FB's app is the product of a web-based service that's been transported to the mobile platform, while Path and Instagram are native to and created for mobile. While this is obvious, consider all the functionality that FB already had on the web that had to be transported into their web app; a ton of thought had to go into retaining FB's functionality along with the innovation inherently required of anyone who creates a new mobile app. The way they did this - while preserving their functionality and retaining FB's already established feel - itself required took much innovation.
Path and Instagram were created inherently for mobile, and have much simpler functionality models. I'm not saying that this should take away from the remarkable achievements that both have had, nor am I saying that FB's app doesn't need improvements, but perhaps that this is just an unfair knock on FB's mobile app/strategy thus far.
My broader question was: As more time shifts toward mobile, will the dominant social network be something created first for mobile, or will it be Facebook?
So far, FB mobile feels like a pretty unimaginative port of their website, and not the sort of thing that was imagined first for mobile.
Will that be enough, will Facebook change things up, or will it be disrupted by something mobile-first?
I think if there's any challenger to Facebook as the dominant social network, it could well be WhatsApp.
They're gathering a very large network of teenage users, completely avoiding the web, and becoming an alternative to both Twitter and email for group messaging.
When you look at what they provide, it's pretty much everything I use from Facebook, without the noise.
I find the fb_timeline feature strange to use on my desktop/laptop, but it's possible that some permutation of it could be the superior implementation for Facebook's mobile strategy.
What's frustrating is that Facebook, with what are almost unlimited resources available to them relative to Path and Instagram, hasn't come out with something better. Sure their problem is different and tougher, but with the latest version of their app they are just taking shortcuts. They're trying to put a native wrapper around a web app, which time and time again has been tried and has never once (that I am aware of) come close to matching the UX of the best native apps. Not only that, but their app constantly times out, clicking pictures rarely takes you to the one you want and in general is an exercise in frustration to use. All that would be understandable from a startup, but from a company that snaps up the best developers in the world by the hundreds and that clearly knows the value of mobile, it's mind-boggling.
Comments
FB's app is the product of a web-based service that's been transported to the mobile platform, while Path and Instagram are native to and created for mobile. While this is obvious, consider all the functionality that FB already had on the web that had to be transported into their web app; a ton of thought had to go into retaining FB's functionality along with the innovation inherently required of anyone who creates a new mobile app. The way they did this - while preserving their functionality and retaining FB's already established feel - itself required took much innovation.
Path and Instagram were created inherently for mobile, and have much simpler functionality models. I'm not saying that this should take away from the remarkable achievements that both have had, nor am I saying that FB's app doesn't need improvements, but perhaps that this is just an unfair knock on FB's mobile app/strategy thus far.
Right. That's a good summary.
My broader question was: As more time shifts toward mobile, will the dominant social network be something created first for mobile, or will it be Facebook?
So far, FB mobile feels like a pretty unimaginative port of their website, and not the sort of thing that was imagined first for mobile.
Will that be enough, will Facebook change things up, or will it be disrupted by something mobile-first?
I think if there's any challenger to Facebook as the dominant social network, it could well be WhatsApp.
They're gathering a very large network of teenage users, completely avoiding the web, and becoming an alternative to both Twitter and email for group messaging.
When you look at what they provide, it's pretty much everything I use from Facebook, without the noise.
I've noticed a lot of penetration of WhatsApp here in the Netherlands. It's quietly exploding.
I find the fb_timeline feature strange to use on my desktop/laptop, but it's possible that some permutation of it could be the superior implementation for Facebook's mobile strategy.
What's frustrating is that Facebook, with what are almost unlimited resources available to them relative to Path and Instagram, hasn't come out with something better. Sure their problem is different and tougher, but with the latest version of their app they are just taking shortcuts. They're trying to put a native wrapper around a web app, which time and time again has been tried and has never once (that I am aware of) come close to matching the UX of the best native apps. Not only that, but their app constantly times out, clicking pictures rarely takes you to the one you want and in general is an exercise in frustration to use. All that would be understandable from a startup, but from a company that snaps up the best developers in the world by the hundreds and that clearly knows the value of mobile, it's mind-boggling.