5 ms·

The Facebook Phone: It's Finally Real and Its Name is Buffy

44 points by hornokplease 15y ago

mortenjorck 15y ago
Two questions upon which this phone's fate will hinge: 1. Will it offer at least as cohesively a sharing-centered user experience as Microsoft's ill-fated Kin? Microsoft may have shot Kin down shortly after takeoff, but it set the yet-unmet benchmark for a "social phone." 2. Will it launch with low-priced, youth-targeted data plans from carrier partners, Kin's fatal omission?
- nirvana 15y ago
  On your second point, how could Facebook make this happen? Every device maker would like for their device to have low cost data plans... the problem is the networks realize that is the road to being a dumb pipe, something they're desperate to avoid.
  - gonzo 15y ago
    Either by becoming an MVNO or doing something like Amazon's Whispernet.
    - wmf 15y ago
      I could imagine a Facebook MVNO where they sell the data plan below cost and try to make it up with ads.
mrspandex 15y ago
My Windows Phone uses Facebook contacts to augment my contact list and integrates their Twitter and Facebook updates, shows my Facebook photo albums, and allows me to check in or post updates to Facebook and Twitter. I'm sure Android/iOS offer similar functionality. What more could a Facebook phone launched this late in the game really offer other than lock-in?
jnhnum1 15y ago
It's not "finally real" until it's released. According to this article, it's at least a year away.
colinsidoti 15y ago
I just wrote about this a few days ago: http://colinsidoti.com/2011/11/dear-mark-zuckerberg-re-facebook-phone/ http://colinsidoti.com/2011/11/dear-mark-zuckerberg-re-faceb... Very excited to see the features they plan to build out. Specifically, giving developers direct access to handsets seems like it would open some cool possibilities.
nirvana 15y ago
I think it really is a mistake for Facebook, and in fact, Google, and allegedly Amazon, to be making mobile phones. Apple and Microsoft are different in a lot of ways, but their core business is making operating systems for personal computers. Apple makes the whole widget, but Microsoft focuses on the OS and licenses it out. Different business models, but much the same business. It's not surprising that Apple and Microsoft, as a result, have the two best Phone Operating Systems as well as the two most popular Desktop operating systems. What is google's core business? Advertising. What is Facebooks? Advertising What is Amazon's? Retailing All of these, of course, have some overlap with Apple and Microsoft. Amazon is increasingly selling digital goods, Microsoft got into the search business (a failure that is illustrative of my point, btw.) What is the key value add that Facebook can add to a phone that nobody else can? Deeper integration with Facebook. Is that compelling? For a phone? Certainly useful... but why make the tradeoffs? The same thing is true with Google. The original iPhone shipped with google in every place it wanted to be-- providing maps, providing youtube video app, built in, as the only option for search, and consequently, also, the primary mobile advertising opportunity. Apple didn't try to keep google out, Apple partnered with google, at a very high level, and gave google unique access to its device. I cannot think of any other company whose key products Apple ships as default on the iPhone. Apple's still shipping google maps (or actually Apple Maps app, backed by google) But, notice, despite the deep integration of Twitter in iOS 5, Apple doesn't ship the twitter client. Even before there was a third party Apps business, Apple gave Google premium positioning for its services in the OS. What does google have, fundamentally, to offer to the phone industry that nobody else can offer? Better search? A better maps app? As I've pointed out, Apple let google have prime real estate to get that distribution. It is only after Google decided to compete with Apple that Apple bought an advertising company, and started buying mapping companies, and started offering Bing and Yahoo as alternate search engines in Mobile Safari (or maybe I'm wrong and they're not even doing that, can't remember.) Success comes form being focused. Facebook is increasingly becoming very distracting and kinda pointless. The things my friends share that I care about are buried, and Facebook arbitrarily decides not to show me many status updates from some of my friends.... meanwhile BS is at the top of the feed all the time. Google's search results are in a marked decline. The advertising business is going like gangbusters, but Google is getting less and less useful as a search platform. And now they're going to start making their own hardware? Further, what's the business model? Apple and Microsoft have been very successful selling operating systems (though Apple packages them with the hardware.) Nobody has been nearly close to as successful giving away software for free. Google and Facebook have to plow most of their R&D budget into their core businesses, so they can't compete (and in googles case, so far haven't' been able to compete) with Apple (and to a lesser extent, Microsoft) in adding key features to their phone operating systems. I think the folly of Apple, trying to make its own desktop CPUs is another good example. Even when partnered with Motorola and IBM-- two heavyweights-- and a superior technology base-- they were unable to remain competitive with Intel simply because Intel is able to plow so much money into their CPU business. The CPU Business is core for Intel. The OS business is core for Apple and Microsoft. The devices business is core for Apple and Microsoft's partners. IT isn't for Google, Amazon or Facebook. They might be successful making phones, to some extent, but they will be taking their eyes off the ball when it comes to their core businesses.
brd 15y ago
So Zuckerburg et al have reiterated again and again that they are a platform, that their strategy is horizontal, that they want to be tethered to no specific device or service. At least we can sleep soundly knowing the company managing everyone's personal data is an honest one...?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
tobtoh 15y ago
Whilst I can see why a Facebook Phone looks really promising from FB's perspective, to me, buying a Facebook phone because I like using FB is akin to buying a Coca Cola branded and manufactured car because I like drinking soda/soft drink.
- gonzo 15y ago
  Let's remember that the car companies >are< partnering with / branding with companies like Harley Davidson, Eddie Bauer, Orvis, etc. (Jeep has a Call of Duty: Black Ops branded Wrangler coming out next year.) A "Facebook"-branded phone isn't such a long-shot, especially since Facebook is attempting to be your email/messaging/contacts database/... provider as well. Likely as not Facebook will take a cue from Amazon, and produce a Android-no-Google phone (no Google maps, no GMail app, no Marketplace, basically nothing that requires a google authentication event. These will all be replaced by FB services.)
- rewind 15y ago
  A phone is a computer used to access Facebook. I don't see how the car/Coke comparison is the same. They have nothing to do with each other.
  - BvS 15y ago
    Make it a refrigerator instead of a car.
    - jQueryIsAwesome 15y ago
      You know that Coca-Cola does make millions of refrigerators for its distributors right?
- r00fus 15y ago
  I suppose when Coca-cola makes it compelling for consumers to buy their car (ie, making the beverage better while driving "compatible" car), they can advertise it. However, even WinPhone7 with deep FB integration didn't seem to really catch on with users (or at least, that wasn't a standout feature that brought users in). Perhaps FB will stop updating their iOS/Android apps just to make Buffy look better?
funkah 15y ago
It would be cool to see whether they use all that design talent they've been snapping up on this project.
latchkey 15y ago
Does Facebook have the ability to produce software with the required level of quality necessary to ship in consumer hardware devices? I've worked with their API's, which are core to their business, and they tend to be inconsistently implemented, changed at will and have high rates of failure. The existing culture of 'whatever, just ship it' would never produce a phone that is bug free enough to ship.
- seiji 15y ago
  First phone with a php, mysql, and memcache based operating system?
mahmud 15y ago
Buffy: The Privacy Slayer.
iradik 15y ago
And so the Internet gets a little more fragmented...
Apocryphon 15y ago
I don't really understand this because: 1. The HTC Status already exists 2. Every single modern smartphone is trying to integrate multiple social networks more tightly (which includes competing non-FB networks) I had previously thought that the Status made sense as something cheap for kids- like the Kin, and as a test device prior to a game-changer- like the ROKR. My previously assumption is that FB will either come up with its own OS (doubtful) or even buy WebOS. To release yet another branded Android phone seems a bit unrevolutionary from a rising star.

