My initial thoughts (without having a ton of time to really absorb this yet) is that Apple's closed operating system may have just become a liability. The open 'intent' model of Android is really at the core of making something like this possible. In turn though does this also allow Facebook to take over "too many" aspects of Android and cut into Google's revenue streams as well? All things I'm still pondering.
As an aside... I am a big HTC fan. Nice to see them able to get on board at the ground level of some new projects.
I'd call the inability for Facebook to usurp control over Apple's vertically integrated platform to be a market advantage, not a liability, as long as too many users don't start clamoring for a facebook-iphone.
[edit] Remember browser toolbars? Now that Facebook is doing this, I expect this is just the beginning.
android homescreens behave very differently than browser toolbars do. You can not set a homescreen secretly or in the background, and you can only have a single home screen set at any given time.
If the user decides to install a homescreen, and he does not like it, He will simply uninstall the app.
I don't think a launcher app like Facebook home can be associated with the Android home button automatically when it is installed, so the browser toolbar comparison isn't perfect.
Put another way, once installed, you press the Home key, and are 2 TAPS away from having it permanently set. It is a great solution to the problem, and something sorely lacking on iOS (for things like browser and email defaults).
I don't think I understand. You can install different home apps, and you can select which one will launch when you hit the home button. I do this, often.
You seem to assume this is something people want. This is just an app trying to take over the whole OS experience. Being closed system is a good thing in this case as I don't want facebook to change my OS experience. I like apps to behave like apps. In fact I would go as far as saying that this is one way Android could become sucky over time - Too many apps trying to push for a new experience.
A good percentage of my friends spend 90% of their phone/tablet time inside of the Facebook app too. They don't use RSS or Twitter or go to actual websites. They just follow people or sites that post stuff, and then read it from Facebook. I can't see why they wouldn't want the Facebook app even more prominently featured.
Being a closed system doesn't solve this problem, because the problem is already solved by simply choosing not to install the app. A closed system prevents you from making changes that you would actually like to, so it's strictly worse.
Yes, of course this isn't something everyone would want. However, I for one know of lots of people that this would suit down to the ground. People who solely use their phones for calling, texting and Facebook.
At the end of the day, it's an option. You don't have to install it and you don't have to use it. The beauty of Android is that if this isn't to your liking, you can uninstall it and install any number of other launchers, home screens, etc.
It's not as if you're forced to use this as a new home screen. It's an option available to the users. So likely anyone who is using this wants it. I think it is good when users are offered a choice. Let people have the experience that they want.
If you don't want it then don't use it. I personally don't want it either but I'm sure there is someone out there who would like to use Facebook Home. You can easily replace homescreens on Android, you don't need your device rooted or anything like that.
I'd say that having the choice is the more important factor here. I'm not sure how "Well someone people are not going to like that" is a compelling argument for not having the option in the first place.
Isn't that the point though? What you don't want is exactly what facebook is trying to offer: A different home screen experience. How is having too many experiencial options a bad thing? Is curation the problem? Is the default home screen app so good it should not be touched?
This is at the core of the differing philosophies about software. You see something you dislike and look for a white knight to prevent said bad thing from existing. I see something I dislike and don't use it.
No, Apple's closed platform is still an asset. Google's target market with Android never was you, the end user; it was handset manufacturers and carriers. Android is deliberately designed to be flexible enough to enable those parties to "customize the end-user experience", i.e., install crapware. Apple's closed platform, designed to be pleasant to the end user instead of making it easy for third parties to monetize the end user's eyeballs, will become even more distinguished and desirable.
What you say is only an assumption. And if it's true, then I wonder how Android actually got the better user experience lately. I have access to all of iPhone 4S, Samsung Galaxy S2 and a Galaxy Nexus. For me both androids are quite a lot better than the iPhone (disregarding the industrial design which is best on the iPhone). And I actually have a hard time deciding between Samsung's modded version and the original Android on the Nexus.
Note: Of course, I probably fit into the category of power users. Knowing which apps to disable, which to install, and which to configure (and how) is a good thing to know.
The launcher communicates with the rest of the framework through Intents. It's mostly the same point. If the launcher was responsible for the actual app management (launching via zygote, maintenance of the registry and permissions databases, clean up on uninstall...), you'd never be able to replace it. The Intents framework is what allows the launcher to be "just a replaceable app."
I guess you're right, but there's nothing about intents that assumes the homescreen would be replaceable. That the homescreen is launched via intents must have been a conscious design decision, right?
