7 ms·

Facebook HQ Urges Employees to Ditch iPhone for Android

69 points by neya 14y ago

polskibus 14y ago
Android will soon be the linux of the client-side world. Ubiquitous, cheap OS. Facebook HQ wants to get into all Android devices, not just the mobile phones, hence the push on their employees. "eat your own dog food" is a good strategy for any software house.
paulgb 14y ago
The headline is misleading, they're encouraging more employees to use Android, but not encouraging everyone to switch. I'm not sure if it has changed since 2010, but when I was with the company you could choose between iPhone or BlackBerry as a company phone. The lack of Android choices was directly responsible IMHO for the Android app sucking.
- mememememememe 14y ago
  I think it was intentional. "Facebook urged its employees in August to switch from iOS devices to Android so that flaws in the company’s mobile app could be addressed more rapidly." That statement was ironic. Satire, anyone? Maybe that's the reason why my FB app on Android is getting better? LOL Google Plus' iPad app sucks to the bottom...... now I wonder what's the correlation...
  - mememememememe 14y ago
    Why am I getting ridiculous downvote? What part is not true?
timr 14y ago
Ah, irony. It's more than a little amusing that the people writing the software need to be "encouraged" to use the platform that's more popular (by shipments). Even in the days of Mac-vs-Windows, it wasn't really true that developers needed to be encouraged to write code for Windows. They migrated to the more popular platform, because that's where the action was. But these days, the action is in iOS, and Android is a clear second-tier player (amongst developers). The fact that Android is shipping more units is almost incidental. In software, this pattern is historically kind of weird, but in consumer products, it's par for the course -- new innovations come out in high-end products, and eventually filter down to the masses. Perhaps this is a sign that software is finally becoming a commodity industry.
- mdasen 14y ago
  I think there are a few reasons for this. First, there is the question of where Android's growth is. Apple is clearly going for the $200 price point on-contract. Yes, they sell their old models, but Android has a more diverse ecosystem. If we limited ourselves to equivalents (the top of the line iPhone and the several top of the line Android devices (Nexus 4, One X, GS III, etc.)) would there be so many more Android shipments? So, Android's shipments might be coming more on the low-end: the end that people like us don't purchase from as much. Second, in the Mac vs. Windows era, there was a significant price disparity. If you're in the market for a top-of-the-line smartphone on-contract today, you're likely paying $200 for an Android phone or iPhone. Windows computers always had a significant price discount over equivalent Macs. Third, in the Mac vs. Windows era, Macs often were under-spec'd. While Apple tried to make the best of the 603-G5 processors, Intel was just on a roll. You'd pay more and end up with less muscle. Today, the iPhone's A6 matches the quad-cores that Americans haven't been getting since LTE took precedence over quad-core in the GS III generation. Fourth, in the Mac vs. PC era, Macs were technologically inferior for many years. I'm specifically talking about the Classic Mac OS. Mac OS 8/9 was beautiful. Windows looked like it was designed in crayon by comparison (to me). However, its cooperative multitasking was just sad. Windows 95 really showed that OSs could be better (even if I thought that its UI was sub-par). When OS X and Windows XP came out, OS X was dog-slow - slow to the point of unusable. Apple really improved it and made it into the OS that many of us (myself included) love today. However, I remember 2001 and how envious I was of Windows users. Fifth, in the Mac vs. PC era, Macs were app-poor. There was just a lot of compelling stuff that you couldn't run as a Mac user. The move toward the web changed a lot of that and left Apple with a great way back into the market. With the iPhone, I find that the iPhone does a better job on web pages than Android (note, I haven't used Android 4.1 and 4.2). Stats on web usage on mobile phones seem to bear this out as iPhone web browsing tends to dominate Android web browsing. Likewise, the iPhone at least matches Android on apps, but I think it could be argued to be the primary platform for apps. So, there isn't a penalty to using an iPhone in the way that there was a penalty to using a Mac in the Mac vs. PC era. Basically, the iPhone isn't more expensive at the top-of-the-line, the iPhone has specs that no one would deny are top of the line, iOS isn't an inferior OS (personal preference about certain features aside), and there isn't a penalty to using iOS (if anything, it could be considered the first platform). None of this is meant to say that the iPhone is better than an Android phone. I don't care what you enjoy using. It's meant to demonstrate that iOS doesn't have the same cost premium, that if we limit ourselves to the devices that people like us buy the marketshare disparity might not be there, that even if iOS is a minority platform it still gets as good attention or better from developers, the specs are equivalent which they weren't in computers for a