Microsoft + Facebook Partnership


Today at Facebook F8, Corporate Vice President Dan'l Lewin announced a new partnership between Microsoft and Facebook.


  • Popfly Facebook Block: Available immediately, we've added the Facebook block which prodices access to Facebook data including the User Profile, Friends, Photos, Photo Albums, and Events.
  • Leverage Existing Blocks: You can build Facebook applications using Popfly blocks like Flickr, Digg, Soapbox, Twitter, Windows Live, Xbox Live, and Virtual Earth.
  • Silverlight Support: Another big win here is Facebook has native support for Easily build next generation applications using Silverlight. With 24 million users and 40 billion page views a month, this is a huge, huge win for getting native Silverlight support on Facebook
  • Visual Studio Support: The Facebook Developer Toolkit enables developers to build applications for Windows, Web, or Microsoft Office.

Here's a screenshot


And here's a view of the results, the images are dynamically retrieved from a user's profile.



It's not just Popflyers, any of the 14 million Visual Studio Express downloaders (and pro Visual Studio customers as well) to build Facebook applications using the Facebook Development Toolkit and build application ASP.NET, Windows Presentation Foundation, Windows Forms and any other


Check out the Showcase page for more information including ASP.NET Quickstarts and video tutorials.

For configuration on Popfly, click the "Needs Key link on the Facebook block" or select the Video Tutorial and you'll see a Facebook configuration block


Big props to Doug Handler and Christopher Griffin on our team, the adCenter team, the non-pro team, and Dave Morin and the rest of the Facebook team. Perhaps I'm biased, but this is the biggest developer partnership from Microsoft I can think of.


I'm at the all-night hack-a-thon so I'll be publishing live pictures a bit later.

Digg it!

Comments (6)
  1. william says:

    It’s time for Face Book to Pay Up.

    The End of the Plantation system.

    I would like to help a bit in bringing about a new era on the Internet. We can call it web 3.0, or 2.5. I will leave the definition to others that are better at this kind of thing.

    This will be the era of a true revolution in the power of site members. An era where members have the power and the ability to be rewarded monetarily for the value that they add and the revenues that are generated from their work and participation.

    The recent announcements by Face Book that they are going to be the next OS, or the next platform, or the next goggle, reeks of egotism and self indulgence as well as a master slave mentality. In the bravado of the announcements that spewed forth from the reality distorted world of Face Book what was left out was the untold fact that Face Book would have little or no value if it were not for it’s 25 million members.

    The hard fact and truth of the matter is that Face Book makes hundreds of millions of dollars off of the backs of its 25 million members and has no plans to share the true wealth (money) of the revenue they generate with them.

    Does Mr.Zuckerberg or anyone at Face Book believe that they add more value to Face Book than the 25 million members ?

    If the answer is no then the revenue generated and the value added to Face Book should be shared monetarily with the members that have have generated the revenue and added the value. Without the members Face Book would have little or no Value.

    We now live in a technical age where a close to approximate monetary value can be assigned to the value and revenue that Facebook members add to the company. This fact can no longer be hidden, it can be found and it should be known by all of the members that generate the wealth and revenue.

    Why cant we see a graph on Face Book that discloses to the members the amount of revenue that is generated from them in terms of revenue generating partnership deals and advertising ?

    Why cant Facebook give an equitable portion of its ad revenue directly to its 25 million members ?

    Of the revenue that Face Book generates, as a percentage how much is given back to its 25 million members in a monetary form ?

    The advertising revenue that is generated by Face Book come from the actions of the 25 Million members, not the Face Book staff, so the members should receive the lions share of the revenue

    How much stock in the company do the 25 million members that generate hundreds of millions of dollars for Face Book own. Because the 25 million members generate most if not all of the revenue and value for Face Book, shouldn’t they all be stock owners ?

    As a group the 25 million members add value to the company and generate revenue, as a group they should own stock in proportion to the vaue that the add and the revenue that they generate.

    How much is Microsoft paying Face book for the rights to serve ads to Face Book members? Since the value of the ad deal is probably based on the amount of members that face books has, it would make sense that the members should be given a share of the money that Microsoft has paid to Face Book for the rights to serve the ads. Mr Zuckerberg and the rest of the Face Book team should give the 25 million members the money they deserve for the value that they add to Face Book.

    If yahoo would have acquired face book for one billion dollar, would any of this money be given to the 25 million members that have given Face Book the one billion dollar valuation ?

    For a one billion dollar acquisition that is by and large based on membership size as well as advertising revenue generated by the members; it seems that giving each of the 25 million members 1 million dollars would be an almost equatable reward for their participation.

    There is little difference between how Face Book treats its members and the share cropping schemes that were used to generate wealth for rich land owners on the backs of poor people and slaves. At least in the old share cropping schemes the works received a small portion of revenue, in the current situation members receive none of the revenue from the content that they create. Face Book and other sites that do not share the revenue and wealth that members create for them do not understand that the times have changed and the plantation game will no longer work. Now members have the ability to leave the plantation and to either create their own communities or to become members of communities that will pay them an equitable portion of the revenue and value that they create. This is one of the key revolutions of technology. There are no barriers to owning the means of production. Members are the means of productions, and are the value add. The pyramid that had members who are content creators and add value on the bottom has now been turned upside down. Unlike slaves that could not break free of the wealthy plantation owners bonds, members now have the ability to demand their equitable share and if they are not given it they can leave without retribution.

