or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Ping talks between Apple, Facebook failed after 18 months - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ping talks between Apple, Facebook failed after 18 months - report - Page 3

post #81 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Since that exception is a bit of a gray area, Apple wouldn't know what Facebook would do until after it launched.

Facebook makes money off increased traffic. Seems like it would be thrilled. Likely a dumb move by Facebook.

You need some facts to inform your opinion.
post #82 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog View Post

apparently you were present at those negotiations. care to share with the group the specifics of said negotiations so we can actually present informed comments? or are you just trolling?
(i suspect the latter.)

What appears to you and what you suspect are each incorrect.

HTH. HAND.
post #83 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

New meme: Android users are pompous, overbearing douchebags who are nevertheless deeply insecure about their choices, and feel driven to seek out confrontation to mask their devastating lack of self-esteem.


Good luck with that.

In general, however, opinions don't become memes unless they resonate with lots of people. I doubt that many folks have friends and neighbors that they will want to think about in that manner.

So good luck with your project, but I don't predict you will have any success.
post #84 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Of course you didn't... you only slam Apple.

I noticed that as well. He lives for the opportunity, in fact.
post #85 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

I base my opinion on the facts recounted in the story: No deal, nothing on the table, and Apple integrates them anyways.

I agree that the story is badly written, short on facts, and is likely an exercise in dissembling. But it seems to support the contention that I made: No deal, nothing on the table, and Apple integrates them anyways.

A deal is not required to integrate Facebook connectivity, as long as you are within the API limits.

The badly written, short on facts story does not support your contention that Apple committed wrongdoing.
post #86 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron;

What appears to you and what you suspect are each incorrect. HTH. HAND.

What he suspects was correct.
post #87 of 112
I heard that Facebook wanted access to customer data such as your music library and buying habits.
Apple just wanted a way to add your FB friends to Ping with no strings attached. Facebook was being the massive AHole here.
post #88 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLoveStuff View Post

I heard that Facebook wanted access to customer data such as your music library and buying habits.
Apple just wanted a way to add your FB friends to Ping with no strings attached. Facebook was being the massive AHole here.

FaceBook has been a AHOLE for years. And the gigantic one sits on shits on the top.
post #89 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Good luck with that.

In general, however, opinions don't become memes unless they resonate with lots of people. I doubt that many folks have friends and neighbors that they will want to think about in that manner.

So good luck with your project, but I don't predict you will have any success.

So good luck with your project, but I don't predict you will have any success
post #90 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's really pretty simple. Ping, as was explained by Jobs, is a music related social networking service. It's not designed to compete with Facebook, hence the link to it.

And as I brought up twice here, though I guess you didn't read it, Apple did nothing wrong. According to Facebook's rules, a service like Apple's doesn't have to do anything as long as daily hits to the Facebook doesn't exceed 100 million per day. With a couple of million members in the beginning, it's very unlikely that Ping would give more than a few million hits a day to Facebook, if that. It's Facebook that's in the wrong here.

Sorry to disagree with you, but Apple clearly violated the rules. I saw somewhere that you posted a link to an article that tried explaining the rules. Instead of going to an article that might be biased, why not look up the rules themselves? They're publicly available here.

To quote the policy section I.6

Quote:
If you exceed, or plan to exceed, any of the following thresholds please contact us as you may be subject to additional terms: (>5M MAU) or (>100M API calls per day) or (>50M impressions per day).

First off, your 100 million "hits" aren't exactly "hits". They are API calls. A user will make multiple API calls within one session, or even within a single refresh. I don't know how many API calls a regular user would make in a visit, but my guess is around 10. Multiply that 10 calls by multiple visits a day, say 5-6 and those API calls increase to 50-60 a day per user. Now multiply that by 1 million users seen on the 2nd day and that number is getting closer and closer to the threshold, by the second day!

