Facebook Messenger Platform
messenger.com
messenger.com
Welcome to the future friends when we must pay to battle the keymasters and gatekeepers on their terms to do what we used to do ourselves, for free.
First they took my RSS, then they took my XMPP... Who can guess whats next?
(Not singling Facebook out -- there have been lots of open standards and every chat platform has moved away from them.)
When you're small, you have no users, and need to start gathering network effects. So you champion and implement protocols that allow you to interoperate with other networks. You start to eat other companies lunches as you provide a better product.
As you get larger, that same interoperability starts to become a liability as other networks start eating in to your userbase. So you cut out interoperability and start building a walled garden.
A bottoms up approach where we put the protocol first instead of experience is the "Architect Astronaut" way of looking at solving this problem and should be avoided - http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000018.html
Luckily, we're in the middle of a decentralization renaissance. Instead of managing your identity on a server controlled by Facebook or your XMPP host, you can manage your identity on a blockchain controlled by no one. We can build identities that any app can use. When it comes to network effects, federation loses to centralization, but centralization loses to decentralization.
Pick up the tools—Ethereum and IPFS—and start building systems without gatekeepers. We will win.
UX is hard. Getting great user experience takes IMHO a lot more pain than getting algorithms and systems to work right (in most cases). UX is about endless revisions, a lot of boring and often ugly code, obsessing about pixels and quirky details of your UI's "story," and other things that are very time consuming, not fun, and that the vast majority of programmers hate doing.
As a result, people generally have to be paid to work on UX.
This is doubly true because most nerds don't need great UX. They know how things work and can use "raw" hacker projects from the command line. So there's really no motive in most cases. "Works for me."
Until and unless there is an economic model for a less centralized less winner-take-all Internet economy, vertically integrated closed silos will continue to dominate if for no other reason than the fact that they can pay people to do the boring tedious work that separates a nerd project from an app non-nerds want to use.
Edit: It's really always been about UX to some extent. Personal computing won back in the 70s and 80s because it offered far superior user experience to closed silo mainframes. But the Internet and especially mobile have changed the game pretty dramatically. Now closed silos are winning because they offer superior user experience.
It's not entirely a technical problem. At some point I think a few sacred ideas will need to be questioned, such as the idea that open source must also be "free as in beer."
If there is no economic model, nothing is going to happen. Closed silos will continue to dominate in all the areas that cost money, and among those UX is probably the most significant differentiator that will guarantee their dominance. I love open source gift culture but there are some pretty severe limits to what can practically be accomplished without some source of capital or subsidy.
It might not work, but if it does, no one can stop those crowds. If I find a new shiny object to chase, the software will keep running as long as people want to use it. We can reshape our world with software that can't be stopped.
We've strayed too far off topic, but you and any readers should feel free to email me anytime. It's in the profile.
Source please. Absolutely 0 non-tech person uses blockchain technology besides paying for ransomware maybe.
I do feel excluded from various online chats but for anything important, they text, call, or email me. So perhaps it is not too bad. I end up saving time by avoid gossip and funny videos.
That is why I left whatsapp, it has been a remarkable experience, https://www.goodreads.com/user_challenges/4336854 I read around 12books this year itself, https://medium.com/@surajp/i-crippled-my-phone-too-1300761aa...
It is a relief not looking at the phone every minute of the day despite the fact that nothing important is going to be communicated via whatsapp, or nothing of that significance to me, everything that I really really need to know comes to me via call
I don't understand why open seems to immediately mean better and proprietary is bad. I'm all for an open system if the benefit is clear, but it often makes no difference and ultimately comes down to how the project/software is managed. There are a lot of "open" software products that are controlled by a few and thus, not very open.
Well, we ended up with tens of platforms with X, so obviously companies went with one of the latter two solutions. We know a few of the companies did continue with XMPP and modified ejabberd, so they definitely did XMPP implementation of video for example. Yet, they decided not to publish anything, so globally we're stuck in the same place again.
Similar thing happened to HTML with ages of stagnation. Now we finally standardise what's implemented instead of implementing what's standardised. I don't see how XMPP itself is an issue. Don't like that they're slow? Use your own extension and publish it. Either everyone will use the same solution, or you'll learn why it sucks.
Of the current crop of messaging platforms, I'm cautiously leaning on Signal (it works with sms, I might get some of the people I actually communicate to use it -- even if I would prefer it was more federation/multi-server/self-host friendly) and http://www.mattermost.org/ for an xmmp/irc/etc work-a-like.