It's basically the intent of what happens when you press the Home button. The UI for the end-user is identical as for every other intent (and managed the same way in the settings). If you install a new application that handles the Home intent, the next time you press the Home button you get the usual "What app do you want to use to handle this" dialog with the "Just once" and "Always" options.
More importantly, if I've selected "Always", how do I change it back to the old way later? Are intents something I can access and change in the normal system settings?
Well, there's still a pain point there. To change it back to the old way you have to go to settings, then hit "Apps", then scroll to find the home screen app you no longer want, then hit its "Clear Defaults" button.
There's never any text that explains "this will let you choose a homescreen again", or really anything that will help you know to look for the Clear Defaults button.
Uninstalling it will also accomplish this, which I expect most people will do if they want to get rid of it. I do agree that it should be more straightforward within Settings, though; It would be nice to go to Settings > Home Screen and have the first option be something like "Choose which Home Screen software to use".
While that works in this case, it's only because Facebook breaks their functionality into multiple apps. If "Facebook" registered a homescreen, instead of "Home" registering it, then how would you remove the default? Sure, you could uninstall facebook and then reinstall it, but that's a pretty painful workaround.
Another use-case that should be fixed, the instagram app has registered to intercept browse intents for its domain. So, clicking on a link in twitter will show you that picture in the instagram app. The problem is when badly written apps do this, urls like http://instagram.com/developer/ will also open the app, but it will notice it doesn't know how to handle that url, and either quit or crash.
Sure, developers should know better. But I'd really love a way of saying "for the next intent that fires, let me chose the default again".
You could toggle this flag and then hit home to reset the homescreen app. Or you could toggle this flag then hit an instagram link and say "just for this one link, use chrome".
Unfortunately, while that would be a fantastic tool for developers, it's probably not a practical solution. There are enough edge cases that it would be hard to implement, and very hard to educate users on how to use.
I've always had a ton of problems with defaults and intents. To this day I still have certain intents that ask me every single time, no matter how many time I choose a default.
I'm pretty sure that the homescreen is actually launched via an intent, though. At least, if you have multiple homescreens installed it prompts you which one to launch through the same interface that intents use. (Until you set a default.)
The intent system is what is behind the pluggability of Android, it's the thing that makes it possible to have several home screen apps installed in parallel.
The giant gap between the beautiful photos of beautiful people doing enviable things in beautiful places used in demos such as these (and in Apple ones as well) and the mundane, poorly-focused, washed-out, ill-composed photos and meme reposts that are most likely to appear on your FB feed at any given moment always takes the shine off of products such as these for me, despite how much more useful or technologically advanced they may be from their predecessors. Being reminded my life is not going to be as exciting as the floor model is never a good user experience.
Exactly. How terrible will this be when you're not in the mood to socialize or when something discouraging happens in your social life? This has a good use case for 10% of smartphone users maybe 80% of the time.
I'm going to predict that this will turn people off of facebook more than it creates more engagement.
Facebook is betting that people don't want to interact with apps but rather with their friends, which is a bet they have to make because, well they're Facebook. This also sounds very good and "human" but I don't know how true to reality it is.
Apps are a way to gauge and guide intent. So if I want to send an email, I open an email app. If I want to check my schedule, I open the calendar app. These are established and agreed upon concepts and apps are just representations of those concepts. With Home, Facebook is saying that every time you turn on your phone "you probably want to see what your friends are up to." This assumes that we're all super social and are genuinely interested in people in our Facebook-lives. I think many people use Facebook out of a sense of obligation to be part of that scene (kind of like LinkedIn). But there probably are a lot of people who instinctively hit that Facebook app as soon as they turn on their phone and for them this will be great. I don't think it will drive more usage from that first group, though (and I think that should be Facebook's primary goal).
I don't think the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
I've noticed with myself that no matter what I'm doing, and what apps I'm using on my desktop, Facebook is always open in a tab.
Which is to say, my high-intent and highly-guided behavior on the computer sits on top of a constant baseline social presence.
Personally I'd be happy if Facebook Messenger was built into the phone such that I can respond to messages without breaking my flow in my current app. But I'm on iOS, so I'm really not holding my breath.
Putting social networking into the background IMO aligns it closer to how I actually use it. Facebook as a high-intent application doesn't seem to work quite right.
> Facebook is betting that people don't want to interact with apps but rather with their friends, which is a bet they have to make because, well they're Facebook. This also sounds very good and "human" but I don't know how true to reality it is
Also, people won't mistake the Facebook app for their friends when ads start appearing.
