Why Facebook Can’t Figure Out What to Do With Its Apps

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/zuckerbergs-app-struggle/

by moisy • 12 years ago

45 54 12 years ago

lettergram• 12 years ago

To be honest, once Facebook strips the messenger app from the main app I'm done using Facebook. I don't want to agree to the new terms and conditions.

griffinmb3• 12 years ago

I may be wrong, but I think you misunderstood the 'stripping the messenger app' bit. It's not referring to the web app, just the ios app. Facebook stripped the messenger app from the main iPhone app a few months ago. I don't think there are any additional TOS.

wlesieutre2• 12 years ago

Messaging is definitely still in the main iOS app. They advertise "The new Messenger" with banners to get you to switch, but I haven't bothered.

I tried it out briefly, and IIRC had some trouble with chat notifications still coming from the main Facebook app. I could turn off notifications for it, but that'd kill all of the other notifications too. Making chat only in Messenger would solve this, if they haven't fixed it already.

the_watcher3• 12 years ago

I like that they've done with Messenger. All they did was make an app specifically designed for messaging and remove the bolted on version from the main app. You shouldn't notice any UX differences once you install the new Messenger app thanks to the wonders of deeplinking.

ionforce• 12 years ago

I guess this matters less and less as old phones get phased out, but I think there is some memory overhead in having two apps rather than one. Like if you switch apps and then the reaper elects to kill your first app, the switch back isn't so nice. Whatever, edge case.

Another UX edge case is when you hit Messenger directly, there's no backlink to Facebook. That's kind of blah.

the_watcher3• 12 years ago

Yeah, that is irritating, but when the deeplinking to Messenger first started, there was never a backlink to the Facebook app. That's changed, and I bet Messenger will too.

the_watcher3• 12 years ago

Bundling information and bundling of functionality are being mixed up with this article. Facebook doesn't care about bundling information differently between apps, they care about narrowly designed functionality for each app.

samstave• 12 years ago

FB is a culture of vertical scrolling silos.

bsimpson• 12 years ago

It seems like there are three obvious divisions of the Facebook product:

- Chat

- Shared content (news feed/photos/etc)

- Events

I wonder what the world looks like in which each is treated as a separate product with a common login. I imagine that the size of the user base goes up, but total usage could go down.

I know many people who don't have Facebook because they don't like the constant distraction of its shared content core, but would be open to using it for chat and events (if only because everyone else is). At the same time, there are probably existing users who haven't abandoned it yet because of events/chat, but would like to be less distracted by the content stream. If someone could install only Messenger and Events, effectively opting into those two products and out of Paper, it's not hard to imagine a sizable subset of the Facebook population doing exactly that.

a80002• 12 years ago

I think a startup focussing on only events and doing them well could have some potential.

dethstar• 12 years ago

Perhaps http://www.gethotspotapp.com/

buro9• 12 years ago

http://attending.io/ is doing this.

They're focusing on the market below EventBrite, small free events and small venue (i.e. tech user talks) that may require a small fee.

It's really refreshing to be able to just say "I want to attend that event" and for it to be a few clicks rather than an arduous check-out process.

Note: Whilst they have a "browse" button at the top, they've started by providing stand-alone pages that act as a flyer and mini-promo site for the event... this is a tool with great potential, not a fully mature product. Example of an event page http://attending.io/events/how-to-market-through-influencers...

rhizome• 12 years ago

Here is the information you requested, part the infinity:

http://unicornfree.com/2014/fuck-innovation-take-2-the-obvio...

superuser23• 12 years ago

Why?

Everyone I know has Facebook and uses it frequently. No one I know uses email unless absolutely necessary. No one I know is interested in recreating identities and friendship mappings across a bunch of discrete apps.

d1str0• 12 years ago

If Facebook strips the ability to message from the main app, I will no longer use Facebook for messaging. As an adroid user, Google's Hangouts is way better at connecting my gchat and sms and I will then have no use for another standalone messaging app.

evanmoran• 12 years ago

In my view Facebook separating out Chat from its core Facebook app was a brilliant move. It simplifies its core UI, yes, but even more makes the integration of WhatsApp into something that might actually make sense. Imagine WhatsApp built into the FB chat app... That's a huge, extremely active user base.

Lastly, if the worst happens and the core FB popularity declines, this new app could live a VERY long time. The only thing close in competition is GChat, but considering how popular WhatsApp is and its powerful reach into mobile, this could be the dominant chat platform going forward.

griffinmb3• 12 years ago

Just to add to this... I was reluctant to migrate to the Messenger app, but, since being forced to change, I can see the benefits. Though I don't use it very much, my girlfriend prefers it over any other messaging service (SMS, email, etc).