I've given up the idea of using IM with facebook users, iMessage users, or Google hangout users. I might occasionally use slack or gitter[1] via the irc interface, or very rarely via the awful web interface (not they're any worse than other web interfaces, but it's just as gaudy and slow and insecure as other web apps, by virtue of being a web app (image libraries, font rendering have issues, they require downloadable code (js) to run -- they can be expected to have a security record comparable to MS office documents with macros enabled)).
I somehow don't see the irc interface to gitter and slack as being good ways to integrate with a single Android app though. Maybe mattermost will help with that, so I can have one app that does sane IM+SMS, and one that does email. Hopefully without the "5 different accounts that can't talk with each other"-nonsense of having separate AIM, XMPP, MS messenger accounts in a single monster-client. It was barely tolerable on the desktop, I won't abide it on my cell phone.
I am indeed sad people couldn't just get together and agree on a sane XMPP sub-set with client-server and server-server TLS, and optional server-side message storage.
But that didn't happen, so now I'll just be without a "big" messaging/chat service (other than IRC, IRC still works).
Guess I'll just tell everyone that matters my phone number and mail address, if they do not already know, and call it a day. I've wasted so much of my time and attention on facebook.
It seems like Facebook first set out to capture the whole market, and are now slowly monetizing it fully. WeChat has achieved incredible ARPU (>$7/user/year) through a combination of chat APIs, 3rd party bots and integrated payments Facebook. If Facebook can achieve a similar number, it would greatly increase their worldwide ARPU. (http://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average-...).
Of those services, gaming is probably the most mature which is why it generates the most revenue, but give it a few years and I'm sure more of those will become far more significant..
I use WeChat frequently but seldom use fb messenger. (I am in Hong Kong.)
- this may disrupt Local business/shop relation to client. (see how weixin is used by small online shop)
- this may disrupt insurance (see how zhongan is selling micro-insurance through weixin)
- this may disrupt paypal, as soon as you can send 'money' over a messaging app.
- this may disrupt movie / theater ticket selling ... (there is tones of other example)
There is a lot of land to grab, the working use cases are already known (we get 5 year of china market data). I hope I had a couple of millions to invest in this market.
American banking is so backwards and this will only make it worse.
In Australia and New Zealand, no bank offers you checks. Do I own you $50? Well give me your BSB and account number. I type it into my phone app or web browser, type $50 and click send. It shows up tomorrow morning. Works on weekends, holidays, ANZAC day, New Years Day and no fees. $0. Person-to-person transfers are free, move in 24 hours and your account number doesn't need to be private.
I came back to America back to the world of three business days for an electronic ACH payment to clear (if you're lucky)!! WTF?! Our banking system is in the 1990s because PayPal, Square and now Facebook will lobby to keep their business models.
Fuck. That. Shit. Money should move through the banking system using standards, not via Facebook with their proprietary PayPal like garbage.
Getting off topic for the article at hand, but what's different in Australian plumbing in that area?
I've literally never owned a plunger in my whole life, and I don't know anybody who does. It baffles me everything I'm in the US and every toilet has a plunger!
Also, the showers mostly all have baskets under the drain caps to capture hair and stuff now.
It makes me sad and annoyed whenever I flush one of these toilets. The swirling doesn't do anything useful. It seems to actually increase the clogging probability because it typically manages to swirl 100% of the toilet paper together and then finally move it downward all at once for maximum clogging effect, which might be fine if the drain weren't ~2 inches across.
There are American toilets that aren't like this, but a shocking number of them are completely unreliable. I had a toilet in my apartment in California that, no lie, I managed to clog by blowing my nose. I used 3 Kleenex, dropped them in the toilet, and flushed. It clogged from that.
Next day would seem as backwards as US ACH to us now :).
I find it thoroughly unbelievable that banks are trying to offer advanced, consumer-friendly features, only to be thwarted by the lobbying efforts of the technology industry. Don't get me wrong: technology companies are not morally superior and above political manipulation, but they would most certainly lose going head-to-head with the banking industry.
The banking system is stuck in the 1990s because banks have insufficient incentive to change, and there is a non-trivial segment of the population lacking knowledge of, access to, or trust in technology when it comes to financial matters.
This turned around fast.
I love the idea of chat as a platform, but Facebook will need to convince developers it won't close the door on them down the road.
[0] - http://googletalk.blogspot.com/2009/05/attention-nerds-new-g...
