
Facebook Is Secretly Building A Phone - MichaelApproved
http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/19/facebook-is-secretly-building-a-phone/
======
sprout
I don't understand where they're coming from. Android's Facebook integration
is a little rough, but all the problems are with the Facebook application.

When it comes to the article's touted benefits of deep integration in the OS -
calling a friend, deep syncing contacts, etc, Android does it all already.

I have it set to only sync contacts that are already in my phone, but if a
friend texts me who has their number on Facebook, their picture shows up
instantly, no syncing required. It's downright creepy to the point of making
me seriously consider turning it off. OS integration is a solved problem. It's
actually browsing Facebook that doesn't work.

~~~
ewjordan
You're spot on - I have trouble believing that they're really going to put in
all the effort to build an entire OS when they could achieve exactly the same
end result by merely _finishing their freaking Android app_.

Thus far, Facebook hasn't even proven that they can competently develop a
mobile _app_ , let alone an operating system. Even if the issue isn't talent,
but resource allocation, are we really to expect that they're motivated enough
to develop a mobile OS if the mobile experience hasn't been important enough
to them until now to even finish their app?

~~~
philwelch
Who says they have to build the whole OS? I bet it's just gonna be a variant
on Android.

------
twidlit
Awesome. Microsoft does search, Google does mobile OS, Apple does social
networks, now Facebook does phones. Its an all out tech war.

~~~
dschobel
This is what happens when you staff a company with brilliant "generalist"
engineers.

Heed the warning folks, hire specialists or your startup will be making phones
before you know it!

~~~
prodigal_erik
_Every company attempts to expand until it can sell mobile phones._ It really
seems like a modern variant on Zawinski's Law of Software Envelopment, having
displaced the dying medium of email.

~~~
josefresco
Maybe "Building a mobile phone" is the new "Jump the Shark" for tech
companies? And yes I'm giving a shout out Jon Hein.

------
rudyfink
Building a phone, the solution to all of the modern software company's
problems.

~~~
vkdelta
Building a reliable network to support these phones, a solution to all of our
connectivity problems.

~~~
luminary
If you think about it for a second, we still don't have that great mobile-only
social app yet. The mobile versions of FB etc. won't cut it if the next 5-10
years are going to be all about mobile.

IMO, FB is extending its vertical with a mobile-only social app AKA the "FB
OS."

~~~
geoffw8
"if the next 5-10 years are going to be all about mobile."

Yeah, if.

------
cletus
I don't buy this at all.

Apple has always been a hardware and software company with a very specific
philosophy about user experience being everything. The digital music
revolution gave Steve Jobs the opening to create the iPod that basically
resurrected the company. That ply has been extended into phones and mobile
computing.

Google is (from a revenue perspective) a search and advertising company. Their
business model is predicated on how much you use the internet. So what Google
is concerned with is everything between you and the internet. They've done
Chrome, Android, etc to commoditize every link in that chain. Everything they
do is about you using the internet easier, cheaper, in more places or more
often.

Microsoft is about one thing and one thing only: selling Windows and Office
licenses to enterprise and OEM customers. Nothing else matters. Look at the
Kin: they bought Danger (with its once successful Sidekick) but then spent the
better part of two years rewriting its OS as some Frankenstein version of
Windows mobile. It arrived way too late and was dead before the first unit was
sold (in large part due to the enormous data costs that Verizon saddled it
with as they'd lost patience with the delay). Windows Phone 7 has the same
goals.

Facebook is all about capturing and cultivating your relationships. They are a
silo. They want to own that data because that data is their business and their
entire value. Integration with everything else is about allowing other people
to give Facebook more data.

What sense does a mobile platform make in that context? Absolutely none that I
can see. How does it let them capture and control more data? Apple has had
huge success with the iPhone because they have the industrial design, UI
experience, supply chain management (which shouldn't be underestimated),
iTunes (as much as many--including me--hate the application it is a near-
monopoly in digital content) and retail channel.