    It is time that members demand to be equitably rewarded (in the form of money) for the revenue and value that they generate.The 25 million Face Book members as a group should demanded to become stock holders and to be given a part of the revenue that they generate from advertisement clicks as well as a portion of the revenue that is generated from partnership deals based on their action and their numbers . If the members do make this demand and they are not rewarded in an equitable manner they should leave Face Book and any other site that will not reward equitably for the value and revenue that they generate.

    From Wikipedia

    “Sharecropping typically involves a relatively richer owner of the land and a poorer agricultural worker or farmer; although the reverse relationship, in which a poor landlord leases out to a rich tenant[2] also exists. The typical form of sharecropping is generally seen as exploitative, particularly with large holdings of land where there is evident disparity of wealth between the parties.[attribution needed] It can have more than a passing similarity to serfdom or indenture, and it has therefore been seen as an issue of land reform in contexts such as the Mexican Revolution. (Sharecropping is distinguished from serfdom in that sharecroppers have freedom in their private lives and, at least in theory, freedom to leave the land; and distinguished from indenture in sharecroppers[][]entitlement to a share of production and, at least in theory, freedom to delegate the work to others.) Sharecropping is often described as a never ending cycle of debt.

    Sharecropping agreements can however be made fairly,[attribution needed] as a form of tenant farming or sharefarming that has a variable rental payment, paid in arrears. There are three different types of contracts.

    1. Workers can rent plots of land from the owner for a certain sum and keep the whole crop.

    2. Workers work on the land and earn a fixed wage from the land owner but keep none of the crop.

    3. Workers can neither work for nor get paid from the land owner, so the worker and land owner each keep a share of the crop.

    There are three different types of tenant farming. According to A. Alkalimat, renters who were to hire land for a fixed rental to be paid either in cash or its equivalent in crop values; share tenants, who furnish their own farm equipment and work animals and obtain use of land by agreeing to pay a fixed percent of the cash crop which they raise; share-croppers who have to have furnished to them not only the land but also farm tools and animals, fertilizer, and often even their own food, which they had to pay back with a larger percentage than shared tenants. Tenant farming was a way in which to keep African Americans and other poor groups under control but make them feel like they had some importance. Though many blacks participated in tenant farming they still were looked at and labeled as the lower class.

    Because of the high rate of illiteracy among blacks at the time, they were often taken advantage of. Poor, illiterate and intimidated by post Civil War violence, many former slaves agreed to sharecropping contracts that were designed to keep them poor [PBS]. Eventually this exploitation led to violence. Courts would usually rule in favor of landowners when these incidents were brought to court.

  2. Chris Desouza says:


    Your arguments do not make sense. Those 25 million members or so who joined facebook did so to use its proprietary features and not as investors or owners.

    You need to be able to slice through this common sense. Every successful business out there in the marketplace is so on the backs of it’s users or customers.

    You just don’t make any sense…  

  3. Jon Pincus says:

    Very exciting!  Congrats to you and the team(s) from Microsoft and Facebook for making this happen!


  4. Facebook es un sitio de redes sociales que ha crecido enormemente en los últimos meses. Imaginense un

  5. Nuocca says:


    I think you fail to appreciate that commercial success in our world rests on accumulation/possession of resources that can be used hired or sold to parties who do not have, and want, those resources.

    The rewards nearly always go from many in small amounts to a few who control large amounts of the resource (capitalists). Use/control of that resource is usually a huge incentive to them.

    In this case, Facebook control a resource (a site/software and data) that is used, (voluntarily by 25m members), hired, (by sale of advertising), or sold, (ownership) to parties (Microsoft) who want it.

    There are very few in this world, who having acquired resources, voluntarily give them away. Bill Gate’s foundation does, but I think you will find that even there, the money contributed is little (to him) in the way of sacrifice of whatever resources he needs personally. That’s in no way a criticism of Bill Gates – just the way it is.

    Your underlying argument is really about maintaining equitable distribution of resources from the relatively wealthy to the relatively poor. Facebook is one isolated example.

    On a worldwide basis at the moment, the mechanisms for distribution in society are wars and taxes/social security. The closest we have come to achieving equitable distribution is to establish minimum living standards in some countries.

    I don’t have a problem with the capitalists gaining resources, so long as there are sound social mechanisms that exist to ensure their ‘excess’ resources are available to the poor in some way. Put another way, the resource gap between rich and poor should be decreasing, not increasing.

    At present we do not have a magic bullet, but I will vote for the first government that restructures society to:

    Abolish ALL borders and barriers (legal, physical, group, class or whatever), AND

    Treat EACH person as an individual according to their real need (including equitable access to resources as above), AND

    Provide ONE point of contact for each person for all their required government services and responsibilities.

    Anyone else got any ideas ?


Comments are closed.

Skip to main content