Is that accurate? If I build a chat-based application, why can't I build out interfaces to various services? It may not be trivial, since some will offer features that others don't, but what's the principal problem preventing me from building a chat-based application that works over Google Hangouts, Facebook Messenger, Kik, etc. so long as they each provide an API for connecting these bots, beyond time?
Personally I'm staying away from Kik. Their MAU is low and I really dislike their constant spam.
I want to write a game server, say for Go (the game, not the language). I want to make one (or the sole) method of connecting to it FB Messenger (hypothetical, not actually doing this, and the real game server is just for my edification on learning Erlang). Yeah, this won't go very far. Once FB decides to pull a Yahoo! Games clone out they'll crush me unless I offer something sufficiently different to Go players, but outside a network of players, there's not much to offer that FB can't copy (and FB can, in fact, offer that network of players so I'm lost there too).
However, if I'm Papa Johns or Marcos Pizza or ..., FB can't shut me out. They're not going to get into the food production and delivery business. And if they did, those companies are hardly tied uniquely to FB's platform. They already have their websites, phone apps, phone numbers and other means of placing orders.
No one built a business dependent on RSS except for people in the business of building RSS aggregators. No content provider was effectively shut out of the marketplace (of content providing) by the death of Google Reader.
My point was that anyone building a business on top of Messenger that cannot stand alone is, probably, in trouble. But that's always been the case regardless of the base technology. What apps can be built on Messenger? Content delivery, potentially. Random data connectors like weather updates or where's-my-package. How can those apps stand alone against a behemoth like FB or Google or anyone else? They can't.
The point, then, is to build applications that make use of Messenger, but are not replicable by FB. Facebook isn't going to replace my FLGS. So how about I connect my inventory to an chat app so people can ask me if I have something they want? It cuts into my spur-of-the-moment sales when people come in, can't find Settlers of Catan, but see Dominion and buy it instead. But it also gives customers a better experience, and me a better understanding of what customers want (I got 20 queries for Catan this week, I should order a few copies).
Now, if I build a business which connects shop inventories to FB chat, I might be in trouble. FB can tear me apart in a heartbeat by building a small-business-inventory-chat-bot. And that's the way the world goes.
Don't build a company on Messenger that FB can replicate. Build connections to other businesses. FB won't be a bank. FB won't be a restaurant. FB won't be an Amazon. FB won't be a local small business. FB won't be a caterer. FB won't be a plumber.
EDIT: I'm tired, and this came out poorly formed. I may write another response later that's clearer once I've rested and reread this.
Make the video games, ideally not casual or not simply implementations of existing, public domain, games like chess or something. Make the music. Make the movies. Make the articles. FB and others will connect you to customers because that's their value proposition to customers: connecting you to the things you want. They have no need to connect you to a middle man when they can be the middle man (why would they connect you to Steam or GoG, when they can replace those platforms in short order?).
Imagine being Venmo and trying to implement Venmo over Messenger now that FB has Payments. Likely not going to happen, and the risk any business takes jumping into a closed platform is huge (especially with FB's history). Just like all of my favorite Spotify plugins that were shutdown and replaced with either no alternative or Spotify's chosen 'replacement'.
Facebook makes money off businesses using Facebook to connect to customers. They barely make money directly off customers.
It should be expected that FB will disrupt any digital service. Be that payment (peer-to-peer, customer-to-business), access to digital media (video, image, news, music). What they won't do is replace music studios. They won't replace movie studios. REPLACE is key. They may make entries into content production, by partnership or a standalone venture, but they will not cut out other content providers. FB's network is predicated on access. Cutting off customer access to things they want is a surefire way to lose those customers. Yes, FB can make the terms more onerous for businesses, particularly competitors. But they will suffer if they push it too far and end up backing off or flailing about wildly until they fail. Most likely, they'll back off.
Amazon with Amazon Prime Video has not cut out access to different movie and television studio content just because they make their own. Same with Netflix and Hulu. If they were to do so, the value they provide to consumers would go to near-zero. There'd be no reason to subscribe to their services if you only got their (limited) content. Who wants to spend $8/month for one channel's worth of content anymore when that gets you dozens of channels with a competitor?
Same thing with news, video games, and just about anything else.
If your product is really just acting as a middle man, expect a Google or FB or Amazon to step in and screw you. Yes.