I think it was a smart move.

cliveowen• 12 years ago

I think they may have finally found their path to irrelevance. I used to go to Facebook (the website) everyday, multiple times a day. They changed it for worse with every update, so I dropped the site and started using the app, but even the app kept changing for the worse and it's now a total mess. Then this morning I realized that it's been a week since I last used Facebook, and I'm pretty sure that in a couple months I'll be ready to drop it completely.

Spooky23• 12 years ago

I'm in the same place -- I think the company takes itself too seriously.

It's not fun to use anymore -- I'm always getting these stern warnings about new privacy policies, and they are always screwing around with the timeline.

For example, now the Facebook gods have decreed that I will view the vapid posts of acquaintances who insist on posting "look how happy my family is" pictures, and buries posts from people whom I actually interact with on Facebook.

AznHisoka• 12 years ago

I think the media takes them too seriously as well. it's just a company that facilitates the sharing of LOLCat photos. Yes, its big data hard technically at that scale, but at the core, it's not a Google.

Killswitch2• 12 years ago

Man, why the heck are they trying to split everything off into their own apps? If I am using the main app to browse my feed and I get a message, why the heck do I want to swap to another app to answer it?

rkuykendall-com2• 12 years ago

You don't. Just like when you're browsing HN and you get a message you don't want to swap to another app to answer it. That's why the separated Facebook chat app uses message bubbles that you can answer in any app:

http://cdn.cultofmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Screen-S...

Honestly, it's brilliant, and the sole reason I use Facebook chat for most of my communications.

mcintyre1994• 12 years ago

I had no idea they'd managed to make that work for iOS, that's awesome. Definitely agree, FB chat bubbles for Android are one of the best user experiences I've seen.

Killswitch2• 12 years ago

I have that in my current facebook but I do not use the messenger app at all or have it installed.

jeswin• 12 years ago

On the contrary, I think this is about FaceBook knowing exactly what the future holds.

- FB probably recognizes that a Social Network is at its core a directory of connections and the ability to message/talk to each other. Until now it took a backseat to over-shared content, when it should have been the other way round.

- This app could serve as the foundation for the next FaceBook. Once you strip down an app to its essentials, you can very carefully add features based on data and the lessons learned.

- We are moving towards more selective, opt-in types of engagement, as opposed to carpet bombing with the content feed. For example, there are only a couple of dozen people whose feeds I care about. Those are most likely the people who I interact with or message often. What I want is the ability to mark certain people as "interesting" so that I see their statuses, instead of having to "hide" everybody else. (add:) Same with groups, follows etc.

pekk• 12 years ago

FB probably recognizes that a Social Network is at its core a directory of connections and the ability to message/talk to each other

How many years of hype did it take to bring us to this moment, where we realized we had reinvented ICQ/AIM?

I know, I know, I'm being reductive. There is also a sort of Geocities thing bolted on. You know, like Friendster and Myspace

taiki2• 12 years ago

if ICQ was so wonderful to use then why did we flee to the next best thing to come along? My feeling was that ICQ sucked in a very horrible way.

I was never around for the Friendster days(I was a Livejoural user through and through, damn it), however the reason I suspect MySpace lost out is that they did do the GeoCities thing. Everytime I see people complaining about a new Facebook layout, I always think, "Is this worse than the best MySpace page?" Answer is always no.

It's not that we're reinventing ICQ or AIM or MySpace or whatever, it's that we're refining the, oh god I hate using this word, "experience" of using it.

Does Facebook have random flash things pegging my CPU to render a cube in 3D with my friend's vacation photos on each face? Does Facebook have auto-playing music? Does Facebook have the option of setting the page's colors to be hideously garish?

I also think Facebook is realizing this, and they're trying to retool their business away from Facebook this website you visit, to Facebook a thing where all of these neat services are wired up to. I don't know if they'll succeed, but at least they have the sense to know they're not going to be on top forever.

ctdonath• 12 years ago

The issue isn't technical. That's why attempts at technical solutions reinvent ICQ et al.

The problem with social media (which leads to the demise of every implementation in around 7 years) isn't the media, it's the social.

The problem with social media is modeling degree of interesting. Everyone joins a social media site because the people in a defined group (however that is implemented) are interesting. Over time people join the group, and some leave; alas, those joining tend to be less interesting than whoever was there (and attracted participants), the interesting people tend to leave because they're surrounded by ever more uninteresting people (and find more interesting people elsewhere), traffic increases, signal-to-noise ratio decreases, average level of interesting plummets, people leave because it's boring, cycle repeats elsewhere. Insofar as the site is a directory of connections, participants find their list is dominated by people they don't know/care, but as nobody wants to perform the cruel step of actually sever connections, nor wants to spend the considerable time required to do so, they leave for somewhere fresh (hey, the old account is still available if they want to contact someone, but that ends up just being neglected). Eventually one leaves a trail of abandoned accounts, still active but ID & password - even the site itself - forgotten.

