app, it would make a nice addition to your post.

Michael - I don’t see where it would be a breach of contract. In fact, FB even says they reserve the right to charge a fee:

“We reserve the right to charge a fee for using Facebook Platform and/or any individual features thereof at any time in our sole discretion.”

http://www.facebook.com/developers/tos.php

And what do you think will happen when fbFund invests in a few app companies?

The apps were looking to good at the beginning when the platform was released, but now they cluttered facebook and cause all kinds of issues such as these. The original facebook courses is gone (luckily we have Courses 2.0). The original brackets was so cool it made last March one of the best March madness. Now thats gone but replaced with this annoying CBS “app.” The fact that it’s an app makes the bracket less fun because a lot of users don’t add apps anymore. As usual, facebook is freaking secretive about everything. ESPN Brackets, here I come, but I sure missed the original facebook brackets.

So taking Michael’s advice I’ve read through the developer TOS (a more interesting read than the user TOS actually).

The relevant language (conveniently in all caps so that we shan’t miss it!):

FACEBOOK MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE WITH RESPECT TO FACEBOOK PLATFORM OR FACEBOOK PLATFORM DOCUMENTATION. YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF FACEBOOK PLATFORM IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PROHIBITED BY APPLICABLE LAW, FACEBOOK DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, ACCURACY, SATISFACTORY QUALITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, QUIET ENJOYMENT, AND ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES ARISING OUT OF ANY COURSE OF DEALING, COURSE OF PERFORMANCE OR USAGE OF TRADE.

For the non-lawyers in the audience. “Facebook owes no obligations to you whatsoever at any time now, in the past, or in the future.”

In fact the only things that Facebook agrees to are to a) give you access to the platform as long as you stay in their good graces and b) all disputes arising out of the TOS will go to arbitration and be governed by Delaware law.

Frank - a breach of contract wouldn’t be around facebook’s right to charge. It would be around FB’s right to set different rules for different developers. The question is, do developers have a reasonable right to assume a level playing field.

I would not be surprised to see this kindof situation in a business model that consists of one-to-many relationship. Facebook App developers have very limited weight (because they are dependent on FB). Breach of contract could be an interesting angle, but I would assume that in that contract their lawyers would have put a clause similar to this: “Facebook reserves the right to change the terms of this contract anytime, without giving any prior notice to the developers”

@15

It doesn’t matter if the app gained most of its users from advertising. It’s the fact that Facebook has been pitching to all it’s developers how they are against spamming users and placed higher restrictions on applications while opening the door wide open to CBS. They have pitched the platform as an ‘equal playing field’, which obviously isn’t true anymore. They have denied multiple times on the forums to ever giving any preferential treatment to companies like Slide and RockYou (not that I’m saying they get any). Well, there is definitely no way to deny giving special treatment to this app, and it’s sad to see a company with such a devoted developer base make a decision like this that questions their loyalty.

@ 19 “a breach of contract wouldn’t be around facebook’s right to charge. It would be around FB’s right to set different rules for different developers. The question is, do developers have a reasonable right to assume a level playing field.”

FB doesn’t state anywhere that it will hold all developers to the same rules or limitations, much less contractually make that promise. Hence, no breach of any kind.

If you don’t like it, don’t use the Facebook platform.

So, once I stood in this long line for a club. After waiting for about 10 minutes, I saw some dude jump the line, hand the bouncer a bill or two and walk right in. Putting the interests of “users” below that of revenue is pretty much how it goes. And you know who is going to care? No one.
That is, in spite of everyone seeing the pay-off, no one got out of line for the club.

I have a crunch AOL just acquired Tacoda. I dont know why I have this feeling but I just do

It is worth noting that the CBS application has a horrible “user review” score of 2.5 out of 5, and a majority of the 1-star reviews call out the application for being spammy or simply not working… and that was before the invite cap was moved to 100.

Right. Facebook apps aren’t a business model. Killer.

@Micheal

Anyone in the website world knows the agreement means bumpkus and is only meant to protect the company, not the user.

