Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Businesses Technology Your Rights Online

Facebook Cuts Off Competitor Prisma's API Access (nymag.com) 65

Photo-filter app Prisma, the popular program which makes pictures and video look like painterly art, had its access to Facebook's Live Video API revoked this month. From a report on NYMag:According to Prisma, Facebook justified choking off Prisma's access by stating, "Your app streams video from a mobile device camera, which can already be done through the Facebook app. The Live Video API is meant to let people publish live video content from other sources such as professional cameras, multi-camera setups, games or screencasts." This is the implied aim of Facebook's video API, the technical entry point for producers to pump video into Facebook's network: The API is meant for broadcasting setups that are not phone-based. The problem is that none of this is explained in Facebook's documentation for developers. In fact, it states the opposite. Here is the very first question from the company's Live API FAQ: "The Live API is a data feed and the "glue" needed to create higher-quality live videos on Facebook. It allows you to send live content directly to Facebook from any camera."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Cuts Off Competitor Prisma's API Access

Comments Filter:
  • All they do is apply neat special effects to video. How does that make them a competitor? If it encourages people to share nifty videos to Facebook, you'd think that would make them an ally.

  • We'll change the rules, or reinterpret them, any time we damn well please, and there's nothing you can do about it.

    I'm just about done with them. I'm on a "no Facebook" diet until after the holidays. We'll see if that works.

    • by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @11:32AM (#53393417) Journal

      I think the correct phrasing is ..

      " I am altering the deal, pray I don’t alter it any further."

    • by timelorde ( 7880 )

      I'm on a "no Facebook since birth" diet. It's been working quite well for me.

      • I'm on an "I graduated and lost my .edu email address before there even was a Facebook" diet. Does that make me suspicious [slashdot.org]?

        • I'm on an "I graduated and lost my .edu email address before there even was a Facebook" diet. Does that make me suspicious [slashdot.org]?

          I graduated before we even had email addresses.

          [Yorkshiremen]
          why, when I was in school, I had a VT-05 and was glad of the 300 baud
          [/Yorkshiremen]

    • I think it can be summed as..

      "Facebook is evil."
  • API startups (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @11:08AM (#53393199)

    If your company uses an API to another party's service to make your product you should seek employment somewhere else. Urgently.

    • Way back at the dawn of time (hipster time anyway) a little company known as Citrix created WinFrame based on Microsoft's New Technology (NT 3.51) OS. To do this they negotiated the access with Microsoft and all was well with the world. Citrix's product was well received and catapulted them to software star status. [wikipedia.org] Sadly when it came time to negotiate for the NT 4.0 product Microsoft initially refused but later agreed but demanded a tribute in the form of a license to use the WinFrame MultiWin [wikipedia.org] technology. A
  • The FAQ does not imply the opposite, it pretty much explicitly says its for other HQ cameras.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 1080bogus ( 1015303 )

      I think the point was that a lot of smartphones are capable of high-quality videos. Facebook's response basically said the API wasn't meant for streaming through mobile devices (smartphones) while the FAQ says any camera, which one would assume would include smartphones.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    This is why all large companies want to own one or more layers of the infrastructure and/or ecosystem. Then this shit cannot happen to you. And they all know it will happen, because they will all do it to someone else without giving it a second thought.

  • I suspect it's a Fake News crapfest reaction.

    Riddle me this, Batman:

    How do I tell a real video, adulterated by Prisma, from an already adulterated video, further adulterated by Prisma?

    OK, now suppose I'm Facebook, and I want the video uploaded to be obviously adulterated/non-adulterated, so I can sell my services as the video equivalent of a Reuters or an AP NewsWire source... do we think MSNBC or Fox or ABC or CBS or Reuters or CNN will pay fro Prisma'ed content?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Prisma connects to the Facebook through a special API key. The Prisma app supports videos from the cell phone, so Facebook has revoked the Prisma API key. This blocks all videos from Prisma.

      Your question is pointless. It doesn't matter if the video is altered or not, it matters who is doing the upload. No uploads from Prisma are allowed (probably because Facebook is about to release a similar feature).

      ~Batman.

      • Prisma connects to the Facebook through a special API key.

        I'm aware how the API key system works.

        The Prisma app supports videos from the cell phone,

        Predominately adulterated video. Because otherwise, you'd use the Facebook App, because you wouldn't be using any of the Prisma features to make it "hip", "kool", "rad", and "gnarly".

        so Facebook has revoked the Prisma API key. This blocks all videos from Prisma.

        Yes, I'm also aware of how key revocation was used to block Prisma.

        Your question is pointless. It doesn't matter if the video is altered or not, it matters who is doing the upload. No uploads from Prisma are allowed (probably because Facebook is about to release a similar feature).

