backtop


Print 23 comment(s) - last by Tony Swash.. on Jun 20 at 3:46 PM


  (Source: blog.toggle.com)
Despite iPad being "a computer, not a mobile device"

"IPad is a computer, not a mobile device," Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg famously said last fall in response to a question about whether a Facebook app for iPad would ever come to fruition.

It appears that Zuck is backpedaling on those words, as The New York Times reports that Facebook is, indeed, readying an iPad app.

Anonymous sources reportedly close to Facebook's plans told NYT that the social media company will be unveiling a free app for iPad that has been "carefully designed and optimized" for the device.

Zuckerberg's statement from last November is additionally befuddling because of its timing. The report says that the iPad app has been in development for nearly a year, and that Zuck himself has played a key role in the process.

In addition to the app's slick design, the Facebook Chat and Facebook Groups have been overhauled, and the app allows photos shot with the iPad's built-in cameras to be directly uploaded to Facebook.

A person who reportedly has seen the app had this to say: "The photo and video experience is amazing, offering full resolution and full-screen images."

Both Facebook and Apple declined to comment further.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

why...
By GulWestfale on 6/17/2011 10:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
why couldn't they have simply ported the iphone app over to the ipad? does the iphone app not work on the ipad?

i do occasionally use the iphone FB app, and must say that it does certain things better than the actual site does (friends list actually shows all friends right away, instead of having to choose from a submenu which ones you want to see; the whole thing just feels slicker somehow). uploading photos from an iphone directly to FB works as well; many people are doing it every day. so why is this 'new' feature on the ipad so exciting?




RE: why...
By Etsp on 6/17/2011 10:40:12 PM , Rating: 2
Better question: Why did they not simply create a touch-friendly HTML/Javascript driven portal? Perhaps a couple versions based on device screen size. Then they wouldn't need to develop apps for a specific platform.


RE: why...
By jordanclock on 6/17/2011 11:46:52 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, if I visit Facebook with my WinMo6 phone, there is a link at the bottom for a "Touch" version of the website. They have a version just like you mention, except it's based on their horrendous generic mobile version and is very antiquated to what modern smartphones/tablets are capable of.


RE: why...
By MaulBall789 on 6/17/2011 11:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
You can install the iphone/ipod touch only version the FB app on an ipad and it works fine, but it is not optimal for an ipad. Size it to full screen and the graphics and photos are pixelated, can't chat very usefully, the touch keyboard was meant for a smaller screen and thumbs. It just isn't as good an experience compared to other 3rd party apps that do FB and are created for ipad. There's a big difference.


RE: why...
By Motoman on 6/18/2011 12:27:37 AM , Rating: 1
...why do they need an "app" at all?

iPad has a browser.

Done.


RE: why...
By someguy123 on 6/18/2011 12:49:26 AM , Rating: 2
Because 100% touch interfaces are so sluggish and impractical that, instead of not clinging to touch based on apple's advertising success, the industry has decided to simplify software as much as possible to make things workable for touch platforms.

Now I can get less done in more time!


RE: why...
By Pirks on 6/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: why...
By GulWestfale on 6/18/2011 10:49:25 AM , Rating: 3
Am i also going to be pleasantly surprised by playbook's email client?


RE: why...
By Pirks on 6/19/2011 12:33:14 PM , Rating: 2
If you use gmail - yes, you will be.

Besides, first iPhone was also half baked and missing all the features like copy paste etc but all tony swashes of the world were ejaculating on it anyway, so why not on Playbook huh? ;)


RE: why...
By idiot77 on 6/18/2011 11:20:07 AM , Rating: 3
Where is the real Pirks? What have you done with him?


RE: why...
By Tony Swash on 6/18/2011 12:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
nah, Playbook has a browser, not iPad, trust me on that - I used both. iPad is only called "browser", it was decent until Playbook appeared... try Playbook's browser sometime, you'll be pleasantly surprised ;)


Care to elucidate?


RE: why...
By Pirks on 6/19/2011 12:50:01 PM , Rating: 3
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4266/blackberry-play...

"PlayBook handles browsing multiple web pages better than the iPad"

"Web page compatibility is ridiculously good with the PlayBook's browser, partially due to RIM's excellent implementation of hardware accelerated Flash 10.2. Corner cases that wouldn't work on Android or iOS work perfectly on the PlayBook"

"PlayBook probably offers the best browsing experience from a pure software standpoint of any of the tablets"

"RIM's tablet browser passes the Acid3 test and scores higher on the HTML5test than both the iPad 2 and Honeycomb"

"Nearly all websites treat the PlayBook as a desktop browser and don't force you to a mobile version of the site. This is true for video sites as well, like Hulu and YouTube"

"Having full Flash functionality built in to the browser is nice. You can disable Flash entirely if you want to, but leaving it enabled doesn't really impact performance all that much - even scrolling with Flash ads in place remains pretty smooth."

"Flash video players also work on the the PlayBook within its browser. I was reading an article on abcnews.com the other day with an embedded video. I just tapped the video and it started playing immediately. The same for embedded Hulu videos in Facebook. The YouTube website also works."