Yes, their whole "this is the future" strategy is actually that way because it needs to be the future for Facebook. So their view is extremely biased in that regards, just like the whole auto-sharing thing, which I consider pretty anti-user, but it's something Facebook needed for their business.
If you don't like what your friends post to Facebook then you should reconsider if you want to be friends with them, or if you should begin using the tools FB already provides to control the content in your feed.
Many people use facebook as just another way to communicate with friends, either through messages, wall posts, or event invites. I don't really care if they post uninteresting stuff to their own wall. Actually, it'd be rather sad if I reevaluated my friendships just based on that.
>"Actually, it'd be rather sad if I reevaluated my friendships just based on that."
This is unfair, you responded to someone who was saying "If you want a higher quality stream, then curate more aggressively using the tools available to you"
And I feel like you ignored the meat of his post to make a cheap shot on the idea of "losing friends over memes". That wasn't his point, and I think you knew that. The tools he mentions allow you to control what appears in your feed without unfriending.
> you should reconsider if you want to be friends with them, OR if you should begin using the tools FB already provides
So if we get technical about it, he presents two options: Curate more aggressively or reconsider whether you want to be friends with them. Maybe he meant that tongue-in-cheek, but at least when I first read it it sounded like he said you should either use facebook's tools or rethink your actual friendship with that person.
Culling my friends still doesn't save me from seeing advertisements/promoted posts from services not even associated with them, and they shouldn't have to worry about liking something because it's going to spam me.
or if you should begin using the tools FB already provides to control the content in your feed.
Is this sufficient? What I want in my feed is likely very different then what I'd want on my phone's homescreen. Now you're getting into google circles territory and I'm not sure that level of curation really works well.
The original point is still valid if its "There's a lot of crap in my feed that I'm okay with that I won't want on my phone's homescreen".
Most likely the answer here is a mix of your curation (i.e. don't ever show me content from this person that overshares) and Facebook's existing systems that learn, based on what you interact with intentionally and attentionally, what content available from all your friends will be the most interesting to serve to you at this exact moment.
Also, the Cover Feed assumes that all photos are portraits or landscapes. That's a dangerous assumption because not all content in s typical photo can fit into a 16:9 rectangle without causing inconsistencies (including the aforementioned square memes)
Setting aside the Launcher replacement, the most technically surprising aspect of this demo was the messaging app: it showed avatars and a messaging window hovering above the currently-focused app.
As far as I know, this isn't possible on stock Android. You can make a non-fullscreen window, but you can't continue to interact with the layer behind it.
This may be the motivation for the "set of OEM guidelines" Mark very casually mentioned. I wonder what other enhancements they call for..
They also cribbed the way iOS does notifications and put it on Android. Instead of messages being in a drawer on the top, they show up on the home screen immediately.
The Facebook Android app feels a little too iOS flavored to me (the Action Bar sliding in its entirety to the right when you slide in that menu is wack), and Facebook Home looks a little bit iOS flavored as well.
but imho, given they already downgraded the behavior in 4.0, this is really looking like a security hole that might be closed in a next Android release.
I only want this if Zuck's smiling face is at the bottom center of my phone, all the time.
Still, does Facebook having more integration into every aspect of our digital experience really improve our quality of life? I feel like we are already well into an uncanny valley of Facebook saturation.
I guess you could change your facebook profile photo to be Mark's face.
To your question it comes down to whether or not you feel like Facebook improves our quality of life, and whether or not its effects are not already maximized. If you answer yes to both those questions, having Facebook more deeply integrated into your phone might help to maximize the benefits.
Also, if you spend 90% of your time on your phone on Facebook (I don't but I'm sure most geeks are not an accurate representation of the normal user) then you might prefer to have a deeply integrated Facebook phone with access to other apps/services on top of that.
I'm really sad about the still-all-too-walled-garden:
The ideas of active information at a glance is cool, but honestly, for it to be really useful for me, I don't want just FB, and definitely not just photos. I'd be happier with some Flipboard-style article previews, and I'd like some of that information to come from Twitter, Reddit/HN, or even (gasp) Google+.
Similarly chatheads are pretty cool, but with my current set of frequent conversation-partners, it wouldn't be all that useful to me without letting google talk/babble into the mix. (though I appreciate they at least included SMS).
I am also REAL concerned about all the content visible on the lock screen: if you misplace your phone, suddenly all your friends' "friends only" posts are "friends + that guy who found/stole my friend's phone".
