5 ms·

It's easy to look like a visionary leader when people will rewrite history for you. Facebook was famously late to mobile and almost missed the boat. Luckily, th

by jjeaff 3y ago

It's easy to look like a visionary leader when people will rewrite history for you. Facebook was famously late to mobile and almost missed the boat. Luckily, they had the resources to plow into catching up around 2012.

nine_k 3y ago
Who were the mobile pioneers who blazed the trail? Where are they now? Let's exclude Apple and Google from the competition because they own the mobile platforms.
- fyrn_ 3y ago
  They own the mobile platforms because they blazed the trail as you put it. That was the prize they were competing for, Meta was late with the HTC First / Facebook phone, and so they lost. Of course they would have liked to own their own little mobile fiefdom, they are incredibly valuable platforms
  - nine_k 3y ago
    I honestly don't think there is a room for a third commercial mobile platform, after Apple started the smartphone market, and Google caught up soon enough after. Even strong and entrenched players like Palm, Nokia (with Tizen) and even BlackBerry could not hold. In 2007, Facebook was way, way less mighty, and by 2012, it was late. Speaking of Windows Phone: it had great hardware and good, innovative software. It's Microsoft's bureaucratic ineptitude that killed it, not its (possible lack of) merit.
    - tensor 3y ago
      Was it really Microsoft that killed Windows phone? Or was it simply just too late. By the time it was really available I'm not sure there was actually a chance for a third platform to survive.
      - nine_k 3y ago
        Windows Phone had enough ardent and faithful followers even after it was officially discontinued. I'd say that it's the moving too slowly and not focussing on getting some key apps working on WinMobile did not let the platform win some mobile.
      - nix0n 3y ago
        If it's the delay that killed it, that's really still an unforced error. They had Windows CE in the 90s, and Windows Mobile in the 2000s. They were in a good place to be able to release a smartphone in time.
        jjeaff 3y ago
        They were too early, and then too late. CE and Mobile just never had devices with enough processing power or good enough hardware UI to make them viable and enticing for developers.
        hnfong 3y ago
        In retrospect, after understanding more about tech history, I suspect the leadership of Steve Ballmer during the vital period in the late 2000s and Bill Gates' spending less time on Microsoft probably had something to do with this as well. According to reported stories, Bill used to be really good at understanding how to squeeze the last drop of performance from slow hardware, a vital skill to have in the 1980s, yet subsequently became less important when desktops became fast enough. If they had Bill Gates leading the technical direction of the mobile OSes, the extra focus on speed optimization might have been what would have allowed Microsoft to do better during the smartphone wars. All speculation though.
      - jemmyw 3y ago
        Their versioning seemed like a big problem and caused a loss of faith in the platform. They had an incompatible version jump and then another odd thing going on around the next version.
    - dboreham 3y ago
      Apple didn't start the smartphone market. There were smartphones for many years prior to the iPhone.
      - catiopatio 3y ago
        Apple started what we would recognize as the modern smartphone market. Before that, we had things like the danger hiptop and blackberries. Incomparable.
        qwytw 3y ago
        Windows Mobile was more advanced compared to the initial iPhone in almost every way (to be fair it wasn't a particularly useful device on launch). Of course the whole is more than just a sum of it's parts.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - distances 3y ago
      > Even strong and entrenched players like Palm, Nokia (with Tizen) and even BlackBerry could not hold. What do you mean Nokia with Tizen? Tizen was Samsung's attempt at continuing with Linux after Nokia abandoned MeeGo. Nokia was the massive smartphone market leader with Symbian, but was a hardware company at heart and couldn't keep up with Android which ate its lunch by giving all the competitors a free, competitive operating system. Before Android came along the competition didn't really have much choice as they were even worse at software than Nokia was. Who knows, without Android the landscape might still today be Nokia & Apple sharing the market -- or maybe Windows Phone would've managed to become the second system.
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    Palm, Blackberry and Windows PocketPC blazed the trail. iOS and Android were relatively latecomers that arrived with a more competitive product (iOS because it was much better than the previous generation, and Android because it borrowed the ideas from iOS and was free.)
    - basch 3y ago
      capacitive touch and momentum scrolling were the differentiating factors. Windows CE 4 was way ahead of iphoneOS 1, 5 years earlier.
      - jjeaff 3y ago
        I've never thought of momentum scrolling as a paradigm shift. But now that I think about it, it is a pretty amazing feature.
    - slenk 3y ago
      Apple and Android both steal ideas from each other.
- joezydeco 3y ago
  Snapchat? Instagram?
- sushid 3y ago
  Not sure if you were using Facebook in 2012/2013 but their implementation was horrendous. Everyone bemoaned its lack of true mobile first design while other apps were responsive and sleek.
  - nine_k 3y ago
    I did (occasionally), and I agree.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
neel8986 3y ago
I am talking about jumping to create a family of mobile apps that dominate the data day to day usage of mobile. They lost their chance of owning a mobile OS which they are suffering till now
- jjeaff 3y ago
  Yes, that is what I was talking about. They were late creating a mobile presence for Facebook. Then of course, Instagram and WhatsApp were both acquisitions. Definitely good acquisitions, but pretty obvious ones. They luckily had plenty of money at the time to plow into the already successful Insta and WhatsApp mobile apps.
  - hnfong 3y ago
    IIRC the Facebook "mobile app" was originally just a glorified webview that was slow and didn't integrate well with the native experience. It took them a couple years to fix most things. And their UI (mobile and web) still suck for lesser used features to this day. Not the "doesn't look good" kind of suck, but "they forgot to put in the submit button" kind suck.

