Earlier today Facebook released details on its new Verified App Program for third party developers.
Basically, application developers (there are 48,000 applications on Facebook today) can apply to become a Verified App. If they pass they get a badge and special placement in the Application directory, plus increased communication limits with users, increased visibility in the news feed and some free advertising credits. If they don’t pass, they get stuck into the unwashed masses of apps that aren’t verified because they aren’t “meaningful,” “trustworthy,” or “well designed.” The complete guidelines are here.
Basically, you don’t want to be in the loser group. Facebook users aren’t going to be quick to add an application that can’t meet basic competence or honesty standards. A developer trying to get users on an unverified app is sort of like someone trying to get a job as a doctor without a medical degree. It’s going to be hard.
So how do you get into the Verified App category? You pay. $375. Well, you have to pass those tests, but then you pay. You can be so Meaningful people make religious pilgrimages to your office. So Trustworthy that your Wikipedia edits are never questioned. And so Well Designed that the Apple guys call you up for tips. But unless you pay that $375, you ain’t getting the badge.
And then you pay again. Each year. The Verified designation is good for just twelve months.
There’s a word for this kind of system. I just can’t remember what it is. Oh yeah. Protection Racket.
It’s a beautiful model. And I have no problem with it, as long as we’re all willing to admit that it is what it is. I just wish Facebook put as much effort into launching their payments platform as they did on the new verification system. Because then app developers could start charging for apps like they do quite successfully on the iPhone, and make some of this money back.
And just one last thought – if an application isn’t meaningful, trustworthy and well designed, why is it in the app store at all?
Love the picture.
Well, they finally found a monetizing system for the site… great job guys! I can hear the glee coming from MySpace already!
Jon
http://WoodMarvels.com – Create Unique Memories
the godfather…
facebook is far behind !
Instead spend that amount in promoting app in a facebook ad. Even that money will go to facebook, but better utilisation..
By now Arrington has become an fb hater already?
or a typical critic, who thinks keep criticising anybody is good for all.
Disappointing. I would’ve expected a horse’s head.
rotfl. I wonder if that’s an app on facebook, too. “Post a horse’s head to your friend’s wall.”
I hope that they released that photo under a Creative Commons license
zuck doesn’t look like much of a boss
He probably should get a straightener and some gel
Zach, I love you.
Nice, does this new protection come with body guards, err, lawyers if my app violates any copyright laws?
The sneaky snakes. I can almost handle that they do this. You have to make money somehow, but it’s insulting that they charge yearly to maintain it though. I can only hope there becomes some add-on that is seen as almost essential to the Facebook crowd, and the developer refuses to renew.
like birthday alerts?
I noticed the birthday alerts article yesterday, and fb’s birthday alert addition really should KO the competition (perhaps like Google mobile’s voice2search app will do to 411 services?) and they know this. That’s why there isn’t a link to the toggle yet in the birthday box on the home page. They know it’s SO good they made it a few clicks away in the settings so the birthday apps that exist now will die slowly. Methinks a fast death much more honorable.
Of all the things they have done, this is probably the least insulting thing.
Haha. You know it.
if they refuse to renew i imagine someone else will just come along and re-develop the app.
I agree with this measure. I think it is wise to have some quality control. I’m also OK with the fact that one must pay in order to have his app on Facebook, although the price seems to be a little spicy.
I think 100$ would’ve been perfect.
It would be interesting to know how they arrived at that figure. Surely it could have been less.
@Andy: how much do you pay for a hair cut in Palo Alto?
100$ = 5 hours of an unskilled Detroit factory worker.
219$ = 1 night in the Courtyard by Marriott on El Camino Real.
375$ = ?
1000$ = 1 hour of legal advise (ad vice?) by Mr. Assington or similar
Facebook is probably not even recovering the cost of the supervision.
Just seems stupid to charge a premium to develop apps. How the hell is this encouraging developers to COME to the platform ?
It’s obvious that if you dont pay the “fee” you will never get the required exposure.
At least with iphone platform, you can let the “free markets” decide whether your app sucks or not. Now – if you dont “pay the protection money” on facebook, your out.
Well, there is always bebo, myspace and hi5 left. Sorry facebook – $375 bucks aint worth it when there is no guarantee your app is going to be successful in the first place.
