backtop


Print 12 comment(s) - last by Piiman.. on Apr 19 at 10:22 AM

Zuckerberg said Facebook is still innovating

Facebook has been a wildly successful social network, but that doesn't mean it hasn't seen some failures along the way. According to CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook Home was at the top of that list. 
 
In a recent interview with Zuckerberg, the The New York Times made a point that Facebook's homemade features like Facebook Home and Graph Search have been flops. However, the companies it has acquired like Instagram and WhatsApp have been more successful which calls into question Facebook's ability to innovate. 
 
Zuckerberg defended Graph Search, saying that it's more of a long-term investment than Facebook Home. Graph Search is is a semantic search engine that was designed to give answers to a user's natural language queries rather than a list of links.
 
"With Graph Search, I think that modern search products have so much built into them that we knew it was going to be a five-year investment before we got anything really good and different," said Zuckerberg. "So far we’ve done these milestones. The first one was that we were able to search over structured connections on Facebook. That was important as a consumer product and also as infrastructure that we are using inside the company.
 
"The next focus is searching posts. All of this has been on desktop, and the real push is mobile. So I’m not that worried about it. I think the real question will be how effective it will be on mobile once post-search works. I think that’s a five-year thing. We have to think about it over a longer period of time."


Mark Zuckerberg [SOURCE: bkmag]

But Zuckerberg was quicker to admit that Facebook Home isn't too popular. Facebook Home is a user interface layer for Android-compatible smartphones, offering notifications and other Facebook-flavored features right on the lock screen. 
 
"With Home, the reception was much slower than we expected," said Zuckerberg. "But it was a riskier thing. It’s very different from other apps, let’s say Paper or Messenger. For those, you install it, and if it’s useful you’ll go back to it and use it. Home is your lock screen. When you install it, it’s really active, and if it does anything that you don’t like, then you’ll uninstall it."
 
Another innovation question brought forth by NYT is why Facebook couldn't develop something like WhatsApp instead of paying $19 billion USD for the acquisition, since it already had something similar (Facebook Messenger). Zuckerberg said that its Facebook Messenger is quite different from WhatsApp, and are both big in their separate markets. 
 
"I think you want to look at the things that we do in three stages. First, there’s Facebook the app. A billion people or more are using it, and it is a business," said Zuckerberg. "Next there’s Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, Search — these are use cases that people use a lot, and they will probably be the next things that will become businesses at Facebook. But you want to fast-forward three years before that will actually be a meaningful thing.
 
"Then there are things that are nascent, that we’re inventing from scratch, like Home, Paper or any of the other Creative Labs work we’re going to do. Maybe in three to five years those will be in the stage where Instagram and Messenger are now. So what we want to do is build a pipeline of experiences for people to have. It would be a mistake to compare any of them in different life cycles to other ones.
 
"They’re in different levels."

Source: The New York Times



Comments     Threshold


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

facebook home is crapware
By GulWestfale on 4/16/2014 2:51:28 PM , Rating: 5
facebook home reminds me of those annoying drivers that used to come with creative sound cards, or the myriad other little things that supposedly made your PC faster but in reality just ate up more RAM and CPU resources.

'home' is similar in that it really adds nothing to your phone that your phone isn't already doing (other than putting notifications on the lock screen) so why would anyone bother installing this thing? not to mention that once you have 'home' on your phone, it probably accesses all your personal info and registers each keystroke to send home to master zuckerberg.

no, thank you.




RE: facebook home is crapware
By Gunbuster on 4/16/2014 3:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
Graph search does nothing! Any useful search like "posts about detroit" or "friends who posted about cancer" it says derp derp and offers a web search.


RE: facebook home is crapware
By GulWestfale on 4/16/2014 3:45:09 PM , Rating: 3
yes, but they could have "duckface selfie" search and it would turn up about 600 million results... all of them pathetic.


RE: facebook home is crapware
By Flunk on 4/16/2014 3:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
I thought they would have discontinued Facebook Home by now. It's launch was a disaster on par with the Microsoft Kin.


RE: facebook home is crapware
By Piiman on 4/19/2014 10:22:38 AM , Rating: 2
ouch!


RE: facebook home is crapware
By amanojaku on 4/16/2014 3:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with all of the above, and add this: since when is Facebook so important that it deserves to be the default interface of any device? What's next, Netflix Home? DailyTech Home? The last thing anyone wants is to turn his/her advanced technical device into a limited-feature service. Sure, you can do everything through Facebook Home that you can through the default Android interface, but with a lot more work. That's the opposite of what a user interface tries to accomplish.


