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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
Of course you didn't... you only slam Apple.
I noticed that as well. He lives for the opportunity, in fact.
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.
What appears to you and what you suspect are each incorrect. HTH. HAND.
What he suspects was correct.
Apple just wanted a way to add your FB friends to Ping with no strings attached. Facebook was being the massive AHole here.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.