So exist on the outside. Make the games, not the game room. Make the movie, not the theater. Make the music, not the stage. Make something that the middle-man's customers want, let the middle-man do his job of connecting you to those customers (well, contract with them).
That's not true. FB doesn't have to get into the food delivery business to shut someone out.
Imagine that FB's plans come true and talking with bots on Messenger becomes an incredibly popular way for people to order pizza. A lot of people can't imagine ordering a pizza any other way. Let's say you're Pappa John's and 60% of your business comes from Messenger. Now FB has incredible leverage over you, since they effectively control a huge chunk of your revenue stream. They could decide to kick you off unless you pay them a lead gen fee, since they're generating leads for your business. Or, they could start to offer "premium" service, where message response times are slowed down unless you're a paying premium customer. Or, heck, maybe a competitor would even pay FB in a strategic partnership to kick you off. The point is that FB is set up to have incredible leverage and government-like power, and it is a very safe bet that they will do everything they can to extract taxes from the businesses that depend on them.
The bottom line is that if people are using your app because it's on Messenger, and it's not that people are using Messenger because of your app, FB has much more leverage than you do, and you are entirely at their mercy. They are very likely to take advantage of that power dynamic in one way or another.
Twitter's API was being used to build apps that replicated and competed with Twitter's own functionality and created a conflict of interest between Twitter and 3rd party developers
There isn't much else you can do with this Messenger API other than to create channels of communication between businesses and their existing and potential customers. Those businesses likely wouldn't know how to make this themselves, so you could make a bit of money there.
This wouldn't compete with Facebook, but rather ties both customers and businesses tighter to Facebook, making FB more valuable to those businesses and and perhaps encourage them to spend more on promoting user engagement.
There'd be no reason Facebook would want to shut you down. They certainly don't want to get into the nitty gritty business of connecting chat messages to all the various ways different businesses could function.
I've read enough history to know what sharecropping looks like. Tell me how this is different than sharecropping. Why should I build something I don't control on Lord Zuckerberg's platform so I can play the startup lottery? We did this almost a decade ago. Facebook introduced their developer platform and people started giving up their freedoms. This isn't a conspiracy theory, this is something you can observe by yourself.
Facebook has already broadcasted loud and wide how they are going to screw you over. It's your choice.
If you 'rode the facebook apps' wave you probably made decent money unless you stayed in too long.
Another strategy is to build an integration to messenger to get exposure for your totally independant app.
For example If i made some pizza ordering ai, i could hook it up to messenger as an additional channel.
Good luck with that.
* click-to-provision web apps
* small fees on hosted version, full open source version available
* developer friendly
* open also for commercial software
Example: Instagram - used Facebook for viral distribution and eventually eclipsed Facebook Imgur - built image hosting for Reddit and now has eclipsed Reddit.
Uh, not quite. Imgur would still die if Reddit went away. Same for Instagram. If Twitter and FB went away, it'd die.
Don't be an asshole, and don't advocate "fuck you got mine" practices like these. Let's work to dismantle abusive systems like Facebook.
Very few people/companies get rich by not caring about their users or customers.
Most "greedy" corporations are actually improving the lives of their users or customers at least from the customers' perspective.
It actually stems from vanity and vanity is disgusting.
If you build on platforms like this, you're going to have a bad time.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/14/facebook_trust_dumb/
AIM, Yahoo and MSN were all closed gardens and people reverse engineered them to make gaim (now pidgin/libpurple), audium (libpurple based?), trillian, et al.
There is a Facebook plug-in for libpurple. I've looked at the source code for it and hangups (OSS hangouts library) but I'm already short on time for all the projects I want to work on.
In any case, in the past, devs in the community used these closed walled servers for our use. Today the very nature of IM is different with its use dictated to us by Google/Facebook's marketing gods (no online indicators, you're always online, you're never away, everything is a text, e-mails are apparently too long and difficult to read).
Maybe they're counting on a new generation of starry-eyed would-be "FB entrepreneurs" to drink the Kool-aid. But, anyone who was there the first time around ought to know better.
The WeChat SDK allows apps to run JS from inside WeChat itself. You see this in action in China where you can actually do complex stuff like book a taxi via Didi Dache without necessarily having to switch back and forth between heavyweight apps.
How many layers of cruft do we need?
- The phone OS has a shell, usually written in native code.
- The messenger app runs on top of the shell, usually written on top of some type of VM.
- The messenger app contains a web browser that renders other apps, written in js.
