Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing Facebook Camera

newsroom.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 134 posts

Re: Introducing Facebook Camera

#81

Post by tferris »

Smudge wrote: post #67
tferris wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not always. Regarding core Unix commands yes (like 'ls', 'cat') but look for example at 'git' which is a real beast.

Not to veer too far from the main discussion, but 'git' isn't just some giant monolithic binary. The 'git' command is a wrapper around a bunch of different, relatively modular binaries. They each even have their own man page. (e.g. 'git push' maps to 'git-push'). Each is just a unique action that can be applied to a common data structure (the git repository).

I know. And still all these different libs are accessible by one UI/route ('git').

Re: Introducing Facebook Camera

#82

Post by smackfu »

Two thoughts:

1) This makes it even clearer that a lot of stuff that is allegedly tagged photos of people on Facebook is memes and "inspirational" posters. And you can only unsubscribe from photos in the web version.

2)You can't just change photos from 3:2 to square aspect ratio. The subject isn't always in the center of the photo!

Re: Introducing Facebook Camera

#83

Post by ken »

JCB_K wrote: post #8

I really don't see the point of separate apps. The main Facebook app, Facebook Messenger, Facebook Photos...what's next? Anyone who can enlighten me why this would be a good strategy? Seems like unnecessary fragmentation to me.

If I were Facebook, I would be thrilled at the idea. I'd want as many apps as Facebook has features, as long as we could get users to install them.

Right now "Facebook" is one app on iPhones and Androids, next to native apps like Camera and Photos. Imagine if Facebook was 10 or 15 apps, and they were the same across iOS and Android. For the Facebook-loving crowd, at least, they'd take up your entire home screen, and make the OS virtually irrelevant. For these people, it's more like anti-fragmentation (unification), on Facebook's platform.

I see this as similar to Netscape (built for a dozen platforms), or Office (for Mac): they're saying "don't worry about the OS -- we'll take care of that for you -- you only need to know that if Our Product is on top, then you know how to use it".

Re: Introducing Facebook Camera

#85

Post by ja27 »

templaedhel wrote: post #36

UX bug that is actually fairly glaring when it comes down to it: I searched for "Facebook Camera" in the app store, but because it is so new, it is not there (ok, seems normal) I went to the site and clicked "Text link to my phone", phone number already filled out, text went through fine (so far so good) Clicked on the link, but facebooks mobile detection caught it before the redirect happened, didn't know how to han…

I just Googled the iTunes link and followed it on my iPhone. Opens the app in the store even though it can't be found by searching yet. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/facebook-camera/id525898024?l...

Re: Introducing Facebook Camera

#86

Post by ja27 »

sriramk wrote: post #71

How does the app know who I am without asking me to log into Facebook? Is it guessing somehow from my FB app's login + UUID? Or am I missing something basic

It's weird because their other apps open a URL to authenticate within the main Facebook app. This is a bit cleaner.

http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/DOCUMENTATION/ToolsLa...

Re: Introducing Facebook Camera

#87

Post by jen_h »

Kylekramer wrote: post #40
patrickod wrote: post #22

They split Camera and Messenger out into their own separate applications recently on Android. This was quickly reverted seemingly due to really bad reception. It puzzles me why they're repeating this

The problem with the Android version is you got three apps in your app drawer when installing the main Facebook app. That was confusing, spammy, and impossible for the user to opt out of if they wanted to use Facebook on Android at all. A separate app is just confusing (unless you are coming from Facebook's perspective), so it is an improvement. I am positive there will be a separate Android app in the coming weeks.

The Android shortcut was really confusing - a guy at our local watering hole last week was showing me his favorite Android apps, then pointed out an app he installed because his camera app broke. "It just stopped working last week, but I installed this app and use it instead, it works. Don't know what happened to my camera."

Turns out that the Facebook Camera shortcut just said "Camera" - and of course it didn't open up the stock camera app (I think it showed up on the main screen and first in the apps list, too). Once he updated Facebook and the shortcut disappeared, the stock camera app was more obvious.

The shortcut itself was really confusing - it said Camera on it and it wasn't immediately obvious that it was Facebook-specific. You want to take a picture, you look down & see "Camera," and you click on it. Combine that with the fact that icons change underneath you a lot anyway (see also "Android Market becomes Google Play Store"), and you just default to reading the app name anyway; so you tap to open the first app whose caption matches what you're looking for.

I mean, why would anything but your stock camera app be named "Camera," anyway?

Re: Introducing Facebook Camera

#88

Post by zmitri »

JCB_K wrote: post #8

I really don't see the point of separate apps. The main Facebook app, Facebook Messenger, Facebook Photos...what's next? Anyone who can enlighten me why this would be a good strategy? Seems like unnecessary fragmentation to me.

A guess: Facebook phone with separate facebook apps all built on android.

Re: Introducing Facebook Camera

#89

Post by smackfu »

niketdesai wrote: post #59
dominostars wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the iOS paradigm to make feature simple standalone apps. Why do you think Apple has both a "Photo Album" and "Camera" app? And both a "Phone" and "Contacts" app? Many users upload photos to Facebook, so there's a huge incentive to make an app that makes it simple to do this. Even if the main Facebook app has feature parity with FBPhotos, it's still going to come with all of the cruft.

This. Two things people do that FB wants channeled through their systems: Photos & Chat. Replacing your camera app with FBs means that all photos go to Facebook, which also represents the most important content on Facebook. If your photos and your friends photos are all on FB then they go to FB. If everyone you know is on FB then you'll probably use FB to talk to them. Thus, the chat ecosystem. Because FB is device a…

Plus it's pretty seamless replacement. Same label "Camera". Same icon, just with a blue background instead of grey.

Re: Introducing Facebook Camera

#90

Post by sparknlaunch12 »

habitatforus wrote: post #64
JCB_K wrote: post #8

I really don't see the point of separate apps. The main Facebook app, Facebook Messenger, Facebook Photos...what's next? Anyone who can enlighten me why this would be a good strategy? Seems like unnecessary fragmentation to me.

Because Facebook wants to be the platform and not the app. At some point we'll realize that Zuckerburg was out to replace Windows not Myspace

Agree with this statement. To compete with Microsoft, Apple, Google you need a platform (OS and phone). While Facebook messenger didn't really off, photos may be more of a popular transition as many send photos to Facebook anyway.
Post reply on HN