Now read in the fine print of the quote "If you exceed, or plan to exceed." You've been touting that Apple didn't violate anything because it hasn't exceeded the threshold, but the policy clearly states that if you plan to exceed them then there has to be an agreement. You have to be living under a rock if you think Apple wasn't planning on exceeding that limit short term. Apple clearly knew they would, that's why there are reports and even Steve Jobs himself saying that they were in talks.

So back to your original statement of "Apple did nothing wrong" it becomes clear that Apple simply ignored the fine print, and in turn Facebook denied the service.

I'm not saying Facebook is 100% right as we don't know the details of the proposed agreement. It is a shame that these corporations have to revert to children's play to resolve their disagreements.
post #91 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by FurbiesAndBeans View Post

Sorry to disagree with you, but Apple clearly violated the rules. I saw somewhere that you posted a link to an article that tried explaining the rules. Instead of going to an article that might be biased, why not look up the rules themselves? They're publicly available here.

To quote the policy section I.6



First off, your 100 million "hits" aren't exactly "hits". They are API calls. A user will make multiple API calls within one session, or even within a single refresh. I don't know how many API calls a regular user would make in a visit, but my guess is around 10. Multiply that 10 calls by multiple visits a day, say 5-6 and those API calls increase to 50-60 a day per user. Now multiply that by 1 million users seen on the 2nd day and that number is getting closer and closer to the threshold, by the second day!

Now read in the fine print of the quote "If you exceed, or plan to exceed." You've been touting that Apple didn't violate anything because it hasn't exceeded the threshold, but the policy clearly states that if you plan to exceed them then there has to be an agreement. You have to be living under a rock if you think Apple wasn't planning on exceeding that limit short term. Apple clearly knew they would, that's why there are reports and even Steve Jobs himself saying that they were in talks.

So back to your original statement of "Apple did nothing wrong" it becomes clear that Apple simply ignored the fine print, and in turn Facebook denied the service.

I'm not saying Facebook is 100% right as we don't know the details of the proposed agreement. It is a shame that these corporations have to revert to children's play to resolve their disagreements.

I see. So you figure after 18 months of talks the topic didn't come up? That 18 months of talks doesn't constitute "contacting" Facebook?

The story is that Facebook was demanding "onerous terms" for access. I have no idea if that's true, but not even bothering to argue within the ballpark of what's being discussed, preferring to pretend like Apple was some kind of random mega-user that Facebook just happened to catch trying to sneak one by them.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #92 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I see. So you figure after 18 months of talks the topic didn't come up? .

Of course it did. That is exactly why it was sleazy of Apple to do it. Apple was unable to get the deal done, but they just went ahead like the 18 months were all a big joke which meant nothing.

It is similar to a developer holding a groundbreaking for its new building, despite not yet having been successful in its bid to buy the land.
post #93 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Of course it did. That is exactly why it was sleazy of Apple to do it. Apple was unable to get the deal done, but they just went ahead like the 18 months were all a big joke which meant nothing.

It is similar to a developer holding a groundbreaking for its new building, despite not yet having been successful in its bid to buy the land.

You have no idea what went on in those talks, troll.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #94 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I see. So you figure after 18 months of talks the topic didn't come up? That 18 months of talks doesn't constitute "contacting" Facebook?

The story is that Facebook was demanding "onerous terms" for access. I have no idea if that's true, but not even bothering to argue within the ballpark of what's being discussed, preferring to pretend like Apple was some kind of random mega-user that Facebook just happened to catch trying to sneak one by them.

So you didn't bother reading anything I said? You're basically restating what I said about Apple knowing in advance that they were going to be planning on exceeding the threshold thus violating the rules by ignoring it and still using the API.
post #95 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by FurbiesAndBeans View Post

So you didn't bother reading anything I said? You're basically restating what I said about Apple knowing in advance that they were going to be planning on exceeding the threshold thus violating the rules by ignoring it and still using the API.

The rule states that you have to contact Facebook prior to using the API is you suspect you might exceed the limit, because additional terms might apply.