        The question is not pointless. Prisma's primary users are people who are adding "effects" to the video. Otherwise they'd be using the Facebook App. The entire purpose of Prisma in the 99% use case is to adulterate the v

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @12:16PM (#53393841)

    This should be a lesson for anybody that develops an application based on a platform that they don't control; it's as if nobody learned nothing from "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run" Microsoft era experiences.

    If you don't control the platform, the platform owner can cut off your air supply at any moment. When working with a giant, they have the resources to replicate whatever you're doing immediately. So FB, Google, all other platforms are using all the startups on their platform as brute-force approach to success - everybody tries something, if something succeed, first they replicate it, and then cut the air to the original app. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish 2.0 Social Edition.

    • by tekrat ( 242117 )

      Most of the people developing for Facebook were not even born when "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run" happened.

      That's the problem right there.

  • Facebook enjoys a monopoly position. They literally cant do what they just did. Prisma is a Russian company too. The Russkie anti-monopoly agency will do very nasty things to Facebook over this. They've been looking for an excuse to kick them out of the country as is.

  • Facebook's arrogance is past that of Microsoft at the height of their evilness. They have a choice as to whether or not to be a bag of dicks or have a model based on growing through inclusiveness with a long-term but flexible plan. They chose bag of dicks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
  • It is high time that a lot of these internet giants get some hard scrutiny from the justice department on anti-monopoly grounds, similar to what Microsoft got after they destroyed Netscape by bundling IE. FB is a defacto monopoly on social media, as evidenced by the failure of Google plus, my space etc. Since they are a defacto monopoly, cutting off another company's access to their API is an illegal anti-competitive move and they should get slammed hard for it.

    I would love to see some federal legislation

    • by lpq ( 583377 )

      I was wondering how FB's actions are not anti-competitive, but it's because they don't pretty much own the market like MS did at that time. Due to the ultra-conservatives having disposed of the old FTC and replaced them with people who's only qualification was to support the, then, current administration, it makes it less likely that they would even know what to do if they wanted to.

    • WTF makes you think the Justice Department gives a rat's ass about this? If the DOJ doesn't feel like pursuing an anti-trust case against Microsoft (even at the height of their abusive monopoly with IE6 back in 1999), what makes you think a conservative Trump DOJ is going to care about Facebook? (Or, if Hillary somehow wins the Electoral College election, that her DOJ would care?)

      Face it: we're on our own with these abusive companies. If we want to keep them in line, we have to be willing to vote with ou

      • I guess maybe you were still in diapers back then, but MS was investigated by the DOJ and subsequently sued by the DOJ:

        "The company barely escaped being split up after it was ruled an unlawful monopolist in 2000 for using its stranglehold on the PC market with its Windows operating system to cripple competitors, such as Netscape’s Navigator Web browser.

        A court settlement approved in 2002 and a consent decree curbing some of its practices saved Microsoft."

        http://www.seattletimes.com/bu... [seattletimes.com]

        FB, Apple, etc

        • by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )

          ... in that he is specifically looking for what is best for the people

          You are correct that he's no conservative, but this is just bullshit. Trump is a Trumpist. He doesn't give a shit about what anyone else thinks or wants. He, like any politician, will tell you what you want to hear to get your vote, but he doesn't give a shit about saying the opposite to the guy standing next to you. He has no shame at all, and only cares about himself.

          Presidential elections have been a popularity contest since at least the advent of television. Trump, for all his intellectual failing

          • Your statement as well as mine is speculation. Yours is based on bullshit hysteria put out by the Democratic party, mine is based on what Trump has said and done since winning. The jury is still out on the long term, but it does appear that he genuinely wants to help people (see what he just did for Carrier employees who were going to get outsourced to Mexico). He is not even the president yet and he has already saved 1000 jobs at a cost of $700/employee per year in incentives to the employer. The state

    • I consider twitter and reddit and *cough* usenet *cough* and *cough* the entire rest of the internet *cough* to be more significant competitors to facebook than the competitors to microsquish were back in the netscape navigator days.

      Back in the day, without microsquish, ordinary folk couldn't reasonably *use a computer*. Apples and Oranges. Thank God for the relative - if not total world dominating - success FOSS has enjoyed since then.
    • Facebook is VASTLY easier to avoid than the Microsoft monopoly ever was. A windows tax was added to nearly every computer, even ones that shipped without any os at all. They used their monopoly to make using almost any other product that competes with their painful. They leveraged the OS to push their browser and it worked until VERY recently.

      Facebook is fairly easy to avoid and pretty much no pressure related to it.

  • In case this happens to be a sly attempt to muddle the public's long term memory of the relationship between PRISM (not Prisma) and Facebook. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29 [wikipedia.org]

    The documents identified several technology companies as participants in the PRISM program, including Microsoft in 2007, Yahoo! in 2008, Google in 2009, Facebook in 2009, Paltalk in 2009, YouTube in 2010, AOL in 2011, Skype in 2011 and Apple in 2012.[23]

This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks.

Working...