long time, and iOS and Android are both great modern OSs. If you were an early adopter, iOS came a couple years before Android. In the Mac vs. PC era, Windows was more popular not just because popularity breeds popularity. It was hugely cheaper, better spec'd, and a superior OS for a good while. If you loved computing, Apple's tidyness might have been well out-shadowed by Windows 95's multi-tasking, app availability, price, specs, etc. If you like iOS, why choose an Android device as your next phone? No reason really. Similarly, there aren't compelling reasons if you like Android to buy an iPhone - Android phones today have high-res displays, are starting to get serious on build quality, similar specs, etc. It wasn't hard to convince a Mac user in 2000 to switch to Windows: you got a better OS, more apps, a faster computer, for half the price. I could convince people to switch to Windows with good, logical arguments that really rang true. Today, how would you convince an iPhone user to switch to Android? I'm not saying Android is bad, just that it's a lot harder to make that argument.
jedberg 14y ago
Part of the problem is that there isn't just one Android, there are many, and they all behave just slightly differently. Testing on Android is a nightmare because of this. I wish Google would make some efforts at fixing this problem -- it's the same problem Microsoft had with Windows. Windows on each piece of hardware was just slightly different and made testing just as hard. Google, please learn Microsoft's lesson and make this easier for developers.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > Part of the problem is that there isn't just one Android, there are many, and they all behave just slightly differently. Testing on Android is a nightmare because of this. In my experience, this issue is overblown, especially with Android 4.0+. Unless you're developing a game, the hardware differences should not be a huge concern. The Facebook app certainly shouldn't have problems because of this. > I wish Google would make some efforts at fixing this problem Google has and can have no control over how Android is implemented or updated by various OEMs, particularly when carriers are dictating terms. And when Google tries to go around the carriers, like they did with the Nexus 4, they get crucified for the lack of LTE. Seems to me they're between a rock and a hard place. Hopefully their plan to launch a wireless carrier with Dish Network will pan out and things will get better.
  - seiji 14y ago
    > especially with Android 4.0+. Is it partially because so many recent phones aren't able to update that the testing field narrows considerably?
  - nahname 14y ago
    Testing a few hundred devices ranging in age from 1 to 4 years old on Android isn't great. Where it becomes a tough pill to swallow is when you compare it relatively to the iOS experience. The number of devices are just a fraction, users update almost instantly and the older devices have a matching ratio for screen size. You also get the added bonus of nearly all apple products having a planned obsolescence of about two years.
jolohaga 14y ago
Inferiority complex.
sambeau 14y ago
I'm sure Mike Matas and all the other rock star & ex-Apple designers they have hired will be cock-a-hoop about that.
eshvk 14y ago
Are they buying people Androids a la Google style?
ChuckMcM 14y ago
Given that Microsoft investment in Facebook [1] I am a bit surprised there isn't more interplay there. Seems WinPhone could use a killer Facebook app, kind of a win/win for the investor. [1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21458486/ns/business-us_business/t/microsoft-invests-million-facebook/#.ULKUm4fAeQA http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21458486/ns/business-us_business...
- NameNickHN 14y ago
  I don't think it would be wise for Microsoft to interfere with Facebook's day-to-day activities and Microsoft probably knows this.
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    Can you say a bit more about that? I am interested in how Facebook creating a killer product for one of their strategic investors can be construed as 'interference' ?
    - flyt 14y ago
      Facebook already integrates with Microsoft products: Bing is a search option on their site, and all of their embedded maps (Events, etc) use Bing Maps. On the MSFT side, Windows Phone has always included deep integration with Facebook since the start, and their most recent acquisition, Skype, is the provider of video chat for Facebook's in-browser client. Both companies already integrate with each other in multiple areas, and Facebook employees almost certainly aren't discouraged from using WP7/8 on their personal devices. The market realities (low market share, existing integration in the OS with no standalone, third party app to support) means that there's no need to push this on employees over iOS/Android.
    - pedalpete 14y ago
      I think things for the most part just don't work this way in larger companies. Facebook needs to focus on what is best for their business. Pandering to investors could interfere with the long-term success of the business. Also, the Windows Facebook app and integration is already pretty awesome.
STRiDEX 14y ago
FB has many employees that are not engineers! These are the people the posters are targeting.