... and overall I'm just fundamentally torn. On the one hand the whole idea just screams "Digiphrenia". Their own advertisement supported this better than I could articulate. On the other hand, I still fundamentally am excited about the base idea of keeping people actively connected and am pretty onboard for the people-first focus.
I do think replacing the launcher was a smart idea, but I'm just not sure if that kind of integration is useful in FB's case. Maybe I'm a minority, but I just don't route my life through FB and do not want to, at all. This only seems useful to people who exclusively use their phone for FB. Why would I want a layer of FB between me and the home screen where all my other apps live?
The UI did look pretty slick, though at times it seemed like some elements were quite tiny for touch targets.
Depends on what sort of permissions FB asks for on install.
My suspicion is that they'll want everything they can get their hands on (location at a minimum). Eventually, they're going to want to replace your phonebook, etc.
They definitely want to replace your phone book. Perhaps even your address book (take me to where Jon R's office - even Siri would balk b/c you likely would not have his office address in your addy book).
If the accuracy was high, these would be killer features for many people.
Homescreens definitely can improve on phones. A huge multipage listing of Apps I have seems very inefficient. And while I'm nervous with this being from FB, I hope we see more unique home screens popping up.
I think Facebook is moving in the right direction on this, but I do agree that it is concerning that Facebook could become the jump off point for users.
Agreed, when I read the article I came to the conclusion that Facebook just defined a new "something", not channel but maybe an aspect is a better description, to the app ecosystem.
I hate lauding Facebook but this really seems like they are getting all the upside of forking Android or doing their own hardware with almost none of the downside (massive engineering costs).
Facebook Home IMO might as well have been targeted towards the teen crowd. They would eat this up. The most used apps on their devices usually are Facebook, Messaging, Twitter, Instagram, Browser.
There are some interesting parallels to the Windows Phone UI here. As I understand it (and I don't own a Windows Phone), Microsoft's intent was to provide a UX that is more social and tied to user tasks rather than apps. Facebook Home looks like they use a similar underlying concept, with a stronger focus on social interactions rather than user tasks. Apps are still there, but are not the main focus.
I rarely use the Facebook app on my phone, so I'm not their target audience. However, I've seen a fair number of teens and young adults absorbed in the Facebook app on their Android phones (yup, Android, more than iPhones, because they're cheaper). So it will really be interesting to see if that audience takes to Facebook Home too.
I think that this is a smart move by Facebook building a layer over Android. At least at this stage anyway because, they’ve now positioned themselves in a great position because they’ve made it harder for Google to go back on the openness of Android which has allowed them to build Facebook Home in the first place. Likewise, if carriers and users devote a lot of time to the application then, Facebook have bought themselves time to eventually fork Android and create a new revenue stream like, Amazon have done with the Kindle.
"Phones are communication devices and we spend all day message, in today’s appcentric world, messaging is treated like another app."
Seems like I'm not the target audience. I've had some form of cell phone for 12 years now, and I always needed the cheapest possible account/prepaid thing, because I don't call/SMS enough. If they gave 1000 SMSes, I guess I had like 990 left at the end of the month.
Until now that is. Now suddenly there is a resource in the cell phone accounts I need lots of: data. Not to message and stuff, but to browse the internet. My most common form of communication on it is on forums and email replies I guess.
So phones got useful for people who don't communicate much over a phone? :)
Interesting. So it is not an OS or UI layer baked into the OS, it is an app with deep integration. In theory you can do it on any Android phone. Starting out with only 5 phones though, so it requires probably a lot of testing and high end specs. They do a lot of things on Android now that you cant on iOS (background processing, replacing Lock and Home screen) that will make Android look better. A lot of interaction that is brand new, and will take time to get to like. In my view, it does turn your phone into a Facebook phone and that might be too much FB for some
I wouldn't mind Facebook messaging being more tightly integrated with my text messaging interface. My android phone lets me put text messages as a widget on my lock screen, for example -- but I can't do that with FB messages, which is something I use a lot more than SMS. Nearly everything else about Facebook I could care less about, but FB messaging is something that my wife and I use a LOT.
Those surprised that Facebook didn't "fork" Android are missing the point: A fork of Android from FB will not probably look like a new OS, but rather a new distribution channel (Play store).
Play is the biggest leverage Google has against OEMs, and FB has to consider that Google could drop any of these apps at a moment's notice (make up a reason).
Here, FB now has a pliant OEM (HTC) and the beginnings of an OEM integration program (it was mentioned in the talk).