For Facebook to succeed in the mobile space they would need most if not all of
these things. It's a huge risk for relatively little gain and a small payoff.
I can only thing that by leveraging a mobile platform of their own they could
essentially lock out other platforms. The problem is that Facebook is usable
with any Web browser.

I can't imagine Facebook doing any more than controlling the Facebook
experience on all mobile platforms, an area they're still sadly lacking in
(iPad app anyone?).

Basically this makes as much sense as Twitter making a mobile phone.

~~~
louislouis
FB has the most complete contact list for a lot of people. It would be pretty
cool if my phonebook ran off this and auto updates itself when people change
their numbers.

~~~
zyb09
Android phones with HTC Sense UI do this. It's pretty cool, it pulls a bunch
of data (E-Mail address, birthday, last status message) and integrates them
into your contacts. They also pull the profile image from Facebook and it's
displayed when you get called.

~~~
iron_ball
My "Google experience" Droid 1 does it too.

~~~
DougWebb
So does my Droid 2. I assumed this was part of Android 2.2.

~~~
okaramian
Good ol Palm Pre does this as well.

~~~
geoffw8
As did my Nexus.

------
dekz
> Or rather, they’re building the software for the phone and working with a
> third party to actually build the hardware. Which is exactly what Apple and
> everyone else does, too.

What? Apples and oranges. Apple designed the hardware, they're a hardware
company. What TechCrunch?

~~~
olalonde
But they outsource the actual manufacturing to FoxConn.

~~~
mlinsey
The point is that outsourcing the manufacturing (like Apple) is extremely
different from outsourcing the hardware design. That the iPhone's hardware and
software is designed under one roof is a huge advantage. It's extremely
unlikely that Facebook has hired out the hardware engineering and industrial
design teams needed to go the Apple route. If they were doing that, someone
would have probably noticed by now.

~~~
olalonde
Why the down votes? I was simply pointing out what TC might have meant by
"building". Everyone and their mother knows Apple doesn't outsource hardware
design.

------
joe_the_user
The thing is, everyone I know uses Facebook the website but hates Facebook the
company. I don't see the Facebook brand selling phones (I recall they rated on
the bottom of brands in some study).

~~~
jrockway
People hate everything. The big banks and airlines all rate at the bottom of
customer satisfaction surveys, and yet they're big because everyone does a lot
of business with them. People complain, but they don't change who they do
business with.

I think a Facebook phone will be massively successful on name alone.

~~~
AgentConundrum
Pretty much everyone needs to deal with a bank, so in a way it doesn't matter
that they all have customer satisfaction issues, since people have to put up
with it. If a bank gets really bad, people will switch (I think it'd have to
get really bad, since switching seems overly painful for me personally - then
again, I'm Canadian and our banks work a bit differently than in the states).
If all the banks suck - or at least, as you say, the "big banks" who obviously
have the biggest mind share - then people just sort of put up with it.

The same goes for airlines. If you're in the position where you're considering
flying, pretty much all of your options suck anyway. By this, I mean that if I
didn't fly home (a two hour flight), my next best option is to travel by
train, which is comparable in price, takes 10x more of my time, and is
(warning: unsourced memory of something I may have misread) actually les safe
than flying. Flying is a hassle, but its typically an infrequent one, and it's
a lot better than its alternatives.

Phones, however, are pretty much a dime a dozen, and the range of products is
immense.

I've had a "dumb phone" for four years, and I don't really have a reason to
upgrade. I can call, I can text, and if I really really need to I have web
access on a browser that makes Lynx seem state of the art. This is enough for
me.

For those who want a "smart phone" there are already great options:

\- Blackberry is still a big name, and when I tried out my dads a few months
ago, I liked it and considered buying one of my own. \- Apple is now the big
name and iPhone has huge mind share (I can't speak to its market share off the
top of my head) and people who like Apple like it a lot. \- Google is a
trusted name, and they're marketing the hell out of Android. Their sales are
pretty decent IIRC, and they're growing.

My point here is that there are already three large, established names that
can compete "on name alone." The Facebook name, in a lot of circles, doesn't
have a great reputation, particularly when talking about privacy.

I'm sure there _are_ people out there who would buy a Facebook phone purely
based on the name, but there are an awful lot who would do the opposite.
Personally, when I saw the title "Facebook is Secretly Building a Phone," my
first thought was "...and I would never buy it." That's based entirely on the
Facebook name, based on my perception of the company.