69 points by neya 14y ago

Android will soon be the linux of the client-side world. Ubiquitous, cheap OS. Facebook HQ wants to get into all Android devices, not just the mobile phones, hence the push on their employees. "eat your own dog food" is a good strategy for any software house.

paulgb 14y ago

The headline is misleading, they're encouraging more employees to use Android, but not encouraging everyone to switch. I'm not sure if it has changed since 2010, but when I was with the company you could choose between iPhone or BlackBerry as a company phone. The lack of Android choices was directly responsible IMHO for the Android app sucking.

mememememememe 14y ago
I think it was intentional. "Facebook urged its employees in August to switch from iOS devices to Android so that flaws in the company’s mobile app could be addressed more rapidly." That statement was ironic. Satire, anyone? Maybe that's the reason why my FB app on Android is getting better? LOL Google Plus' iPad app sucks to the bottom...... now I wonder what's the correlation...
- mememememememe 14y ago
  Why am I getting ridiculous downvote? What part is not true?

timr 14y ago

Ah, irony. It's more than a little amusing that the people writing the software need to be "encouraged" to use the platform that's more popular (by shipments). Even in the days of Mac-vs-Windows, it wasn't really true that developers needed to be encouraged to write code for Windows. They migrated to the more popular platform, because that's where the action was. But these days, the action is in iOS, and Android is a clear second-tier player (amongst developers). The fact that Android is shipping more units is almost incidental. In software, this pattern is historically kind of weird, but in consumer products, it's par for the course -- new innovations come out in high-end products, and eventually filter down to the masses. Perhaps this is a sign that software is finally becoming a commodity industry.

mdasen 14y ago
I think there are a few reasons for this. First, there is the question of where Android's growth is. Apple is clearly going for the $200 price point on-contract. Yes, they sell their old models, but Android has a more diverse ecosystem. If we limited ourselves to equivalents (the top of the line iPhone and the several top of the line Android devices (Nexus 4, One X, GS III, etc.)) would there be so many more Android shipments? So, Android's shipments might be coming more on the low-end: the end that people like us don't purchase from as much. Second, in the Mac vs. Windows era, there was a significant price disparity. If you're in the market for a top-of-the-line smartphone on-contract today, you're likely paying $200 for an Android phone or iPhone. Windows computers always had a significant price discount over equivalent Macs. Third, in the Mac vs. Windows era, Macs often were under-spec'd. While Apple tried to make the best of the 603-G5 processors, Intel was just on a roll. You'd pay more and end up with less muscle. Today, the iPhone's A6 matches the quad-cores that Americans haven't been getting since LTE took precedence over quad-core in the GS III generation. Fourth, in the Mac vs. PC era, Macs were technologically inferior for many years. I'm specifically talking about the Classic Mac OS. Mac OS 8/9 was beautiful. Windows looked like it was designed in crayon by comparison (to me). However, its cooperative multitasking was just sad. Windows 95 really showed that OSs could be better (even if I thought that its UI was sub-par). When OS X and Windows XP came out, OS X was dog-slow - slow to the point of unusable. Apple really improved it and made it into the OS that many of us (myself included) love today. However, I remember 2001 and how envious I was of Windows users. Fifth, in the Mac vs. PC era, Macs were app-poor. There was just a lot of compelling stuff that you couldn't run as a Mac user. The move toward the web changed a lot of that and left Apple with a great way back into the market. With the iPhone, I find that the iPhone does a better job on web pages than Android (note, I haven't used Android 4.1 and 4.2). Stats on web usage on mobile phones seem to bear this out as iPhone web browsing tends to dominate Android web browsing. Likewise, the iPhone at least matches Android on apps, but I think it could be argued to be the primary platform for apps. So, there isn't a penalty to using an iPhone in the way that there was a penalty to using a Mac in the Mac vs. PC era. Basically, the iPhone isn't more expensive at the top-of-the-line, the iPhone has specs that no one would deny are top of the line, iOS isn't an inferior OS (personal preference about certain features aside), and there isn't a penalty to using iOS (if anything, it could be considered the first platform). None of this is meant to say that the iPhone is better than an Android phone. I don't care what you enjoy using. It's meant to demonstrate that iOS doesn't have the same cost premium, that if we limit ourselves to the devices that people like us buy the marketshare disparity might not be there, that even if iOS is a minority platform it still gets as good attention or better from developers, the specs are equivalent which they weren't in computers for a long time, and iOS and Android are both great modern OSs. If you were an early adopter, iOS came a couple years before Android. In the Mac vs. PC era, Windows was more popular not just because popularity breeds popularity. It was hugely cheaper, better spec'd, and a superior OS for a good while. If you loved computing, Apple's tidyness might have been well out-shadowed by Windows 95's multi-tasking, app availability, price, specs, etc. If you like iOS, why choose an Android device as your next phone? No reason really. Similarly, there aren't compelling reasons if you like Android to buy an iPhone - Android phones today have high-res displays, are starting to get serious on build quality, similar specs, etc. It wasn't hard to convince a Mac user in 2000 to switch to Windows: you got a better OS, more apps, a faster computer, for half the price. I could convince people to switch to Windows with good, logical arguments that really rang true. Today, how would you convince an iPhone user to switch to Android? I'm not saying Android is bad, just that it's a lot harder to make that argument.