How hard would it be for FB to build an app store, as a contingency if nothing else?
Considering the craptastic experience the regular FB app is on Android (seriously, visiting FB in the browser is a better experience), I feel a definite "meh" about this news.
It will track all your data now, this app come installed from OEM's like HTC which would be hard to uninstall and would track all over information all the time. #privacyconcern
The promise with Ice-cream Sandwich was that you can disable any pre-installed app regardless of the skin. They would still take up storage space but for all intents and purposes, they don't exist. From an OEM's point of view, is there a way to circumvent this and still have access to Google Play Store?
I see some people in the comments mentioning, "This is like the native capabilities of a Windows Phone". Without using it I don't know for sure, but I can see that take.
Facebook has always wanted to collect as much personal information from its users as possible. This is a brilliant move to get this data the easiest way possible - they didn't even need create their own phone or even their own OS. Android users - especially teens - will eat this up and FB will instantly be able to gather all the info they want without the target demographic even thinking about the privacy implications.
Facebook has done a great job in recent years developing ways for individuals to absorb more content created by their friends. However, they don't seem to be doing much to encourage people to share or post engaging content....as a data point of one, I find myself sharing things on Facebook significantly less often than I did last year at this time.
Seems like a first step towards a pure-play FB OS, no? Built on Android? Those of you with a significantly greater technical understanding than me (aka, everyone here) may have a better take of what's possible.
Looks interesting, but I don't really see it taking off. I just can't picture normal people thinking "wow, this is just what I needed, I'm so downloading this!"
Is there any word on if facebook will be including advertisements in this at all? It looks very sleek, but having ads come up would be a huge deterant.
I agree with this, even though I have to admit I kind of like the way they designed and integrated interactions with FB functions (double taps, swipes, ecc) in a launcher.
Overall I think what they are doing here is a really smart choice both with creating something that could turn every android phone in a "FB phone", and with FB certified devices.
Are they a slow player? I can't think of many examples of them doing something that seemed like they were playing the long game (this is no doubt in part due to the fact that they're relatively young as a company).
I have to agree. This whole thing puzzles me. The Android FB app is terrible. Absolutely terrible. Some basic functions don't work. Like when someone tags me in a photo and a notification pops up, I click the notification and their app crashes. It can't display a friggin picture from a website. FB is just a website, how can they not get their own app to work with their own website?
Seriously if you cant make an app in Android that works, how are you going to roll your own version of the OS?
So, your definition of lack of imagination is that instead of taking one of the two obvious routes, they instead are doing something different and non-obvious (I don't recall anybody predicting this is what they would do) that gets them much greater bang-for-the-buck than either of the two obvious answers could have gotten, essentially accomplishing all the goals they care about for a fraction of the price?
You and I have very different ideas about what "imagination" looks like.
This solution seems to give them most of the benefits of having their own hardware or OS, without any of the downsides like slow iteration or requiring people to switch phones/carriers.
There is a big gap between the phones on Gingerbread (Android API level 10) and post Ice Cream Sandwich (Android API level 15). Supporting older versions requires a lot of support libraries which themselves have some bugs. I kind of have a feeling that pre-ICS level phones is going to be in someways be like supporting IE6 down the road, so Facebook is just avoiding that.
It's also definitely not a 'handful' of phones. As of right now 55% of users are on the post-ICS versions. (http://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html). The ecosystem has somewhat consolidated post ICS as well. There are now fewer phones each with more users which makes testing easier.
Depends on the OS -- Jellybean is different from Ice Cream Sandwich is different from Gingerbread is different from...
If you want something like this on all Android phones, it's more than just making an app to put in the Google Play store -- it's understanding the ins and outs of the different nuances of each OS...
Android is architected to allow for "deeply intrusive" modifications to the standard Android homescreen. Manufacturers have already done this, as have independent developers like Go Launcher.
As an Android developer, I am happy that I am not seeing yet another Android fork like Kindle Fire, Nook, various Chinese forks etc. I prefer more HTC/Facebook people coming to Play as opposed to setting up yet another app store. If Facebook makes it easy to integrate Intents and such with this (they had some problems in the past), I am sure Android developers will be happy to integrate more with the Facebook API.
I think this is a smart move by Facebook. They started with problems on mobile - junky HTML5 apps which did not integrate well, but as time has gone on they have been making better decisions and doing smarter things. This is just one more good move on their part.
As an aside... I am a big HTC fan. Nice to see them able to get on board at the ground level of some new projects.