44 points by hornokplease 15y ago

Two questions upon which this phone's fate will hinge: 1. Will it offer at least as cohesively a sharing-centered user experience as Microsoft's ill-fated Kin? Microsoft may have shot Kin down shortly after takeoff, but it set the yet-unmet benchmark for a "social phone." 2. Will it launch with low-priced, youth-targeted data plans from carrier partners, Kin's fatal omission?

nirvana 15y ago
On your second point, how could Facebook make this happen? Every device maker would like for their device to have low cost data plans... the problem is the networks realize that is the road to being a dumb pipe, something they're desperate to avoid.
- gonzo 15y ago
  Either by becoming an MVNO or doing something like Amazon's Whispernet.
  - wmf 15y ago
    I could imagine a Facebook MVNO where they sell the data plan below cost and try to make it up with ads.

mrspandex 15y ago

My Windows Phone uses Facebook contacts to augment my contact list and integrates their Twitter and Facebook updates, shows my Facebook photo albums, and allows me to check in or post updates to Facebook and Twitter. I'm sure Android/iOS offer similar functionality. What more could a Facebook phone launched this late in the game really offer other than lock-in?

jnhnum1 15y ago

It's not "finally real" until it's released. According to this article, it's at least a year away.

colinsidoti 15y ago

I just wrote about this a few days ago: http://colinsidoti.com/2011/11/dear-mark-zuckerberg-re-facebook-phone/ http://colinsidoti.com/2011/11/dear-mark-zuckerberg-re-faceb... Very excited to see the features they plan to build out. Specifically, giving developers direct access to handsets seems like it would open some cool possibilities.

