91–100 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's somewhat in following with the Unix paradigm; do one thing, do it well.
So when can we do $ camera | fb-photo | facebook | sed 4 | awk ? Chaining the utilities is the crux of the Unix paradigm, remove that and you're left with individual utilities that are far less powerful than when chained together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This article is from nearly two years ago and claims that Facebook was very secretively working on its own mobile OS. If this is indeed the case, a lot of their somewhat recent acquisitions make a little more sense (GoWalla, Karma, Instagram obviously, and LightBox).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Faceboo...
The fact that their valuation gets beat down on the lack of ad revenue in the ever growing mobile space turns into a bullish signal if they release a high quality phone with a high profit margin. I wondered why they were splitting up their mobile app into many recently on Android as well, and this tells me that it's possible they want to create a suite of "necessity" apps as the basis for their platform.
To compete with Microsoft, Apple, Google you need a platform (OS and phone). While Facebook messenger didn't really take off, photos may be more of a popular transition as many send photos to Facebook anyway.
I feel that the mobile app market will mature along the same lines as computer software. Eventually the majority of users will want a simple experience of picking up a phone without having to make choices in an 'store' environment.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's somewhat in following with the Unix paradigm; do one thing, do it well.
So when can we do $ camera | fb-photo | facebook | sed 4 | awk ? Chaining the utilities is the crux of the Unix paradigm, remove that and you're left with individual utilities that are far less powerful than when chained together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's somewhat in following with the Unix paradigm; do one thing, do it well.
So when can we do $ camera | fb-photo | facebook | sed 4 | awk ? Chaining the utilities is the crux of the Unix paradigm, remove that and you're left with individual utilities that are far less powerful than when chained together.
This is really the best they can do to change that. I believe they're attempting to create a base mobile experience and use that as a selling point for mobile devices. On iOS for example there are standard apps for Mail, Maps, Search (browser), etc. I wouldn't be surprised if you see a suite of apps from Facebook to be the base functionality for some phone.
The next logical step would be to then bundle that on something and call it a Facebook Phone as a branding exercise. Carriers can bundle software, on non-IOS anyway, why not Facebook?
Mozilla ends money through the selling the default search engine on Firefox. Why can't Facebook do the same thing?
Part of this mobile strategy is to create a mobile platform (aka Project Spartan [2]).
Good for Facebook. At least they realize the risk they face.
[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4016950
[2]: http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/28/this-sure-looks-a-lot-like-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So when can we do $ camera | fb-photo | facebook | sed 4 | awk ? Chaining the utilities is the crux of the Unix paradigm, remove that and you're left with individual utilities that are far less powerful than when chained together.
Now. With android intents (ok, not cool as pipes, but the idea is there)