~~~
jrockway
I don't think you realize that most people love Facebook and simply don't
understand that there is privacy issue. They log in, see their friends, and
play Farmville. A phone will let them do that when they're away from home.

~~~
joe_the_user
An actual study says different:

<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2366730,00.asp>

 _...slightly miffed at the traction gotten by "you're a geek so your opinion
doesn't reflect the average..."_

------
mlinsey
I'm still waiting for the long-rumored Facebook gmail-killer. Wasn't there a
rumor of a Facebook browser at one point too? So I'm not holding my breath on
this one-although a Facebook-branded version of Android might make sense.

~~~
luminary
I know from a FOAF^n that FB-mail is real and they are planning to launch
soon.

------
aaronbrethorst
Assuming this is accurate, I think it makes a lot of sense, especially if it's
based on Android. As it is, the bulk of people I see on laptops, iPads and
iPhones in cafes are just using them as Facebook devices anyway. They might as
well make it official.

On another note, if I see or hear the phrase "Web-based operating system" one
more time I swear I'm going to lose it. Fine, great, it's a browser-based
desktop: that's cool. Or, there is no desktop, there's just a web browser with
a poorly debugged set of device drivers underneath[1]: that's cool too.

But a website does not an operating system make. ARGH!

[1] i had no idea my blog was the #3 result for that phrase on Google until
just now. [2]

[2] I wrote the aforementioned blog entry four years ago when I still worked
at Microsoft. I was dead wrong, at least for a lot of scenarios.

~~~
ludwigvan
It is probably based on Android if this is true. I remember seeing @joehewitt
working on Android. See for example:
<http://twitter.com/joehewitt/status/20691624768>

~~~
jonursenbach
Or if anything, they're just rewriting the Facebook Android app.

------
gaiusparx
I'll bet its not a hardware phone. Rather a kind of Skype/Google Voice feature
that will be added to its mobile clients. On your Facebook app for iphone
example, there will be a new icon called "Phone" in addition to the existing
News Feed, Inbox, Events, Photos etc.

~~~
Kliment
This is the most intelligent interpretation I've seen so far. It makes
excellent sense.

------
jacquesm
I'm probably going to be dead wrong about this (based on my track record), but
I think this will be a total-loss.

Facebook is not a hardware provider any more than google is, if google can't
put the N1 out there and make it work I have a hard time to understand how a
site like facebook would be able to.

They should concentrate on improving their applications on existing mobiles in
stead of rolling out a mobile of their own.

~~~
icey
I'm with you 100% on this. I think tech companies see Apple's success and want
a piece of that pie. Unfortunately I think they underestimate how much of a
fluke Apple's success actually is.

------
MichaelApproved
But will Facebook be willing to open up their social phone to other networks
like twitter or will it just be Facebook contacts? I think a device
unassociated with a particular network has a better shot since it'd be willing
to open up to all networks and give a better experience.

------
extension
Ah, this might explain why their apps and mobile site are such crap.

This could be a popular gadget if done right. "Facebook Phone" is instantly
understandable by any FB user, whereas it's not at all clear to them that they
can fully use FB on an iPhone/BlackBerry/Android (and indeed, they can't).

They could make it tiny and cheap, which might capture customers that just
want a smartphone for social stuff. It would be hard for any mobile app to
consistently match the user experience, especially if FB keeps adding
features.

They could even do simple third party apps, just like they do on the web site.

------
timdellinger
Letts' Law: All programs evolve until they can send email.

Zawinski's Law: Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail.