@Michael not Micheal sorry

@Anthony -

For your main source of revenue. Yea, not a concrete way of making a living. Sure facebook isnt going anywhere soon but they can change their policies on a whim and screw you and your business model.

Either way (to limit invitation emails or not) it isn’t an easy decision…

But it’s certainly a great distribution platform - whether the app developers can viably build a biz via viral access to its users, it’s obviously not a core concern to fb (whether the app dev folks can build a biz or not).

@Michael Arrington - There is absolutely nothing expressed or implied that would lead you to believe that your relationship with Facebook gives you any rights to fairness with other developers. In fact, virtually all of the terms of service are specific to what obligations the developer has to Facebook, not the other way around. This article is a great way to drum up page views for Techcrunch but is otherwise completely flawed — unless you are warranting all your posts against defects and fairness with other startups

Great “reporting”

im glad that facebook did this because it pissed off arrington.

@Michael Arrington

This is similar to our experiece as a developer focussed on white-labeled solutions mostly sitting on Mobile Operator decks. What used to be a business model that was based on the operator’s discretionary placement on deck and a pure revenue share is changing across Europe. We are seeing many - and I expect this will soon be most or all - operators moving to a paid placement model with a slightly larger share going to developers.

This is due to the changing nature of how data services are charged. Operators in Europe are learned sooner than those on the US side that their walled garden approach was failing and that for data services, they are little more than a bitpipe. In any case they need to make money and low-cost, flat-rate plans cannot deliver revenues like per Kb billing.

This puts the responsibility for making money on those applications squarely on the shoulders of the developer in that their apps need to be compelling and sticky. But Facebook is a business and I see nothing wrong with this model - if it is “official’ practice.

Michael:

At the end of the day it all boils down to how much Facebook needs the developer community and vice versa. If Facebook remains the only game in town, I am afraid they will behave much the same way as Microsoft did with Windows - creating Word, Excel and Power Point and trying to kill 3rd party applications for their own platform - Word Perfect, Lotus 1-2-3 and Harvard Graphics.

Hopefully this won’t happen because competition is coming - Bebo and MySpace have already launched their own developer platforms. Also, so far it appears that Facebook is not evil and ultimately wants to do what is right.

Raj Lalwani
SocialCalendar.com

Hiya All - There is currently a facebook group that is petitioning for applications to ban the adding of friends on applications. It is over a million strong and growing daily. Interested to see where this is going, as public opinion drives this service….

Funny, I checked on this a while back and the CBS Sports app had 12 invites allowed per day (about 1 week ago or so - I was checking to make sure they were following rules). Meaning their invites had similar response rates to most apps that are suffering under the new rules.

This is outright favoritism. Users deemed their invites as spam just as much as any other application receiving 12 app invites per day (which is close to the average).

Two other notes:

1) Facebook made a huge announcement at the top of the newsfeed (similar to when they launch a new feature or the privacy options - the most recent notice)

2) I got a message from the application in my Facebook Inbox (twice!) - developers have no way of doing this currently. They can only use the much poorer performing requests and notifications systems.

This app came out and I remember seeing how it had poor traction… just like all the other new apps coming out.

So what did Facebook do? turn on the spam for CBS and get this app running!!!!

All the developers can do is complain and go wah wah wah. The point is you guys built businesses/apps centered around Facebook and they can change whatever rules they want…….

Clearly Facebook is going to let the big guys make apps and take over good ideas from the little guys. It’s a way of life, deal with it.

But doesn’t this prove that they’ve now made it REALLY hard to go viral?

Even a CBS Sports March Madness app couldn’t gain traction on its own - how are businesses and developer teams with real biz goals going to want to commit to the FB platform now?

Facebook had a contract signed with CBS for the last year or so (before platform was around) that enabled them to do this.

so this is not an open platform and really a walled garden. Not to surprised. I think facebook fatigue will set in over time. From friendster, myspace, facebook to the next great latest thing. I think it will not be too hard to migrate from facebook. Just imagine a company on of the so called widgets with 20M users becoming more of its own social network and taking users along. The next business model that will work will likely be more open than facebook. After the high school and college phase wears on you time to move on.