I think 18 months of talks qualifies as "contact." The actual point of contention is what, exactly, the additional terms were. Apple is alleging that they were "onerous", which is to say something out of line with customary practice. This is an entirely different matter than what you seem stuck on.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #96 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

The rule states that you have to contact Facebook prior to using the API is you suspect you might exceed the limit, because additional terms might apply.

I think 18 months of talks qualifies as "contact." The actual point of contention is what, exactly, the additional terms were. Apple is alleging that they were "onerous", which is to say something out of line with customary practice. This is an entirely different matter than what you seem stuck on.

Which only amplifies my original statement that Apple did something wrong. I think that you see me as a "Facebook angelist" which I am not. I was simply trying to refute what melgross said that Apple did nothing wrong. I am NOT saying that Facebook was right since we do not know what the terms that Facebook wanted are.

My statement still stand, and is getting strong by your comments. Apple did wrong by not having a deal with Facebook (whether who was wrong in the deal itself is a totally different argument that I'm not arguing) and still trying to implement Facebook.
post #97 of 112
While Facebook would have made it easier to add friends to Ping, the service itself sucks at the moment. Add Last.fm style scrobbling, integration with music I didn't buy on iTunes and actually put social features at the forefront instead of making it a blatant portal to my cash and it would be much better.

It's just woefully incomplete right now. Hopefully it won't take another year until they add more features. I'm not sure Apple 'gets' social.
post #98 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by FurbiesAndBeans View Post

So you didn't bother reading anything I said? You're basically restating what I said about Apple knowing in advance that they were going to be planning on exceeding the threshold thus violating the rules by ignoring it and still using the API.

Yep. It's sometimes like a politician answering a reporter's questioons around here. Specific things are said and asked, but the response is just a pre-canned rant tangentially related to the subject matter.

The specifics of what is being responded to are often ignored in both venues.
post #99 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Apple is alleging that they were "onerous", which is to say something out of line with customary practice.

Then don't buy it. Problem solved.
post #100 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quillz View Post

This is true, but since your message is slightly negative towards Apple, expect to be crucified and called a troll here. Because remember, you aren't allowed to criticize Apple at all here.

Hey! I criticize them plenty. But there is legit criticism, and then there's incendiary trolling intended to get people upset without actually saying useful or true. You should go to an Android site. Their fans are worse than Apple's.

Which one are you?

Too bad I won't be able to respond to you, if you respond to me, as I'm going away for a week. but be realistic.
post #101 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by FurbiesAndBeans View Post

Which only amplifies my original statement that Apple did something wrong. I think that you see me as a "Facebook angelist" which I am not. I was simply trying to refute what melgross said that Apple did nothing wrong. I am NOT saying that Facebook was right since we do not know what the terms that Facebook wanted are.

My statement still stand, and is getting strong by your comments. Apple did wrong by not having a deal with Facebook (whether who was wrong in the deal itself is a totally different argument that I'm not arguing) and still trying to implement Facebook.

Again, we're not privy to the negotiations. So I could just as easily say that Apple had a deal to at least link but couldn't reach an agreement on deeper integration, but Facebook pulled the plug after they went live just to punish Apple for not playing ball.

Ascribing "doing wrong" to one party or another when we don't have more than an anonymous tipster's version of very broad outline of what went down doesn't seem very useful.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #102 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Ascribing "doing wrong" to one party or another when we don't have more than an anonymous tipster's version of very broad outline of what went down doesn't seem very useful.

Do you suspect that either of these is incorrect?

No deal existed.
Apple added the integration nevertheless.
post #103 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Do you suspect that either of these is incorrect?

No deal existed.
Apple added the integration nevertheless.

Yeah, see, you have no idea if that's true or not. Not that that ever keeps you from weighing in with tediously predictable "Apple bad" nonsense, but still.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #104 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Again, we're not privy to the negotiations. So I could just as easily say that Apple had a deal to at least link but couldn't reach an agreement on deeper integration, but Facebook pulled the plug after they went live just to punish Apple for not playing ball.

Ascribing "doing wrong" to one party or another when we don't have more than an anonymous tipster's version of very broad outline of what went down doesn't seem very useful.