by jjeaff 3y ago

nine_k 3y ago

Who were the mobile pioneers who blazed the trail? Where are they now? Let's exclude Apple and Google from the competition because they own the mobile platforms.

fyrn_ 3y ago
They own the mobile platforms because they blazed the trail as you put it. That was the prize they were competing for, Meta was late with the HTC First / Facebook phone, and so they lost. Of course they would have liked to own their own little mobile fiefdom, they are incredibly valuable platforms
- nine_k 3y ago
  I honestly don't think there is a room for a third commercial mobile platform, after Apple started the smartphone market, and Google caught up soon enough after. Even strong and entrenched players like Palm, Nokia (with Tizen) and even BlackBerry could not hold. In 2007, Facebook was way, way less mighty, and by 2012, it was late. Speaking of Windows Phone: it had great hardware and good, innovative software. It's Microsoft's bureaucratic ineptitude that killed it, not its (possible lack of) merit.
  - tensor 3y ago
    Was it really Microsoft that killed Windows phone? Or was it simply just too late. By the time it was really available I'm not sure there was actually a chance for a third platform to survive.
    - nine_k 3y ago
      Windows Phone had enough ardent and faithful followers even after it was officially discontinued. I'd say that it's the moving too slowly and not focussing on getting some key apps working on WinMobile did not let the platform win some mobile.
    - nix0n 3y ago
      If it's the delay that killed it, that's really still an unforced error. They had Windows CE in the 90s, and Windows Mobile in the 2000s. They were in a good place to be able to release a smartphone in time.
      - jjeaff 3y ago
        They were too early, and then too late. CE and Mobile just never had devices with enough processing power or good enough hardware UI to make them viable and enticing for developers.
        hnfong 3y ago
        In retrospect, after understanding more about tech history, I suspect the leadership of Steve Ballmer during the vital period in the late 2000s and Bill Gates' spending less time on Microsoft probably had something to do with this as well. According to reported stories, Bill used to be really good at understanding how to squeeze the last drop of performance from slow hardware, a vital skill to have in the 1980s, yet subsequently became less important when desktops became fast enough. If they had Bill Gates leading the technical direction of the mobile OSes, the extra focus on speed optimization might have been what would have allowed Microsoft to do better during the smartphone wars. All speculation though.
    - jemmyw 3y ago
      Their versioning seemed like a big problem and caused a loss of faith in the platform. They had an incompatible version jump and then another odd thing going on around the next version.
  - dboreham 3y ago
    Apple didn't start the smartphone market. There were smartphones for many years prior to the iPhone.
    - catiopatio 3y ago
      Apple started what we would recognize as the modern smartphone market. Before that, we had things like the danger hiptop and blackberries. Incomparable.
      - qwytw 3y ago
        Windows Mobile was more advanced compared to the initial iPhone in almost every way (to be fair it wasn't a particularly useful device on launch). Of course the whole is more than just a sum of it's parts.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - distances 3y ago
    > Even strong and entrenched players like Palm, Nokia (with Tizen) and even BlackBerry could not hold. What do you mean Nokia with Tizen? Tizen was Samsung's attempt at continuing with Linux after Nokia abandoned MeeGo. Nokia was the massive smartphone market leader with Symbian, but was a hardware company at heart and couldn't keep up with Android which ate its lunch by giving all the competitors a free, competitive operating system. Before Android came along the competition didn't really have much choice as they were even worse at software than Nokia was. Who knows, without Android the landscape might still today be Nokia & Apple sharing the market -- or maybe Windows Phone would've managed to become the second system.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  Palm, Blackberry and Windows PocketPC blazed the trail. iOS and Android were relatively latecomers that arrived with a more competitive product (iOS because it was much better than the previous generation, and Android because it borrowed the ideas from iOS and was free.)
  - basch 3y ago
    capacitive touch and momentum scrolling were the differentiating factors. Windows CE 4 was way ahead of iphoneOS 1, 5 years earlier.
    - jjeaff 3y ago
      I've never thought of momentum scrolling as a paradigm shift. But now that I think about it, it is a pretty amazing feature.
  - slenk 3y ago
    Apple and Android both steal ideas from each other.
joezydeco 3y ago
Snapchat? Instagram?
sushid 3y ago
Not sure if you were using Facebook in 2012/2013 but their implementation was horrendous. Everyone bemoaned its lack of true mobile first design while other apps were responsive and sleek.
- nine_k 3y ago
  I did (occasionally), and I agree.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

neel8986 3y ago

I am talking about jumping to create a family of mobile apps that dominate the data day to day usage of mobile. They lost their chance of owning a mobile OS which they are suffering till now

jjeaff 3y ago
Yes, that is what I was talking about. They were late creating a mobile presence for Facebook. Then of course, Instagram and WhatsApp were both acquisitions. Definitely good acquisitions, but pretty obvious ones. They luckily had plenty of money at the time to plow into the already successful Insta and WhatsApp mobile apps.
- hnfong 3y ago
  IIRC the Facebook "mobile app" was originally just a glorified webview that was slow and didn't integrate well with the native experience. It took them a couple years to fix most things. And their UI (mobile and web) still suck for lesser used features to this day. Not the "doesn't look good" kind of suck, but "they forgot to put in the submit button" kind suck.