jedberg 14y ago

Part of the problem is that there isn't just one Android, there are many, and they all behave just slightly differently. Testing on Android is a nightmare because of this. I wish Google would make some efforts at fixing this problem -- it's the same problem Microsoft had with Windows. Windows on each piece of hardware was just slightly different and made testing just as hard. Google, please learn Microsoft's lesson and make this easier for developers.

w1ntermute 14y ago
> Part of the problem is that there isn't just one Android, there are many, and they all behave just slightly differently. Testing on Android is a nightmare because of this. In my experience, this issue is overblown, especially with Android 4.0+. Unless you're developing a game, the hardware differences should not be a huge concern. The Facebook app certainly shouldn't have problems because of this. > I wish Google would make some efforts at fixing this problem Google has and can have no control over how Android is implemented or updated by various OEMs, particularly when carriers are dictating terms. And when Google tries to go around the carriers, like they did with the Nexus 4, they get crucified for the lack of LTE. Seems to me they're between a rock and a hard place. Hopefully their plan to launch a wireless carrier with Dish Network will pan out and things will get better.
- seiji 14y ago
  > especially with Android 4.0+. Is it partially because so many recent phones aren't able to update that the testing field narrows considerably?
- nahname 14y ago
  Testing a few hundred devices ranging in age from 1 to 4 years old on Android isn't great. Where it becomes a tough pill to swallow is when you compare it relatively to the iOS experience. The number of devices are just a fraction, users update almost instantly and the older devices have a matching ratio for screen size. You also get the added bonus of nearly all apple products having a planned obsolescence of about two years.

jolohaga 14y ago

Inferiority complex.

sambeau 14y ago

I'm sure Mike Matas and all the other rock star & ex-Apple designers they have hired will be cock-a-hoop about that.

eshvk 14y ago

Are they buying people Androids a la Google style?

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Given that Microsoft investment in Facebook [1] I am a bit surprised there isn't more interplay there. Seems WinPhone could use a killer Facebook app, kind of a win/win for the investor. [1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21458486/ns/business-us_business/t/microsoft-invests-million-facebook/#.ULKUm4fAeQA http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21458486/ns/business-us_business...

NameNickHN 14y ago
I don't think it would be wise for Microsoft to interfere with Facebook's day-to-day activities and Microsoft probably knows this.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  Can you say a bit more about that? I am interested in how Facebook creating a killer product for one of their strategic investors can be construed as 'interference' ?
  - flyt 14y ago
    Facebook already integrates with Microsoft products: Bing is a search option on their site, and all of their embedded maps (Events, etc) use Bing Maps. On the MSFT side, Windows Phone has always included deep integration with Facebook since the start, and their most recent acquisition, Skype, is the provider of video chat for Facebook's in-browser client. Both companies already integrate with each other in multiple areas, and Facebook employees almost certainly aren't discouraged from using WP7/8 on their personal devices. The market realities (low market share, existing integration in the OS with no standalone, third party app to support) means that there's no need to push this on employees over iOS/Android.
  - pedalpete 14y ago
    I think things for the most part just don't work this way in larger companies. Facebook needs to focus on what is best for their business. Pandering to investors could interfere with the long-term success of the business. Also, the Windows Facebook app and integration is already pretty awesome.

STRiDEX 14y ago

FB has many employees that are not engineers! These are the people the posters are targeting.