What’s the big deal? Don’t companies like Verisign basically do this for the whole web? They charge “protection money” too for displaying the green bar in the browser.
As long as Facebook doesn’t start locking out people who don’t pay, then this is just a non-issue.
“It’s a beautiful model. And I have no problem with it, as long as we’re all willing to admit that it is what it is.”
Just when they hide what their trying to do.
“Facebook users aren’t going to be quick to add an application that can’t meet basic competence or honesty standards. A developer trying to get users on an unverified app is sort of like someone trying to get a job as a doctor without a medical degree. It’s going to be hard.”
Maybe. Maybe not. I think time will tell. Honestly, if an app is engaging enough and my friends are using it, I would still add it – verified or not. But that could only be me..
Agreed. If you take the Firefox example, non of my installed add-ons are verified. In fact my own add-on has tens of thousands of users and verification has been a non issue.
add-on verification issue is just a leeway to monetize. i think they can just label add-on as verified or now and leave the disgression to the user if they still would install the add-on, but to the extent of removing the app if it doesn’t comply, it’s a bit harsh.
just my $0.02
Comment on TechCrunch post on Facebook Charging Developers {seesmic_video:{”url_thumbnail”:{”value”:”http://t.seesmic.com/thumbnail/xfqrCl4kpq_th1.jpg”}”title”:{”value”:”Comment on TechCrunch post on Facebook Charging Developers ”}”videoUri”:{”value”:”http://www.seesmic.com/video/X5tQSas0vW”}}}
How exciting for Facebook, they finally figured out how to monetize the site
With ad revenues going downhill, they’re probably getting desperate.
bingo!!!
What in the name of God is MG Siegler STARING AT?
1. His disappearing credibility
2. His dying Brand Name
3. His elfish girlfriend (for whom he shills)
4. All the people in his life who he has disappointed
5. Certain Unemployment
yeah, I don’t know what would qualify a verified app for dismissal after a year without payment. I doubt the developers are going to screw up their verified status by making their policy less honest or less meaningful. facebook could possibly justify the yearly fee for checking up on the app, but the whole fee every year? maybe a $375 startup and $50 – $100/year after that. On the other hand, the good apps are making enough money to pay that off in minutes.
I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again, fuck facebook
I second that…FUCK FACEBOOK…bunch of liars, not to be trusted
OMG. I was just wondering why your previous article was only informative and not a slap on FB. I dont think this as an offer anyone cannot refuse.
YCombinator Startup School 2009 Featured Speakers:
* Sam Altman
* ICarley
* Jason Calcanis
* The banjo playing kid from Deliverance
* Robert Scoble
* Calley Nye
* The Entire Cast of High School Musical, Jakarta
* Paul Graham’s Au Pair
Someone tell me who this is please. Waaay too insidery.
Most ppl dont know wtf you are talking about, but I think youre funny.
Personally I am using facebook a heck of a lot more since they cleaned up the design and start hiding the spam (applications) that hindered the user experience.
My entire family is now on Facebook. It really is an enjoyable site now!
so somebody somewhere clues in that the best thing for all developers is to not pay and therefore nobody is ‘verified’ and it’s business as usual. Otherwise once a large portion of developers start to pay, then everybody has too.
This is a dumb idea, but facebook already killed the app market with the new redesign.
How many people have installed new apps since the redesign or have even been introduced to new apps since Facebook increased their controls.
They already amputated the foot, can’t hurt to shoot it now too!
Um. It costs $200/month to post jobs on Crunchboard. This article is kiddy stuff.
I think they should provide a second option. facebook should allow each individual application to (facebook controlled) poll their users (if they have a certain amount of DAU) and crowd source the outcome of each app. If the users like it, it’s verified. Not sure if Bumper Sticker is a ‘premium’ app but with millions of daily actives, I’d assume it’s verified itself in its ability to retain its users and should bypass the $375.
First the “Facebook Destroys Lucrative Birthday Reminder Industry” post than this post. This is what i learned from Facebook apps platform.
Do not bet on to someone else’s business.
If you bet you are going to be someone else’s business model.
This initially seemed like a good idea to me. I mean, revenue is revenue, right? But if you think about Facebook’s current burn rate, $375×500, even $375×5000, doesn’t really even begin to help them. If it was $375 monthly, that might get them somewhere, but then almost no one would buy…
This was the comment I was looking for – I ran the math as well and was like meh… I can’t see them getting out of bed in the morning for that much money. This most certainly is a way to filter out the cruft.
