Facebook would have to sell a lot of units, in a field with which they are mostly unfamiliar, and where they'd have very strong competitors in Apple and Facebook (and all the companies who invested in and sell Android, like Samsung).
I do not see Facebook playing catch up with Google, Samsung, the Chinese and Apple in OS, services (like maps) and hardware development, as it is too expensive to get FB into a competitive state in regards to tech, even if they forked AOSP instead of starting from scratch. A mere Facebook branded AOSP will not cut it (and then they'd still need to develop services on top, because people want more than just a facebook App, and app developers want more than just a generic AOSP + FB API)...
Then they'd have to solve the supply chain to get production rolling.
And then they would have to convince people to use their product, which is the toughest problem they'd have to overcome. Their reputation simply isn't great.
Any subsidies can only be limited. How much money could they reasonably offer a FB phone user (in exchange for their data) after having burned through billions in development, production development and marketing? Something like 50 bucks at most I'd think, if they want to still stay profitable. That's not yet a "convincer". Apple users do not mind paying a premium already, and in the Android world you already have lots of products at all prices. And let's not forget that phones (other than Apple phones) are relatively low margin.
Microsoft tried and failed to enter that market, already. And MS reputation with consumers compared to FB was a LOT better.
It's not impossible, but it would be a moonshot, and a moonshot that would be betting the company's well-being.
Entering the smartphone market is a lot harder than creating a new market like they try with Oculus, or Tesla did with electric cars[1]. And Zuckerberg isn't exactly an Elon Musk either[1] when it comes to public perception, or a Cook or Jobs or Brin or Page or even Bezos or still-at-MS Gates.
[1] The market was essentially non-existent and the few products that you could get were all rather subpar. Tesla essentially still had a first mover advantage, and supported their R&D with a limited premium car production with high margins, convincing investors to throw money at them and massive debt.
[2] Tho I have heard Zuckerberg described as a Martian, something that Musk aspired to be :P
I do not see Facebook playing catch up with Google, Samsung, the Chinese and Apple in OS, services (like maps) and hardware development, as it is too expensive to get FB into a competitive state in regards to tech, even if they forked AOSP instead of starting from scratch. A mere Facebook branded AOSP will not cut it (and then they'd still need to develop services on top, because people want more than just a facebook App, and app developers want more than just a generic AOSP + FB API)...
Then they'd have to solve the supply chain to get production rolling.
And then they would have to convince people to use their product, which is the toughest problem they'd have to overcome. Their reputation simply isn't great.
Any subsidies can only be limited. How much money could they reasonably offer a FB phone user (in exchange for their data) after having burned through billions in development, production development and marketing? Something like 50 bucks at most I'd think, if they want to still stay profitable. That's not yet a "convincer". Apple users do not mind paying a premium already, and in the Android world you already have lots of products at all prices. And let's not forget that phones (other than Apple phones) are relatively low margin.
Microsoft tried and failed to enter that market, already. And MS reputation with consumers compared to FB was a LOT better.
It's not impossible, but it would be a moonshot, and a moonshot that would be betting the company's well-being.
Entering the smartphone market is a lot harder than creating a new market like they try with Oculus, or Tesla did with electric cars[1]. And Zuckerberg isn't exactly an Elon Musk either[1] when it comes to public perception, or a Cook or Jobs or Brin or Page or even Bezos or still-at-MS Gates.
[1] The market was essentially non-existent and the few products that you could get were all rather subpar. Tesla essentially still had a first mover advantage, and supported their R&D with a limited premium car production with high margins, convincing investors to throw money at them and massive debt.
[2] Tho I have heard Zuckerberg described as a Martian, something that Musk aspired to be :P