For example, there are people I follow on Snapchat, but I have absolutely no interest doing the same on Facebook Messenger. My Facebook is still mostly people I have met in real life and care about, that and groups I am a part of because social life.
I don't want to adulterate that with chat bots, and ordering pizza and any other integrations. In reality I spend very little time in Facebook messenger and have zero interest in increasing the amount of time I spend on Facebook.
I have a group chat on messenger of all my friends, and when they added the simple options to change the group colours, add nicknames, and even change the default emoji to something other than a thumbs up, messenger became a whole lot more fun to use.
I can't wait to see how it develops with these changes.
Granted, it's an interface practically everyone knows how to use, but I believe it could result in rather long conversations (what are the available commands/questions?) to actually get something a little more complex done.
Our messaging startup is heading in the opposite direction: we offer fully functional tools and games that can be instantly used by groups of people. We also offer a platform that allows developers to create these HTML5 based apps themselves. If you think this sounds interesting, have a look at https://platform.happening.im .
Such a platform could be as important as Gutenberg's printing press.
Software is fragmented. This leads to poor user experience.
- I have 100+ apps on my phone
- I have 1000+ online accounts
I need to discover these apps/websites/services, repeat the same information over and over again, learn their features and limitations. They don't talk to each other, which means that I need to continuously update them. We're humans, we're smart, we adapt easily, we got used to it, we don't even notice. However, when you take a step back and look at it, it's a mess.
Generally, when I try to show the problem to people, they blame the user. They say there's no need to use that many systems. And they're right. In the real world, I can get by using only English (or in my case, French) as a general-purpose communication interface.
The problem with software is that people tend to associate one system with one use-case. One app for this, one app for that. Do one thing, and do it well. That's the general direction a lot of software is going in (i.e., Facebook Messenger vs Facebook). When people tell me I should use fewer systems, they also imply that I should accept to cover fewer use-cases with software. And while most people think it's reasonable not to use software for various things (unlock doors, turn on lights, preheat oven, change channel, pay goods, track calories), I consider them short-sighted. We can't afford to choose which activities deserve the power of software and which can continue to be done the old-fashion (and so-called "simpler") way. We need software everywhere.
Beyond the consumer-facing UX fragmentation problems, as an application developer, I'm exposed to the even uglier side of things. The arbitrary design process, the compromise-ridden business decisions. Most people have no idea how expensive (in time and resources) it is to build the simplest of software in the real world. Take 100 different teams, and they'll all design the same system in completely different ways, repeating the very same mistakes. How many different user authentication systems have been implemented in the world? How many caching layers? How many ORMs? How many online stores (all with pretty much the very same features, from the image gallery to the cart). This is insane. This makes SAP look sexy.
Now, take the top 100 most popular apps and websites. List out all of their features. Remove duplicates. Remove duplicates. Generalize. Remove duplicates. You'll realize they all share 80% of the same features, probably more. Don't be tricked by functional synonyms. A like, an upvote, a favorite, a share, a retweet, a rating, a pin. They're all the same things. You can reduce the functionalities of most app to a very simple vocabulary. Basically, people have things, people want things. The only challenge is in describing things. And that's what we need a tool for.
# SOLUTION
The customer is NOT king.
Stop thinking that software should be tailored to its users. People don't know what they want. People have a tendency to under-generalize. They think that because two things look different, they're different. They're wrong.
There is not as much difference between hailing a cab, ordering a pizza, sharing a video, shipping a package, flying to Hawaii, renting a room, sending money, taking an elevator, and selling your couch, as people are lead to believe. They're essentially the same things, and software should treat them as such.
We need a general purpose communication platform. Not one monolithic app to which all possible features were added, but something that can be extended to a wide array of use cases. I'm not talking about plugins, micro-apps, or a web browser. These usually give too much freedom to developers, which once again results in fragmentation. I'm talking about a language, English on computer-steroids.
By communicating through a computer, this language gains access to the world's knowledge. This language can challenge your thoughts. This language can predict your thoughts. You only need to be as verbose as what the language doesn't already know about you. With time, the language becomes more like a to-do list a la Google Now (i.e., tells you what to do next) than a notepad. This language is your interface with the past, present and future world.
English is text-based and linear. You start from nothing, then a word, then a sentence. I don't want a language where you start with nothing. Start with the entire state of the entire world (as some sort of hyper-graph), communicate by editing it. Edit edges, introduce new nodes. One place for every idea. Never repeat, support instead. Invest your social credit to augment the credibility/value of facts. Use it as a way to describe both the past, present, and future (prediction and/or wish). Follow the path of PROLOG, RDF and lojban.
Graph-oriented communication is what the world needs. I believe we can make it accessible, not without a learning curve, by the use of inference and custom renderers. I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but I can't foresee it not being done.
It's going to be interesting to find out if/when tailored user interfaces can actually beat the log. (And too what degree platforms such as fb messenger will offer extensibility).
Disclaimer: Happening co-founder, we obviously gamble on the tailored interfaces.
Somehow they were able to do this without entering their credit card details. I wonder if the payment was a Facebook Messenger feature, or if the user had just already entered their details on the 1-800-FLOWERS site.
Here's more info on payments in Messenger, but note that this doesn't include info on the platform stuff and how payments interact with it since it's brand new:
https://www.facebook.com/help/messenger-app/750020781733477/
That's not supported by the platform yet.
You choose A, Facebook wins. You choose B, Facebook wins.
I believe WhatsApp and FB Messenger are the two top chat networks right now (sadly), at least when looking at regional dominance. And since the value of a network to the individual is dependant on the size, AND they're locked up, they win whatever you choose.
You might loose because you chose the network with less friends, but that changes nothing in the end.
Anecdotes can go both ways. As far as I've been able to tell, WhatsApp is most popular outside of the US.
And it's even hard to spot a Java-applet based phone. Even the lowest classes just use cheaper or older Androids.
The whole end-to-end encryption on WhatsApp doesn't seem in the Facebook spirit at all.
I don't get it either. The nice thing about not typing out requests ("it's not a command-line interface," they all say) to perform virtual actions is that you don't have to type out requests to perform virtual actions. And having different apps and websites for different purposes gives you choice, privacy, and control over who you interact with online. You don't have to get locked in to a platform and hope they never do anything nefarious or user-unfriendly for fear there's nowhere else to turn.
But I guess we're the minority.
[0] https://medium.com/chris-messina/2016-will-be-the-year-of-co...
Is that ever going to happen though? With all this money going to centralised products?
The interface to that service was extremely crude by today's standards (basically a set of magic keywords that comprised a simple query language), but people liked the convenience so much they were more than willing how to talk to the bot in its own lingo. I can only imagine how much more popular it would have been if it had a real, natural-language chat interface.
As long as it's easy and convenient, and comes back with the right answers (a big if, that last one), nobody will care if there's a human on the other end or not.
Reminds me also of an observation that a lot of people in accounting are actually programming without realizing it, by virtue of making pretty complex Excel spreadsheets to automate their work.
It's funny how much of users' apparent inability to grok computers is actually in their heads. Also, the fetishization of GUIs that has been going on for the past two decades is actually quite sad - it robs people of efficiency and convenience in using the machine.
I was all over IMified & ActiveBuddy when they came out 10-15 years ago but they never really took off at all. My agent basically returned the Google "magic box" which was kinda cool.
You can send money in messenger. Not too hard to move from P2P payments to P2B payments.
https://messengerplatform.fb.com/
see also
Also people sound like they want to make money from an app on Facebook's platform. But I'd think that to consider making your start-up off someone else's platform is just a bad idea to begin with. Maybe have integrations to the messenger app from your app, but making an entire app on the messenger platform is a bad idea.
I am quite interested whether they have plans to extend this and make it more open (some kind of chat apps so that you can't just reserve a bunch of good keywords with non functioning bots?).
[0] http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/05/facebook-messenger-bots/
They covered this today at F8, but there doesn't seem to be any text or archived video version just yet.
Initially Erlang. Now C++. [1]
1. https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Erlang-chosen-for-use-in-Faceb...
edit: was quoting wrong part of the op comment
https://code.facebook.com/posts/820258981365363/building-mob... https://code.facebook.com/posts/699902483369896/inside-faceb... https://code.facebook.com/posts/403496919755405/scaling-the-...
I have to say I don't understand Silicon Valley these days...
Is there a good iOS app that is essentially Pidgin, enabling communication via multiple protocols?
Then, "Spring offers a personal shopping assistant on Messenger" https://messengerplatform.fb.com/wp-content/themes/fbmesseng...
Huh?
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/messenger-platform/app-...
They are adding features like on fire.
Yeah, how about no.
I assume Facebook gets a tonne of data about what I ordered etc. (many examples are order confirmations)
How is their relation?
Submit a pull request to include your bot :)