Stupid Apple sheep still think iOS mobile browser is the best, but after experiencing Playbook's browser this makes me smile :) Anand was right, I've got the Playbook after his review mostly because of the browser (styling was second strong point, feels and looks way better in my hands than both Apple tablets) and I can attest to Anand's true words, it is indeed as good as Anand describes. I thought mature web browsers won't appear on tablets till MS ports IE9 but RIM beat everyone here.

Yes Tony, I know Apple was first in the mobile browser war, and I know iPhone's browser used to be the best for a while, but not these days, RIM got 'em at last, woohoo! I thought Google would do it first but RIM made a smart move of going open source all the way while collaborating with Adobe and probably paying Adobe quite a lot of dough to get the real mature browser with mature Flash 10.2 and Air runtime and stuff... to be honest Android is not far behind, their browser is almost as good as Playbook's in my personal experience but still falls short, and the Android tablet hardware/software is such an unpolished and sometimes ugly experience compared to RIM and Apple. Google has to learn a few tricks with regard to polish and style from Apple and RIM. Preferably from RIM, hehe ;)


RE: why...
By messele on 6/19/2011 4:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and I can attest to Anand's true words, it is indeed as good as Anand describes.


So...not very good then really? He doesn't exactly whole-heartedly jump in and recommend it to anybody except BlackBerry owners. A fail in my book.

Still each to their own, enjoy it while RIM still exist.


RE: why...
By Pirks on 6/19/2011 11:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
not very good then really?
The browser is the best, according to Anand, and it is indeed the best among all tablet browsers, as my experience with my Playbook tells me. So Anand was right on that one.


RE: why...
By Subzero0000 on 6/19/2011 9:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
You missed two of the best qoutes :

"It's everyone else that RIM really needs to convince. For your general consumer, the PlayBook is just missing apps (no email, no calendar, no Netflix, no Twitter). Although RIM would have you rely on webmail, I just don't believe that's ideal when both Apple and Google are shipping tablet optimized email clients today. RIM clearly has a plan to address these concerns, I'm just curious to see how long it takes to mature the PlayBook."

"There's a lot to like about the PlayBook, but unless you're an existing BlackBerry user you're better off waiting to see where RIM takes this thing."


RE: why...
By Pirks on 6/19/2011 11:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
no email, no calendar, no Netflix, no Twitter
There are gmail and other web interfaces that work excellent on Playbook's browser so I never missed any "app for that" "app for this" functionality yet, web is more than enough because the browser is THAT great. Native apps and special clients are so yesterday in the wake of such marvels as Sencha Touch and similar frameworks. Anand doesn't know about them since he's just another consumer. But if Anand knew about Sencha for example he would definitely reconsider. He'll learn about all these future frameworks that will supplant old style Android and iOS and even Playbook native APIs, then we'll see what kind of reviews he starts to write, hehehe ;) If you know what is Sencha you'd understand me in a bit, if you don't... well, you'll learn someday about it too. Sooner or later.


RE: why...
By Tony Swash on 6/20/2011 5:23:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes Tony, I know Apple was first in the mobile browser war, and I know iPhone's browser used to be the best for a while, but not these days, RIM got 'em at last, woohoo! I thought Google would do it first but RIM made a smart move of going open source all the way while collaborating with Adobe and probably paying Adobe quite a lot of dough to get the real mature browser with mature Flash 10.2 and Air runtime and stuff... to be honest Android is not far behind, their browser is almost as good as Playbook's in my personal experience but still falls short, and the Android tablet hardware/software is such an unpolished and sometimes ugly experience compared to RIM and Apple. Google has to learn a few tricks with regard to polish and style from Apple and RIM. Preferably from RIM, hehe ;)


This discussion does raise an interesting point about the different things that different companies and products focus on. Traditionally the web and the internet was essentially the browser, and the browser as a way to access the web will continue to flourish and be important. It is this area of the web that Google tends to concentrate on, not least because it's via the browser that ads can be served and data collected most easily.

As became clear from the iCloud announcement Apple have taken a different tack. For Apple the app is king and the iCloud initiative, especially with the inclusion of iCloud APIs for third party app developers, is all about using the power of the internet via apps rather than browsers. In Apple's vision the browser becomes secondary, not unimportant but no longer king. I am quite excited to see what the iOS developers will come up with in terms of iCloud enabled apps. I think for Apple the future is about powerful cloud driven networked and internet powered funtionality where all the internet back end is hidden from the user, all the user sees is the funtionality, the things the apps and the devices can do.

It will be interesting to see how this app centred approach pans out and whether the browser remains the king of the internet and the portal through which people experience the internet.


RE: why...
By Pirks on 6/20/2011 1:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, Tony, let's pray iCloud won't end up like Xserve, hehehe ;)


RE: why...
By Tony Swash on 6/20/2011 3:46:10 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing lasts forever - just ask Microsoft ;)


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki