Well, the problem is that Facebook hasn't found an as reliable revenue stream as Zynga.
As a platform owner, it must suck that people are making more money off your platform than you. So you are tempted to co-op other people's revenue stream as your own.
Facebook could always hire their own team to build games, and give them priority placement as some kind of special class of application all over the site. Then launch facebook credits with these games and give more perceived value with some kind of half price credits on these games deal.
Aren't the vast majority of Zynga's users coming from Facebook? If you go to Farmville.com, you need to login with Facebook Connect. I would have a different opinion if Zynga could survive without the Facebook interactions. However, their games rely on the network effect that Facebook brings... so they are very dependent upon the 'walled garden' of Facebook.
Now, this isn't the same type of garden as AOL in the day. It's more open, but make no mistake, Facebook controls the user, not Zynga. Because of this, Zynga has more risk than another web-based game company would be. At the same time though, Zynga has gained incredibly from the relationship.
But, if Zynga wants to keep the users coming, it needs to maintain that Facebook relationship.
> Huh? Zynga's apps only depend on Facebook for advertising in users' streams. This is no different than Google refusing to show a company's ads.
A more appropriate analogy would be if Google had paid inclusion of advertisement directly in search results, rather than on the side. In that case, it would be fair for Google to be extremely judicious about those ads.
Nope. I just don't think the "walled garden" criticism really applies. Walled gardens usually don't allow you to put data in or take data out. Presumably Zynga will still be able to use the Facebook API on their site, so the data that is supposedly behind a wall will still be accessible.
This is what happens when you depend on anyone for anything.