FB has tried to solve this with some algorithm filtering thru activity of friends, leading to a disjointed slate of postings which is interesting enough to casually browse, but suffers from a still low S/N ratio and leaves it almost impossible to find an interesting post short of scrolling thru hundreds of disorganized items. Result is an experience just interesting enough to keep people checking FB, but not exactly useful.

"Upvoting" helps identify interesting posts/users, but that's the decision of the voters, not the reader.

So...someone creates yet another social media site, using some new tech to change the media or voting or ranking or filtering or something ... and it all goes thru the same social media lifecycle, dying when the S/N ratio reduces the activity to little more than yet another directory of connections.

Give me a way to filter those who are interesting to me, with some visual gradient that I can read or skip sections of as I read based on momentary whim. HN's gradients are a useful step, but in the wrong direction: I don't just want the bad posts faded out depending on how many object, I want the higher ranking posts more visible (not just in position but in gradient, as sometimes great high-rated posts are positioned low just because they respond to some mediocre parent); sometimes the most down voted posts are interesting for visceral "train wreck" appeal.

Figure out how to find out what/who I find interesting. Keep what I see interesting, and I'll stick around. Otherwise, it's just the next ICQ directory.

dpcheng2003• 12 years ago

Completely agree. Facebook's feed is its most valuable real estate and it's primarily used for photo-sharing. If you "carpet bomb" it with requests and gaming spam, it becomes irrelevant.

The discrete separation of Facebook apps may solve the problem that companies like Yahoo are facing (to some extent): The sum of the parts is greater than the whole.

If you want an 11 minute read, I covered this at great length in a blog post two weeks ago on Medium: https://medium.com/p/b3c97b87a183 (4.4K views and counting).

Raphael• 12 years ago

It just goes to show how inflexible Facebook is. In a flexible system, it would be trivial to create a custom feed out of other feeds. Yahoo Pipes and Google Reader both did this.

superuser23• 12 years ago

Not really. You've been able to create lists of select friends for at least a couple years.

superuser23• 12 years ago

This has existed for several years in the form of the Close Friends list.

frade33• 12 years ago

They actually don't want to do anything with them. And I don't even get, how they would keep grabbing their rivals without triggering anti-trust investigation.

As soon as any social startup rises to the sky, they would grab it. Since the social itself is worthless in terms of making money, so anyone would easily get acquired, because they don't have any other choice, and definitely acquisition by Facebook, Apple, Google or Microsoft is and was their only business model.

ganessh• 12 years ago

Who knows. In their dataware house all they need is email id to link data from different apps to have a great knowledge about you and send more targeted ads.

koko775• 12 years ago

Disclaimer: ex-Facebooker.

Similarly, there’s a logic to giving Paper some more features, or “bloat,” as engineers derisively call such additions. Although it’s awkward to cram more information into a hidden tab on Paper — if birthdays are so important, why aren’t they in Paper’s main news feed? — the additional information also helps Paper live up to its billing as a place for news and stories from your social graph. For some people, birthdays and invitations are a vital part of that news stream, even if, for others, such information is trivial or better placed in the core Facebook app.

1. The Events and Birthday features were planned before Paper was announced. It's not feature bloat, it's a "second release" feature planned ahead of time.

2. Paper is optimized for a high-quality reading experience, especially longer content, as evidenced by the meticulous attention to detail in the text rendering and the horizontal scrolling. Birthdays would take up a lot of space in the story stream for relatively little content (and how would you order it within the feed, anyway?). Look at the birthday indicator on Facebook WWW, and tell me a name and three words are worth a screen-sized card in the stream. I would be very skeptical.

3. Birthdays arrive regularly and in chronological order. The Notifications jewel is the best place for these things - people also visit it regularly and there's a chronological ordering to it.

As for Nearby, the argument is flimsy. Changing strategy doesn't have to mean sabotaging in-flight development. Perhaps Nearby was developed before or during planning for the shift to the new strategy.

lukasb• 12 years ago

Am I the only person who thinks the body text on the shrunken preview cards looks terrible?

edit: was reacting to "meticulous attention to detail in the text rendering"

chris_wot• 12 years ago

Nice. I'm glad their splitting these apps out, because I'll be able to ignore them as I always did.

Why Facebook Can’t Figure Out What to Do With Its Apps

Related Stories