If I was them I would allow their flyer ads be used on the 3rd. party apps and then do a rev share. That way as an advertiser you can target by app and tailor your campaigns accordingly on a CPC model.
Cheers – Eric
Facebook is desperate for cash, they even figure out to give profit and they want to profit from app developers, how plain st…….
Extortion!
why did we hate microsoft so much again?
I propose a different system for vetting the trustworthiness of Facebook apps. Let Facebook’s own users vote on which apps are trustworthy and well-designed. Just like Digg. Sure, some garbage might get through. But why won’t some garbage get through anyway with the proposed system? Facebook should also make this a FREE process so as not to discriminate against coders in parts of the world where $375 is still an obscene amount of money.
It isn’t a racket. It is RENT! I called it as soon as Facebook opened up their developer platform. It is entirely normal. Essentially it moves ALL application away from “Squatter” status into “Tennant” status.
Don’t like it? Then get the f%*k out of Facebook. Presumably you have an application on there for a reason???
Finally Mark is starting to generate some real income for the site. However, not in the best of ways. I don’t agree with charging contributors although they can profit from apps so it is a tough decision.
Man’s Game….
Big deal if you need to pay an annual fee. Without Facebook, these developers would still be playing World of Warcraft. The fee sets a standard at which the garbage developers will be separate from those who actually create value.
Enough with ripping into Facebook. Tech Crunch is a great blog, and I hate to become one of “those” commentators, but everyone who posts to this thinks they have the next Google. Settle down, put your focus and energy to creating something of importance, as opposed to criticizing others.
The problem isn’t the verification aspect, it is who is verifying it. Facebook through this whole bday app thing and a lack of communication on platform changes has degraded developer trust. It just seems a tad hard to swallow at times and does make you focus more on expanding to other api’s instead of investing more in Facebook. Trusting users would be more palatable. Maybe the solution is for facebook to have a group of active users do the verification process, after all the user is the real determinant as to what is proper.
That said developers are really paying for the sins of the past. too many apps simply violated user trust with excessive spam, data exportation to external sites without user authorization. Every new platform gets scamed during scaling but eventually the law comes a looking and maybe this is the price we pay for the app police…
This sounds very interesting. I’ll be sure to submit one of my apps!
Speaking of facebook apps, feel free to check out this application a buddy of mine created:
http://apps.fac...k.com/vingtalk/
It’s for a new mobile start-up called VingTalk. Check them out at:
http://www.vingtalk.com/cpp
I really loved this article
We need to build a public social networking platform owned by the taxpayers. It is as important as roads and bridges and should not be left in private hands.
The disappointing point of this move is that its timing seems completely random, instead of part of any bigger strategy. How can you ask developers to pay to be recognized if you havent made the steps to help them success and profit from their apps (payments, site design)?
You dont think that this move is in preparation for the FB payments platform? Kidding, right? It’ll be here before Xmas, Im 99% sure.
I didn’t read the requirements, but I think FB should charge another $375 for each update to the app… say Version 1 is ok but 1.1 would be much better… might as well be paid for that release too! In fact, they should make all the money because people like them and they’re ‘cool’ and stuff.
I’m just jealous cause I should’ve thought about building a business with a bunch of eyeballs and allowing others to post their apps on my site and then charged them after the fact for not sucking. Two words – Brilliant!
If it is a quality app, with the exposure FB gives, it should be worth it. If after one year it has no traction making 375 look big, then it is probably not good enough.
This will probably kill the apps made just for fun though where the author had no monetary motive. If the overall quality is good and there is plenty of choice, this might turn into a win win situation.
Cool, they don’t know how to monetize this monster ) But it’s clear that they are threatening one of their coolest competitive advantages – the app market (or whatever it’s called). FB has become so popular thanks to developers in the first place. And instead of rewarding them, it’s trying to charge them money
Very shortsighted thinking.
I think the FB developers should protest by not letting themselves into this trap. Simply by not applying for this ‘premium’ tag. FB should better find other ways to make money.
For facebook there probably is a real labour cost involved in testing apps and as the number of apps increases, it is becoming harder to decide which ones are worth using.
I also expect to see an increase in the complexity of apps for instance those using Salesforce.