nirvana 15y ago

I think it really is a mistake for Facebook, and in fact, Google, and allegedly Amazon, to be making mobile phones. Apple and Microsoft are different in a lot of ways, but their core business is making operating systems for personal computers. Apple makes the whole widget, but Microsoft focuses on the OS and licenses it out. Different business models, but much the same business. It's not surprising that Apple and Microsoft, as a result, have the two best Phone Operating Systems as well as the two most popular Desktop operating systems. What is google's core business? Advertising. What is Facebooks? Advertising What is Amazon's? Retailing All of these, of course, have some overlap with Apple and Microsoft. Amazon is increasingly selling digital goods, Microsoft got into the search business (a failure that is illustrative of my point, btw.) What is the key value add that Facebook can add to a phone that nobody else can? Deeper integration with Facebook. Is that compelling? For a phone? Certainly useful... but why make the tradeoffs? The same thing is true with Google. The original iPhone shipped with google in every place it wanted to be-- providing maps, providing youtube video app, built in, as the only option for search, and consequently, also, the primary mobile advertising opportunity. Apple didn't try to keep google out, Apple partnered with google, at a very high level, and gave google unique access to its device. I cannot think of any other company whose key products Apple ships as default on the iPhone. Apple's still shipping google maps (or actually Apple Maps app, backed by google) But, notice, despite the deep integration of Twitter in iOS 5, Apple doesn't ship the twitter client. Even before there was a third party Apps business, Apple gave Google premium positioning for its services in the OS. What does google have, fundamentally, to offer to the phone industry that nobody else can offer? Better search? A better maps app? As I've pointed out, Apple let google have prime real estate to get that distribution. It is only after Google decided to compete with Apple that Apple bought an advertising company, and started buying mapping companies, and started offering Bing and Yahoo as alternate search engines in Mobile Safari (or maybe I'm wrong and they're not even doing that, can't remember.) Success comes form being focused. Facebook is increasingly becoming very distracting and kinda pointless. The things my friends share that I care about are buried, and Facebook arbitrarily decides not to show me many status updates from some of my friends.... meanwhile BS is at the top of the feed all the time. Google's search results are in a marked decline. The advertising business is going like gangbusters, but Google is getting less and less useful as a search platform. And now they're going to start making their own hardware? Further, what's the business model? Apple and Microsoft have been very successful selling operating systems (though Apple packages them with the hardware.) Nobody has been nearly close to as successful giving away software for free. Google and Facebook have to plow most of their R&D budget into their core businesses, so they can't compete (and in googles case, so far haven't' been able to compete) with Apple (and to a lesser extent, Microsoft) in adding key features to their phone operating systems. I think the folly of Apple, trying to make its own desktop CPUs is another good example. Even when partnered with Motorola and IBM-- two heavyweights-- and a superior technology base-- they were unable to remain competitive with Intel simply because Intel is able to plow so much money into their CPU business. The CPU Business is core for Intel. The OS business is core for Apple and Microsoft. The devices business is core for Apple and Microsoft's partners. IT isn't for Google, Amazon or Facebook. They might be successful making phones, to some extent, but they will be taking their eyes off the ball when it comes to their core businesses.

brd 15y ago

So Zuckerburg et al have reiterated again and again that they are a platform, that their strategy is horizontal, that they want to be tethered to no specific device or service. At least we can sleep soundly knowing the company managing everyone's personal data is an honest one...?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

tobtoh 15y ago

Whilst I can see why a Facebook Phone looks really promising from FB's perspective, to me, buying a Facebook phone because I like using FB is akin to buying a Coca Cola branded and manufactured car because I like drinking soda/soft drink.

gonzo 15y ago
Let's remember that the car companies >are< partnering with / branding with companies like Harley Davidson, Eddie Bauer, Orvis, etc. (Jeep has a Call of Duty: Black Ops branded Wrangler coming out next year.) A "Facebook"-branded phone isn't such a long-shot, especially since Facebook is attempting to be your email/messaging/contacts database/... provider as well. Likely as not Facebook will take a cue from Amazon, and produce a Android-no-Google phone (no Google maps, no GMail app, no Marketplace, basically nothing that requires a google authentication event. These will all be replaced by FB services.)
rewind 15y ago
A phone is a computer used to access Facebook. I don't see how the car/Coke comparison is the same. They have nothing to do with each other.
- BvS 15y ago
  Make it a refrigerator instead of a car.
  - jQueryIsAwesome 15y ago
    You know that Coca-Cola does make millions of refrigerators for its distributors right?
r00fus 15y ago
I suppose when Coca-cola makes it compelling for consumers to buy their car (ie, making the beverage better while driving "compatible" car), they can advertise it. However, even WinPhone7 with deep FB integration didn't seem to really catch on with users (or at least, that wasn't a standout feature that brought users in). Perhaps FB will stop updating their iOS/Android apps just to make Buffy look better?

funkah 15y ago

It would be cool to see whether they use all that design talent they've been snapping up on this project.

latchkey 15y ago

Does Facebook have the ability to produce software with the required level of quality necessary to ship in consumer hardware devices? I've worked with their API's, which are core to their business, and they tend to be inconsistently implemented, changed at will and have high rates of failure. The existing culture of 'whatever, just ship it' would never produce a phone that is bug free enough to ship.

seiji 15y ago
First phone with a php, mysql, and memcache based operating system?

mahmud 15y ago

Buffy: The Privacy Slayer.

iradik 15y ago

And so the Internet gets a little more fragmented...

Apocryphon 15y ago

I don't really understand this because: 1. The HTC Status already exists 2. Every single modern smartphone is trying to integrate multiple social networks more tightly (which includes competing non-FB networks) I had previously thought that the Status made sense as something cheap for kids- like the Kin, and as a test device prior to a game-changer- like the ROKR. My previously assumption is that FB will either come up with its own OS (doubtful) or even buy WebOS. To release yet another branded Android phone seems a bit unrevolutionary from a rising star.