Now you're assuming something completely baseless just to say that "Apple does no wrong." My assumption of no deal was struck is based on Jobs' quote that they couldn't reach an agreement due to "onerous" terms. Not some random anonymous tipster. If you say that what Jobs said is wrong, then you're contradicting your previous comments.

And FYI, my previous assumption of number of API calls was based on simple integration (add friends, post to walls, log in). With deeper integration that number will be far greater.

Step back a little from Apple and you'll see that my assumptions are not outrageous.
post #105 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich;

Facebook has only been around for six years, and it could potentially all blow up tomorrow. Companies that appear instantly may disappear just as fast, and the barrier to entry for competitors is not that huge. Anyone remember MySpace?

You may have a point if Facebook wasn't way better than MySpace, a "huge" platform and much bigger. I don't see it going anywhere for a long time.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #106 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHOBIZ View Post

???

Maybe they should change if they want to change things themselves so much.

It is kind of hard to support their products in an enterprise when they will not provide any replies. So far replies have been like, "gee we don't know". What? You created this...

My agenda is to provide the best solutions possible to internal customers and retail while meeting company policies. Nothing odd going on there in that agenda. I know though unless I am just praising Apple this kind of post just get trashed.

You can't be that naive, can you? I'm not in any way supporting how Apple works or thinks in my comments to you or anyone in the same boat.

The reality is, as a business person, that you either accept the way they work with you or you don't. There are times when complaining about it may get you somewhere, but I doubt that the AI Forum is such a place. I have no axe to grind against you or your company, period. I just think there are a lot better places to try and promote change for your situation.

To further that thought, at one point in the early stages, iPhone developers had to sign a very restrictive NDA that literally prevented them from interacting with other developers and sharing thoughts and experiences. A group then put up the now infamous "F**kingNDA" website in order to promote their plight and embarrass Apple into changing it's policy. In a 'round about way it worked. I'm not suggesting you put up a website with the title "F**kingStrategicAlliance", but I think you get my point. You can only promote change if you have enough courage to make it happen. How you go about it often determines the outcome.
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #107 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Do you suspect that either of these is incorrect?

No deal existed.
Apple added the integration nevertheless.

post #108 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

That was a pretty sleazy move by Apple. No deal, nothing on the table, and Apple integrates them anyways.

No wonder the magazine and newspaper industries are saying "Thanks, but no thanks". Apple seems to be accumulating enemies a WHOLE lot faster than it is enticing partners.

Clearly you have no understanding of business.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #109 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yeah, hows MySpace doing these days?

This is the problem with online "social networking" sites versus what Apple does. The barrier to entry for Apple's business is far more difficult, representing best of breed employees, world-beating software, bleeding edge engineering and the singular vision of the CEO.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #110 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Yep. It's sometimes like a politician answering a reporter's questioons around here. Specific things are said and asked, but the response is just a pre-canned rant tangentially related to the subject matter.

The specifics of what is being responded to are often ignored in both venues.

Hey, I though you treated your MO as a trade secret. Now you're telling everyone else how you do it?
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #111 of 112
There is a classic out there about these kinds of situations in negotiations. It title is "Getting To Yes" by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton.

It is good to know what you (Apple) wants: Access to facebook.
Yet, what is in it for facebook? Apple needs to answer this question first, and then they will succeed.
post #112 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Pospisil View Post

There is a classic out there about these kinds of situations in negotiations. It title is "Getting To Yes" by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton.

It is good to know what you (Apple) wants: Access to facebook.
Yet, what is in it for facebook? Apple needs to answer this question first, and then they will succeed.

Apparently (rumoredly) Facebook already said something along the lines of "we want access to the iTunes library buying habits of all Ping users."

"Getting to Yes" only works when both parties are rational. I guess Facebook missed the idea the analytics they could gather from the Ping accesses would actually be more relevant to them because they would be "by-definition" current.
.
Reply
.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Ping talks between Apple, Facebook failed after 18 months - report