I agree with those on this being a big “so-what”. It’s just another one of the risks of being a FB developer.

I did notice that when adding applications, you can explicitly say that you don’t want to invite friends. If the application tries to force you, you can report the application to FB (via a button) that it’s forcing you to invite folks.

Facebook have to monetise effectively - adverts aren’t a great way to do this, but branded and interactive applications are. It’s great that Facebook are allowing any developers to step up and give this service to brands, and keep the money for themselves. In return Facebook gets more engagement and advertising views.

However, I don’t see any problem with Facebook giving additional opportunities to companies willing to pay - this is the same as a company coming in with a huge advertising budget all over the site to promote their application.

this business we call an Open API business is unlike any other webbased business, so there are no experts (yet)… from the groundlevel, its much observation that this is the first time the little developer gets to thrive, react and adapt the fastest, making them the real enablers and winners in such a space. Few pureplay, moveoutofdad’sgarage startup has succeeded on facebook because now they move even slower than developers.

And my point is, the day these developers move from trying to cater to the whims of FB users, to another network like Open Social because they’ve been abused enough by last minute code changes, user count cockups (e.g., my 1 million user app get halved, my other 6000 user app was logged in with 60,000 users… how do you do genuine business like that?) and other fb teething brouhahas, it’ll be too late (for FB).

As a Facebook developer, I am annoyed. But if I look on it from the outside, who the hell am I to get mad? If I were in Facebook’s position, I would do the same thing.

Facebook had platform launch partners who got benefits in the beginning. Developers got used to this (most) and ion reality, the community isn’t that mad. Sure we have on irate developer (who just registered on the forums) and Kien Lee (who loves to increase his post count). None of the big developers are crying because we all know that the users are next to immune to invitations anymore. If it doesn’t look interesting, they ignore it. Sure, for something like the March Madness they will accept, but for many of our applications, invitations are our primary source of users. News Feeds and tailored notifications (rather than invites) are the real winners here.

Wow, apparently I cannot type this morning. Invitations *aren’t* our primary source of users. The other typos I can live with.

Hasn’t this contest been on Facebook for years? Far before the platform even launched? They had unique integration before anyone else, I see no reason why they can’t continue to be treated specially by a private for-profit company.

The reality is this…. Facebook made a song and dance about wanting to reduce the spammyness of applications on the platform. They then introduced a bucket/threshold limit system for invites/requests that dropped most apps below what the current allocation of the time was (20).

Many applications had received no spam reports from users and had healthy accept rates for invites - my own app is more than 2x the avg for applications yet sits at 15 (but has been as low as 8).

Applications developed by Facebook themselves did not have these limitations applied.

People can make a point that Facebook can do whatever they want, but really folks, if facebook really cared about their users and the spammyness that facebook claim they are trying to elivate, how can they justify giving an allocation of 100 to this application.

For the $$$ ? if this is the case then spam now has a price on Facebook, won’t the users love this.

Also, there are other avenues for applications to gain installs via a number of advertising networks including Facebook’s. While many third-party apps are paying for this type of advertising, the app in question appears to have done a deal to get a greater allocation of invites - if this is the new Facebook model, then why wern’t other apps given the opportunity to bid for this deal?

Come on Facebook, get your act together, get professional, and start to treat your users and the developer community with respect.

Developers could protest this kind of thing by getting together and suspending their apps for a day or longer. Facebook is earning their money with ads that are running alongside our app. If they really are doing this for “business reasons” then that would give them a message they couldn’t ignore.

Strike! Strike!

You know in reality, an OPEN API is not just referring not just to the OPENING of the technology platform, but an OPENING of the market, mindset, attitude for all with the skills and tenacity to come play and participate…
If facebook goes into exclusive arrangements with select corporates, then its backtracking to what Open Social is only starting to do! What a devolution!

You need some real grey haired folks in that organization, folks who’ve had some experience making sure some things are not done like in the wild west.