If you compare it to the price Yahoo still charges for a directory listing and many companies pay, it is a bargain.
They do have a discount for non-profits and students.
Ultimately there is also the benefit of better placement, much like advertising on blogs.
Pretty lame on Facebook’s part, considering that the only thing keeping developers from exporting user data is the “honor system”. Time for an open source Facebook competitor? I think so.
I give Facebook 2 more years of relevance. They are making all the wrong moves.
Try to get mainstream users that I know (age 28-38) to switch. They could give a crap about open source (they go cross-eyed when I use the term). I think you are out of touch.
I happen to hate FB, but they are the juggernaut and nothing will stop them at this point.
This sucks big. You slut around apple store’s ambiguous policies but whining here for $375.
Users will be reticent to add an unverified app? Really? They don’t seem to have a problem adding crappy apps now that there are 42,000 crappy apps. Why would I believe verification matters? Rather than thinking Zuck is a brilliant and ruthless Don, I prefer to think he still has no cle abot his users or how to make money.
clue
Of all people you should know Sheryl & Co. realize it will take time to figure this $ thing out, and they have the $, time, and talent to figure it out, unfortunately.
Many of the people who are agreeing with the charge, seem to forget a few things….
For this to work FB have to educate users, how are they going to do this? I suspect how they do this will be akin to the protectionism the article implies.
1) Most apps don’t make any money (this is a fact)
2) Developers incur the development, hosting costs, and maintenance costs (note: the number of platform changes makes maintenace a significant cost for a successful app)
3) FB generate revenue off apps (page views of the apps pages)
4) FB don’t have the concept of an app store, where users pay to use an app
5) FB are not clear on what the actual benefits are of incuring the charge (things like increased allocations are sketchy to say the least)
6) With the number of apps already listed in the directory, and number of new ones each day, there’s no guarantee that just listing an app will generate users (like it used to)
7) FB’s redesign has reduced the visibility of apps to users and their friends
I also think there’s other categories of developers that are going to be stung by this – the newbies, the niave, and the gullible (most that have developed on the platform for a while won’t fall into this category – and will probably only signup after their app has already reached a breakeven number of users)
We’re going to open social shopping service with Myspcae.com
Our website is http://www.nextsearch.co.kr
We developed Visual shopping engine such as Like.com.
‘Protection racket’ isn’t the right term – I believe you’re thinking of ‘payola’.
“Facebook users aren’t going to be quick to add an application that can’t meet basic competence or honesty standards”
You really think the average user (who spams their friends with zombie-pirate-movie-quiz invitations) cares about competency or honesty or third-party applications?
As I see it, very few Facebook apps add any value for the serious user. Facebook is spotting the bits of app functionality which *are* useful, and bringing them into the core of the site (e.g. Flickr photos, Yelp reviews, etc), making the few formerly-useful apps redundant.
I believe in America. America has made my fortune. And I raised my daughter in the American fashion. I gave her freedom, but – I taught her never to dishonor her family.
Greatest Teaser Image Ever! Thanks!
Reminds me of the $299 that gets automatically billed to my credit card every year by Yahoo b/c they started making you pay for inclusion into their web directory (that no one uses, is just for SEO juice).
I think this is a good move for Facebook. I know I am leary of most of the applications on there..most seem to have the stupid factor, time waster factor, and security factors so having to come up with a little $$ and some standards to live by seems a wise thing to do.
hello Facebook? this is eBay calling.
we’ve heard you’ve stolen our business model, and we want it back.
signed,
another protectionist monopoly trying to squeeze monetization out of its userbase while others innovate
(seriously guys… i agree with mike here. this is a crappy excuse for not shipping payments on time.)
Considering all the big guys — Google, MySpace, Yahoo, Apple, RIM — are trying to woo developers, this really shows how cocky Facebook is.
I hope MySpace takes advantage of this and announces a revshare model.
This is truly a brilliant piece of commentary, Michael. One of your all-time best. Thanks.
If Facebook really want to make money off the app they should offer some kind of revenue sharing program. If an app makes money FB get some cut; and if it does well FB does well. Imposing a flat fee is simpler to implement but not the best way in my opinion because.
If the fee is for filtering out the spammy app, why would they let them in or keep them in in the first place.
Fail and you, Arrington.
http://www.ther...pple_app_store/