I propose a new law: Every website calling itself a platform will attempt to
incorporate the functionality of all other platforms that are popular at the
time.

Having a phone for your platform is just another silly functionality that may
or may not pan out in the end for any given platform.

It's an inevitable next step for any platform looking to invest in
something/anything/i-have-ho-idea-what-do-do-now.

~~~
kentsin
Everything evolve until they got a Linux heart.

------
siglesias
So the protocol seems to be that strong web platforms want to themselves
loosen up their dependence on their OS platforms: browsers, operating systems,
etc..., so taken to an extreme the right thing to do is _build a hardware
platform_? A little extreme, no?

It makes for a good plan B, but who thinks that creating yet another competing
platform in the mobile space is a good thing for Facebook, _at this point_?
Right now they have a very comfortable position on iPhone, Android, and Phone
7, with the biggest risk for platform subversion coming from Google. That
still leaves them two viable platforms on mobile, with virtually no conflicts
of interest coming from Apple, and possibly none from Microsoft either. (Okay,
Ping, but I don't think Apple's ambitions for Ping are anything beyond
boosting iTunes sales.) Now not only will they introduce another platform, but
they will turn their existing platforms hostile against them. It's the kind of
behavior that will land Bing as the default operating system in future
releases of iPhone.

Possible responses: a Facebook phone OS might push Google to do a deep Google
Me integration into Android, thus forcing most Android users to at least give
Google Me a try, which hurts Facebook. It might force Apple to make Mobile Me
free, and then integrate deep photo sharing and commenting into iPhoto and
iOS. Since a plurality of college students own Macs and iPod touches already,
Apple has very powerful platform control that can cause trouble for Facebook
should Facebook be perceived as a threat to iOS. I don't see either of these
response scenarios being particularly profitable for Facebook.

This can get very, very nasty. As they said in Godfather, "Nobody wants all
out war."

~~~
siglesias
Actually it looks like Android will be basis for Facebook's phone.

[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/09/19/...](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/09/19/businessinsider-facebooks-secret-phone-is-
android-for-sure-2010-9.DTL)

------
ThomPete
Unless FB are considering making it impossible for others to access it's API,
building a phone seems like a better deal for Facebook than it does for it's
users.

~~~
dschobel
It's the twitter problem all over again; they want their data and
network/platform to be ubiquitous but while reaping all the eyeball revenue
from being the frontend of choice and making every other client second-class.

~~~
ThomPete
Not to forget Google.

Android is by some metrics a good platform, but I do wonder whether it's going
to be the revenue generating channel that they seem to hope it will be.

------
danielrm26
The most significant concept the article touched on was the potential to call
people rather than their numbers. I think at this point it'll be hard to get
beyond what Apple and Google are already doing on that front, however, as they
already allow one to call Julie's Mobile.

The next stage would have to be calling Julie in a sort of Google Voice type
of way, where her location isn't even an issue. At that point you could just
call a person, but until then there will still be a need to define which
location to call them on.

