Kelly,
Did you consider that the answer is slightly more nefarious than this, and that Facebook might view Zapd as competition for something it currently has in the works?
Building a business on top of Facebook (or Twitter or any other company) brings a lot of benefits, shortcuts to success, but it also makes you 100% dependent on them. Your business isn't totally yours anymore, they have veto on anything you do and can shut down your access for any reason. Anyone who doesn't realize that needs to wake up honestly. If you aren't ready to be Facebook's b..ch then don't build your service on their system.
Isn't it the same thing for any platform? Once you use a platform, you're at risk from the owners of the platform. Apple's App Store is another example, it seems like your app can be blocked on a whim.
Yeah, but on many platforms, you have a negotiated contract that is not one-sided. With facebook, you basically have a generic agreement that hundreds of millions of people click YES to that says they can shut down your account for pretty much any reason.
If your merchant account did that or the yellow pages removed your listing for a non-specific reason, you could take them to court. It isn't so much that you would take them to court, but it is the fear that you could which keeps these companies from being more careful.
Notice I say "careful"...I don't think facebook and all are necessarily intentionally trying to screw anyone. I doubt they have time or interest really to try and screw people. But that also means they may make business decisions that may have side effects that can impact a bunch of people without warning or notice.
Very true. It's getting worse as well. Back in the 90s, if someone wrote a Windows app that Microsoft didn't much like then Microsoft couldn't just shut it down. They had to go to the trouble of writing a competitor to that app and bundling it with Windows. Today, if someone writes an app for Facebook or the iPhone/iPad then the platform owner can shut it down on a whim. That's incredibly frightening.
Yesterday when I downloaded it on my iPad it appeared as Facebook was the only way to login? Maybe I was incorrect and I simply missed something. If so, I apologize for my statement.
With that being said... I do love the app and think you're on to something big.
Don't apologise. If they don't recognise the extraordinary value of unsolicited first impressions they will just have to learn the hard way.
For field testing my iPad apps (for instance) I will just hand them an iPad and not give them any instructions or hints on how to use it. And then I will watch intently what they do and what they don't do. Two minutes of unsullied first impression is pure gold. The only 'downside' is that occasionally you learn that you have to redesign the interface...
Helpful tip: if you're just starting out it's probably not a great idea to post a rude comment on Hacker News in reply to someone who clearly cares enough to post a comment about your product.
Actually I disagree here. I'm grateful that the founder of all people actually took the time to respond. This show's that they care what their users think.
It wasn't the response that was being objected to, it was a (polite) suggestion that the rudeness of the response is not good marketing.
Nowhere does the replier suggest that the founder shouldn't respond at all, they are simply suggesting that a friendlier tone will look better than an unfriendly one.
See also: the old story about catching more flies with honey than vinegar etc.
I care about people who use the app and then respond with feedback based on actual usage. People who just say "shame on you" without knowing what they are talking about aren't helpful.
One thing I've learned is often times when people post a snarky comment like the one you replied to, they think they are talking into the abyss. Replying with some maturity and respect can often unmask the non-snarky person they actually are and make them feel bad when they realize what they said actually was towards a person who exists and is affected by their words.
What you did instead was insult them back and now you can be sure they will not have anything nice to say about your company. To do it on a place like Hacker News is quite shortsighted since you never know who you're talking to or who is reading your posts.
It does, but jasonmkey is a new account, presumably with no reputation to protect and no new startup to promote on a website dedicated to startups.
Therefore, the most useful advice is that given to someone with something to lose. Whoever was "wrong first" is irrelevant to the outcome desired by curiousoffice.
Given the lack of content in the original comment, I didn't find the response rude. Perhaps not as helpful as asking "As we do offer different logs, what made you think we only offer Facebook? Have you used the app?", but in defense, the article itself says they were back up in a few hours, which indicates obviously the entire service wasn't predicated on Facebook.
The response just looks like a quick shot at someone that apparently didn't read the article.
More helpful tip. If you're going to make a snarky comment, use the app so you know what the fuck you're talking about. Too many comments on hacker news are from people who are completely uninformed or just haven't taken any time with whatever it is they are commenting on. Disclaimer: I haven't tried the app personally but only because I can't stand apps posting on my Facebook or twitter stream.
side stepping the snarky comment debate sadly raging on. I too am unimpressed about sites or apps posting to my stream (thankfully this has evolved with time), yet I have a question...
what level of "detail/information/explanation" would you need to feel comfortable using a product which has functionality you can activate to use with your stream or not activate and it wouldn't hinder your personal use of the site.
I believe the line is that you could care less, but that would take effort and you can't be bothered. :D
If you allow for the possibility of negative values for caring it is always possible to care less, it is just that there are diminishing marginal returns for that much anti-utility. :D
Without having seen the app myself, could it be the case that it's designed in such a way to "strongly encourage" facebook signup? One of the design tradeoffs you or your designer may have made, consciously or unconsciously, was that some percentage of people might misinterpret your design as facebook-only unless there are very obvious signs to the contrary.
Of course, I haven't used the app myself, so I can't take one side or another on this one. Come out with an Android version and we'll talk. :) Either way, it looks like a cool product, so, kudos.
Yes. We position facebook as the first option to sign in. The reason is because that's the easier way to create an account and that was the intent of Facebook's connect service. That said, this isn't why they blocked us. They blocked us to do too much posting of content per minute, per person. Good problem to have? Depends on how you look at it I guess.