RE: facebook home is crapware
By Argon18 on 4/16/2014 4:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
"The last thing anyone wants is to turn his/her advanced technical device into a limited-feature service."

You sure about that? A desktop PC is a general purpose computing device. A phone or tablet on the other hand, is a closed ecosystem of specially designed "apps". I.e. a "limited-feature service". It's no different really from a Playstation or Xbox in that regard.

Not to mention the fact that some people are truly addicted to Facebook. They carry their smartphone everywhere not to make calls, or send emails, but to read and post Facebook updates. For many people, it's not a mobile phone, it's a mobile Facebook. While I love to make fun of those people, there are quite a lot of them, so I can see why Facebook would target them with this "Home" product.


RE: facebook home is crapware
By amanojaku on 4/16/2014 4:55:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, smartphones are advanced technical devices when compared to regular phones. The fact that they aren't as powerful as desktops or do not have as many applications doesn't mean the devices are basic. They're just underpowered and lacking additional means of input (e.g. keyboard, mouse and graphics tablets). This is coming from someone who does not own a smartphone, so I feel I can be objective about this.

Additionally, the applications that are available for smartphones are, again, limited by horsepower and input. I wouldn't want Photoshop for a smartphone or tablet that doesn't support a mouse or stylus, and I wouldn't want Oracle on a smartphone or tablet that only gets 24 hours of battery life for phone use or 10 hours for video. However, there is nothing a smartphone or tablet cannot do that a desktop can (albeit, more slowly); someone just needs to write the code.

Facebook addiction has actually been on the decline, which is why FB is busy buying companies that users have flocked to. Had Home come out five years ago it would probably be on every phone today. It's the solution to a problem that became irrelevant two years ago. Besides, why would I buy a $650 phone just to do Facebook, or even a $200 subsidized phone? That's like buying a tractor trailer to pick up groceries for one person.


RE: facebook home is crapware
By wordsworm on 4/16/2014 4:47:13 PM , Rating: 2
Netflix home for my smart TV? Sounds fine to me. Creating something as big as Facebook is going to be extremely difficult to duplicate for Zuckerberg.


RE: facebook home is crapware
By KFZ on 4/16/2014 6:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
Facebook is crapware; that's why people flocked to a WhatsApp. FB doesn't connect everyone and what it does is bloated, invasive and as obnoxious as the typical posts on it.

It's simple why FB acquired WA and it was the right move from FB's perspective. It absorbed strong competition, scooped up an already established user base and saved years of losses and development cycle Hucksterberg so gamely professes his own babies need before they mature.

FB is so behind the times and Huck can't buy-out real innovators forever.


FB killing itself
By NXTwoThou on 4/17/2014 8:07:46 AM , Rating: 2
Just another in a long line of horrible decisions. The next one is no longer allowing all the integration that users have enjoyed. Anyone who's picked up Windows Phone 8.1 Developer Preview and were avid fb users have already discovered just how much they took for granted. iOS and Android people are soon to discover it when they ask "what happened to my chat messages??". FB, you are killing yourself. WP7 and 8, I would use fb chat all the time, because, well, if a friend was on fb it would use that rather than txt'ing. I wouldn't know the difference until they weren't on fb. For pictures, I'd snap a picture, hit "share to fb" then while it uploaded in the background, I'd snap another shot or dozen. Without that integration, my chatting has gone to about nill(chat notification is the same as comment notification, which I get dozens of an hour, which I ignore. Then loading up the app takes several seconds, then even after it's loaded, it may take 10 presses on the chat button to load up the list of friends I chat with, then another press to get to the chat that I had a message on. COMPLETE WASTE OF MY TIME). Sending a photo to FB is just as bad, take a picture, hit share, hit fb, wait for the app to load, wait for picture to appear in box, hit send, wait for picture to upload, exit out of fb, get back into camera mode, take another picture. Nope, no more fb photo uploads for me. An avid user now has dropped his activity/content to maybe 20% of what it was, overnight, due to horrible decisions on fb's part.




When has facebook ever innovated?
By jdre on 4/18/2014 8:17:23 AM , Rating: 2
I mean it to be an honest question. Zuck didn't invent social networks (Friendster, Myspace) didn't invent messaging (Text messages, arguably AOL IM, kik, etc), didn't invent search (AltaVista, Google), didn't invent photo sharing (Instagram, Flickr)...

Facebook is dead. Facebook has been dead since they opened it up to not require a college email address to create an account - thus losing their (hijacked from University IT departments) identity authentication process.

All they've done since the initial release is tweak design decisions in ways that frustrate the user, and buy competitors.

Stop saying he knows what he's doing. Stop inflating his stock.




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton














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