Brett Knutson from Sharing Startups interviews me about Entrepreneurship.
On Saturday I published a story on Medium called “Dear Zuck, What the Fuck” — https://medium.com/@kteare/dear-zuck-fuck-84d9c1bdba26#.8mm0qbhhz.
3 Readers at Hacker News flagged the article as spam or link bait —
“This is clearly just marketing spam” (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11465528),
— others described it as an accusation related to merely the look of FB Messenger and pointed out that this look is common to many apps, including iMessage and others that pre-date chat.center —
“His first example is basically saying “you copied us since we both look like iMessage”. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11463349).
These comments miss the point.
Of course, because this is the internet, there are links in my story, and because social media exists and I do want the word about this to get out, I do ask people to share it.
These links are clearly not “bait”. The intent of the links is clear from the context and nobody who clicks would have been baited or misled. I also did ask people to read the article first and only share if they empathized.
Note: If you read this and empathize, please Tweet, Facebook and generally share this today if possible. (https://medium.com/@kteare/dear-zuck-fuck-84d9c1bdba26#.8mm0qbhhz)
More importantly. The article does not accuse Facebook of merely copying a UI. Indeed it explicitly says that may be a reasonable and obvious UI and could even be a coincidence. In a chat with a Messenger team member Sunday he claimed that was indeed the case.
a fair person might say that it’s easy for two pages to look similar, especially if their goal is similar. the color schemes may just accidentally be the same. The 3 column layout also. And perhaps the message box at the bottom is just, you know, “obvious”. And I am a fair man, so I’ll give you that.
What the article does do is say that Facebook has duplicated the entire concept of a Unique chat ID (a human readable URL pointing to a SaaS chat service), and then of linking that from any starting point (for example a URL in an email or a web page) to the owner of the ID via a Web and mobile app.
Until Friday chat.center was novel in offering a service combining these elements.
However, because we fully integrate into the DNS using this approach (making chat.domain.com/person possible), and because we do not require a person clicking a URL to be a “member” or “join” before connecting to its owner, we are different and better than Facebooks offering. We both use chat IDs, but we are making chat ID’s open and unlimited. Facebooks can ONLY use m.me/personname and can ONLY be used to click on by members of Facebook.
There is no doubt that Facebook has created a uniquely Facebooky duplicate our service. They may or may not have copied it. But as the founder of chat.center and a person who cares about users, employees and investors I certainly think Facebook should be called out for the duplication.
I also think it is fair to point out that they have duplicated an old version of chat.center and in a way that limits its usefulness.
We are not really concerned at a competitive level either. Open chat IDs are in many ways more attractive than Facebook ones for any self-respecting brand, and the DNS is clearly the right place to integrate this functionality. Besides, the version you copied dates back to April 2015. We are close to our next version and it is a significant step forward in this space. So this is not about the competition.
It is also reasonable to state that an educated team at Facebook MUST have been aware of chat.center. Here are just the TechCrunch stories covering us since we started:
Assuming the product team at Facebook Messenger are even doing basic due diligence, these things would have been known to them.
So, these are the “reasonable reasons” for my article and for my complaint, and my reasons for explaining to the world what has happened and what I as the founder of chat.center think about it.
So, in summary, to put this article into the context of click bait, or to suggest I am complaining simply about a UI being stolen are therefore both clearly mistaken.
Happy to chat live here — http://chat.center/keith
I hope you don’t mind me calling you Zuck. We barely know each other, although I did once bump into you whilst walking in College Terrace in Palo Alto.
The thing is, Mark feels too familiar, and Mr Zuckerburg way too formal. Besides I am a veteran entrepreneur and you are way younger than me so Mr feels, you know, a bit much.
Zuck feels just about right, and the good thing is it rhymes with fuck! — which is really pertinent given what I am about to say.
Well, Zuck, it seems as if your Messenger team has been closely watching what I have been doing with chat.center. I mean, wow! watching isn’t even the word for it. Snooping, Spying, is more like it. And clearly they must have liked what they saw because they made a copy. It’s a big surprise because nobody there even told us how much it appealed to them.
In case you think me paranoid….here is a screenshot from the new web version of Messenger at http://m.me. It’s from my personal page.
And here is the screen shot from my chat.center page.
Now, Zuck, a fair person might say that it’s easy for two pages to look similar, especially if their goal is similar. the color schemes may just accidentally be the same. The 3 column layout also. And perhaps the message box at the bottom is just, you know, “obvious”. And I am a fair man, so I’ll give you that. But then it just gets plain spooky.
Here is a blurb from the chat.center web site.
Unique Chat URL — and Click-to-Chat button for everything else
So you can engage your customers everywhere, not just on your website.
Use your chat address on social profiles, social ad campaigns, direct mail, business cards, signage, restaurant menu, product packaging, brochures etc.
At our core we provide a unique URL that points to a person or a business. Mine is http://chat.center/keith.
And here is what you say at the Facebook page for Messenger:
Usernames help people find businesses on both Facebook and Messenger, so they can connect with and message the businesses they’re interested in more easily. Because each username is unique, they also help people to identify your exact business, even if you have a relatively common name.
Mine is http://m.me/kteare
Firstly, I want to thank your team for their embracing of our core concept. of course they can’t go as far as us. We have integrated our offering into the DNS (the domain name system), so anybody can create a unique chat ID using their domain name. My incubator, archimedes labs, has done this and so you can reach me at http://chat.archimedeslabs.com. Being FaceBook the team want to keep things in-house and so their offering is inevitably more limited. But that said, it’s close to an exact copy — even down to the idea.
But it doesn’t stop there,
Today we’re also introducing Messenger Links, which businesses can use to make it fast and easy for people to start a message thread with them. Messenger Links use a Page’s username to create a short and memorable link (m.me/username) that, when clicked, opens a conversation with the business in Messenger.
On our chat.center web page we show our business customers this exact functionality.
This is close to an exact idea copy… but again there is a difference. My Facebook Unique chat ID cannot be clicked on by a non-Facebook member. if a user clicks it they are asked to log in with their FaceBook ID — like this:
chat.center on the other hand allows anybody (or if this is a business, any customer) to click a chat link and be in a chat with a business owner or ID owner. Try it. Click here — http://chat.center/cc — and you will see this:
No request to log in at all. A truly open chat ID available to a customer no matter what their membership status. Of course we do ask for a name and email address on a first chat, but that is to enable communication in case the chat receiver cannot reply right away. And it is not a registration. It is simply temporary for that chat.
So apart from the non-support for the DNS (domain name system), and so a user’s own internet identities; and apart from the requirement to log in to FaceBook, both of which limit your offering, it feels like a total rip-off of our idea.
Don’t get me wrong, we are flattered. And I am a big fan of your fearless acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, which made Facebook relevant to the mobile era. We are not really concerned at a competitive level either. Open chat IDs are in many ways more attractive than Facebook ones for any self-respecting brand, and the DNS is clearly the right place to integrate this functionality. Besides, the version you copied dates back to April 2015. We are close to our next version and it is a significant step forward in this space. So this is not about the competition.
But, it would have been nice to chat ahead of time. We are a small team of 6, and I’m in Palo Alto and after all I’m only a click away at http://chat.center/keith. So, really Zuck. What the Fuck!
BTW if you read this and want your own chat ID head over to http://chat.center. Use the code “12MonthsFree” and start enjoying “Click to Chat” for yourself or your business.
I have had the pleasure of speaking to several gatherings this summer. One at Startup Iceland, one at Bitspiration in Warsaw, Poland and a few others. Here is one of the talks.
Press release here – http://www.archimedeslabs.com/2015/04/chat-center-rebrands-and-moves-to-saas/
Here you are, my TechCrunch posts – http://tcrn.ch/KtWSsO
I took my Tapestry story on the road this week, speaking at DEMO Fall in Santa Clara Convention Center.
Here is what I said: