Possible strategy for a so-called "Facebook Phone" that I came up with

http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/u8meb/facebook_phone_is_a_bad_idea/c4temmt

by buu700 • 14 years ago

19 27 14 years ago

wavephorm• 14 years ago

I think Facebook should cozy up to Mozilla and use Boot2Gecko. Facebook's strength is in their web presence, and by leveraging a web-oriented phone, they could offer something that doesn't compete directly with other handset makers.

tdoggette• 14 years ago

If they release a phone, they're competing directly no matter what.

drivebyacct2• 14 years ago

Mozilla would curl up, sell/give their assets to charity and die before partnering with Facebook. Boot to Gecko is free, open source, and arguably more "open" than Android. There's no need for a partnership.

Mozilla and their leadership care very much about privacy and freedom. Facebook does not jive with that at all.

notatoad• 14 years ago

openness and freedom means giving your open and free code over to people who might not share your values quite so much. North Korea has a linux distro. A partnership with facebook would not be against mozilla's ethos at all. Facebook could contribute to the development of B2G and use the final product without compromising its openness in any way.

Furthermore, facebook might be somewhat evil when it comes to customer data, but they're an upstanding citizen in the open source community. they manage or contribute to many open source projects.

somesomeone• 14 years ago

I wouldn't take that seriously. The guy is most likely some bored teenager posting to reddit with an iPod Touch or something.

olog-hai• 14 years ago

Says the Skype website: "Skype is not a replacement for your telephone and can't be used for emergency calling." It's also not possible to port an existing phone number to Skype.

buu7002• 14 years ago

Ah, good point. I'm guessing gaps in 3G coverage and/or the unnecessary extra layers of SkypeOut are the risk? In any case, I suppose my idea could be revised to include CDMA/GSM specifically for emergency calls (which would rely on roaming).

As far as porting, it would definitely be a nice feature, but I'm not sure would be necessary for a successful market entrance.

shangrila• 14 years ago

Reminds me of these guys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helio_(wireless_carrier)

and their TV commercials in which there was always a teenager shouting "it's got MySpace mobile!"

sipefree• 14 years ago

> Graphene is fundamentally vanilla Windows Phone, except with all Windows/Microsoft branding removed in favour of Facebook

Not a chance. Microsoft would never compromise their branding. They're not THAT desperate yet, and their still in a stronger position than Facebook in terms of having money to throw around.

> phone functionality swapped with a custom Skype UI (integrated with Facebook contacts)

You'll never get the carriers to agree with that. Not yet. Even Apple couldn't do it.

> For data service, Facebook makes a deal with one carrier in every region on Earth to become a "dumb pipe" of unlimited 4G/3G, negotiates a reasonable globally consistent rate, and handles billing with users (acting as a middleman between users and carriers, effectively becoming its own carrier with borrowed infrastructure).

Again, for the same reason, it's extremely unlikely that carriers would agree to this on any level. Not yet. They've still got a few dying gasps yet.

> In the end, we get a Facebook-controlled and Facebook-powered "Facebook Phone" which shuns legacy telephony technology and seamlessly moves between regional 3G/4G and Wi-Fi networks (and makes Facebook, Microsoft, and Nokia a ton of money).

I still disagree that Facebook are in any position to heavy-hand away the branding of either Microsoft or Nokia. Especially Microsoft. They're not going to hand over the OS they spent a lot of effort developing for no recognition, even if it makes them tonnes of money in licensing.

It's a good idea, but I don't think it's likely at all in this climate.

prostoalex• 14 years ago

> Microsoft would never compromise their branding.

Seems that Sidekick and Kin are counter-examples to that statement.

nemeth• 14 years ago

> Seems that Sidekick and Kin are counter-examples to that statement.

Microsoft threw away the working Sidekick OS and re-built it from the ground up on Win CE so that they could brand KIN as a "Windows Phone". So isn't that really a perfect example?

buu7002• 14 years ago

In addition, with all the semi-frequent frenzied branding changes, Microsoft leadership seems to be acutely aware that they lack a well-regarded image with the consumer market. Perhaps they would decide against such a strategy, but "never" is a bit extreme.

As far as the carrier issue, let's just say XCom Global and the individual carriers all snub Facebook. Even without Microsoft, Facebook has more than enough cash on hand to directly buy out Sprint Nextel and/or its assets. A foothold in the US alone would be a strong enough starting position to make this feasible.

colinsidoti• 14 years ago

I feel like I may have missed something with all of this new talk about the Facebook phone.

About a year ago, it was announced that Facebook had partnered with HTC and would be releasing a phone in 18 months. I believe it was reported to run on a forked version of Android with an HTML5 front end (presumably to avoid the software update issues that Google is facing)

Is there any reason to believe that's changed? I feel like they still have 6 months before I really expect to see anything

ippisl• 14 years ago

Maybe there's an option to create a custom android rom by facebook. something based on cyanogenmod(which support 60 devices), that deeply integrates facebook.

Then push installations using independent installers ,for people who already got phones and new phone buyers ?

Danieru• 14 years ago

So Facebook gets all of the support burden and none of the hardware money?

That is never going to happen. Nor should it.

nvrmor• 14 years ago

no thanks

AznHisoka• 14 years ago

I just don't want another Platform to develop for other than iPhone and Android... Don't tell me it's gonna give me more traction/users.. 100% of users divided 1 way is better than 100% divided by 3!

swalsh• 14 years ago

I highly doubt Facebook wants to make their own phone... but if they were here's my take on it.

1.) They could benefit by adding new hardware. Imagine they remove the screen and opt for a google goggles like interface. If they own this channel, they become a real 100 billion dollar company.

2.) having closer access to users communication gives them more vectors to scrape users personal data...

papaver• 14 years ago

I don't see the advantage. What market segment are they attacking? Technology wise it would be a step forward from the current form of telephony, the consumer on the other hand doesn't care, they just want a product that works in the end and which they can use to communicate with their friends and family.

Google has done wonders with android because they attacked a market segment that apple was ignoring, cheaper smart phones for people that don't necessarily care so much about apps.

With google's buyout of motorola, im just waiting for the 'free' phone. where sms and a phone line are free for users in exchange for reading/listening to ads. Data plan is free (with a limited amount of usage) in exchange for a permanent status bar that displays ads.

grecy• 14 years ago

I imagine phone calls could be an order of magnitude cheaper...

jasomill• 14 years ago

Presumably the market segment who uses Facebook a lot, and, in particular, those apt to spend lots of money on Facebook "platform" products and services.

Specifically, if future Facebook revenue plans involve apps and, in particular, in-app purchases, reclaiming Apple's 30% revenue share from even a small percentage of Facebook's best customers could make the project worthwhile.

idspispopd• 14 years ago

1. A single worldwide 3G/4G handset is a difficult proposition.

2. Networks are fiercely competitive against being commoditised. While a single carrier in each country won't allow for sufficient coverage.

3. Consumer trust for facebook is decreasing, they're less likely to buy into something which they'll perceive as a big brother device.

4. It's a specific novelty device in comparison to everything-goes Android/iOS.

5. Android proves that price matters. Top of line hardware requires a top of line price. (Especially if supporting all 3G/4G implementations.)

6. Many of the services listed aren't internationally available.

7. How does Angry Birds fit into it?

8. How does this make money?

AlexDanger• 14 years ago

1.) Agree.

2.) Agree.

3.) Perhaps in the blogosphere, its a non issue for the other 99% of users.

4.) Again I think you've got your head in the blogosphere. Try inverting your statement. For a large set of users, iOS/Android are just devices that allow them to use Facebook away from the PC. Easy to see how calling, messaging, photos and games could integrate seamlessly with Facebook.

5.) Perhaps a bit more expensive, or they can just do what device manufacturers do now and market different versions for different regions. Not many people need a phone that is compatible with every single wireless protocol.

6.) Dont understand.

7.) Facebook games?

8.) Pay for handset. Monthly access fee. Whatever. People are used to paying for their phone.

If it wasnt for the telcos, this idea might have some traction.

Possible strategy for a so-called "Facebook Phone" that I came up with

Related Stories