I wrote something about this type of convergence a while back called the
Water, Steam, and Ice of Communication: [http://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-
steam-water-and-ice-of-mo...](http://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-steam-water-
and-ice-of-modern-communication)

~~~
bruceboughton
I can't remember the last time I called someone via their number. What a
ridiculous statement!£

------
joshbuckley
Facebook released a statement claiming this techcrunch article is inaccurate
[http://mashable.com/2010/09/19/facebook-we-are-not-
building-...](http://mashable.com/2010/09/19/facebook-we-are-not-building-a-
phone/)

------
arfrank
Does this remind anyone else of the Peek? <http://www.twitterpeek.com/>

It seems like this might make Facebook more accessible for some group of
Facebook users who aren't so computer savy. A dedicated device where you don't
have to login, but you can see your families updates, interact, send messages,
see pictures.

Also just did a quick check: <http://whois.domaintools.com/facebookOS.com>
It's been registered since 2007, so it's certainly not something that's been
off the radar from them.

------
js2
"All we know for sure is that Hewitt and Papakipos are working on something
very stealthy together. And we have a source that tells us that stealthy thing
is a Facebook phone."

The rest is all Arrington's speculation.

------
Tichy
Is "stuff people want" == being owned by some company? I rather doubt it, but
then again, human nature is full of surprises. For example, a lot of people
might want to be told what to do.

------
imrehg
I really wish they'd just fix their own software first... There are 4
different ways of accessing FB on my Android (app, touch, mobile full
website), each and every one of them suck and in a different way. If I want to
check my events - I have to use one, if want to delete a rushed post - has to
use another..... annoying doesn't even start to describe it.

------
mattmiller
I doubt this is true, but I hope it is. The more non-carrier companies with
money in the wireless space the better. Maybe AT&T and the rest of them will
have to give up some control when every major software company is competing
for it.

In six months: the Oracle phone. You heard it here first.

------
vbruucom1
I dont think if users out there consider fb friend list as their contact list
(users add bunch of people they dont even know or they hardly know them). I
dont see it as a real smartphone, may be another social networking gadget.

------
pclark
Didn't everyone see this coming? Isn't like 30% of iPhone app usage in
Facebook?

------
js4all
Since that "I Like" button campaign, Facebook's target is clear: Google. The
mobile sector is not yet fully taken. So it seems logical to hit in that
direction, if you have the power and user base like Facebook has.

------
gkoberger
I've been waiting for this for years- it always seemed so obvious to me. Had
Facebook done this a few years ago, I think it would have been a huge
preemptive strike against the iPhone (and possibly Foursquare). After all,
Facebook has the UX skills combined with massive amounts of data.

Now, though, it comes off more as a "me too" move.

Hopefully it's built on Android. Even if it looks and works nothing like
Android, it's one less platform developers have to worry about when creating
an app. I mean, imagine if developers had to create a separate version of
their site for IE, Firefox, Safari, etc.

(Of course, my opinions are even more speculative than the original post- I'll
wait until I actually see it to judge it.)

~~~
extension
If they do apps, I bet they will work more like the apps on the site: very
high level, markup for UI, thin client, server backed. This will keep the
phone cheap, the software simple, and is conducive to the kind of social apps
they want.

------
brown9-2
Surprised that the former lead of the Chrome OS project isn't barred from
working on another OS project for a potential competitor by any sort of non-
compete agreement.

~~~
cobrien
I believe, and IANAL, in California non-competes are not enforceable anyway.
Ref: Edwards vs. Arthur Andersen

------
what
Could it be that the phones would be intended for parts of the world where not
everyone owns a computer? It would get more people onto Facebook.

------
known
Prior to building a Phone, I think FB should roll-out a mobile browser.

------
skbohra123
wondering, when the facebook chat will stop sucking ?

------
lotusleaf1987
Sounds like another Kin. I don't want Facebook integrated deeply with my phone
that would be intrusive, it's there when I need it.

~~~
rythie
I don't think it would be aimed at the type of person who reads stuff here or
anyone who reads techcrunch.

------
c00p3r
Mobile-device-as-a-service? Why not, half-billion users is enough to try.

Like a Kindle just for one kind of activity - reading, it could something like
an iPad with only one big app.

Seems line the history repeats itself and we're heading back to the future
from an era of general web sites in a universal browser to a closed world of
connected devices. ^_^

~~~
what
I think most people want a swiss army knife, a device that can do everything.
They don't want to lug around a bunch of devices, each of which does one thing
and does it well. That's probably why the iPhone is so popular; It's a phone,
mp3 player, camera, browser, everything you can think, except it doesn't have
a corkscrew.

------
lzw
I finally opened a Facebook account years ago when I became convinced they
kept private info private, now they are making private info public by default,
and I no longer trust them. I certainly won't be buying a phone from them.

------
johnglasgow
Facebook is growing more powerful than Google.

~~~
sbowles
For that reason specifically, I think they would have some serious hassle from
the FCC if they wanted to bring a phone to market.

