

Possible strategy for a so-called "Facebook Phone" that I came up with - buu700
http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/u8meb/facebook_phone_is_a_bad_idea/c4temmt

======
sipefree
> Graphene is fundamentally vanilla Windows Phone, except with all
> Windows/Microsoft branding removed in favour of Facebook

Not a chance. Microsoft would never compromise their branding. They're not
THAT desperate yet, and their still in a stronger position than Facebook in
terms of having money to throw around.

> phone functionality swapped with a custom Skype UI (integrated with Facebook
> contacts)

You'll never get the carriers to agree with that. Not yet. Even Apple couldn't
do it.

> For data service, Facebook makes a deal with one carrier in every region on
> Earth to become a "dumb pipe" of unlimited 4G/3G, negotiates a reasonable
> globally consistent rate, and handles billing with users (acting as a
> middleman between users and carriers, effectively becoming its own carrier
> with borrowed infrastructure).

Again, for the same reason, it's extremely unlikely that carriers would agree
to this on any level. Not yet. They've still got a few dying gasps yet.

> In the end, we get a Facebook-controlled and Facebook-powered "Facebook
> Phone" which shuns legacy telephony technology and seamlessly moves between
> regional 3G/4G and Wi-Fi networks (and makes Facebook, Microsoft, and Nokia
> a ton of money).

I still disagree that Facebook are in any position to heavy-hand away the
branding of either Microsoft or Nokia. Especially Microsoft. They're not going
to hand over the OS they spent a lot of effort developing for no recognition,
even if it makes them tonnes of money in licensing.

It's a good idea, but I don't think it's likely at all in this climate.

~~~
prostoalex
> Microsoft would never compromise their branding.

Seems that Sidekick and Kin are counter-examples to that statement.

~~~
nemeth
> Seems that Sidekick and Kin are counter-examples to that statement.

Microsoft threw away the working Sidekick OS and re-built it from the ground
up on Win CE so that they could brand KIN as a "Windows Phone". So isn't that
really a perfect example?

~~~
astrodust
Exactly. Sidekick was thrown into the trash before the customers even knew it,
and Kin was pitched into the dumpster before the launch party was even over.

The only non-Microsoft brand to come out of Microsoft is, curiously, the XBox.

~~~
easp
Huh? Sidekick was a well established preexisting brand.

~~~
astrodust
Yes, and they threw it out. It's Microsoft or the highway.

------
papaver
I don't see the advantage. What market segment are they attacking? Technology
wise it would be a step forward from the current form of telephony, the
consumer on the other hand doesn't care, they just want a product that works
in the end and which they can use to communicate with their friends and
family.

Google has done wonders with android because they attacked a market segment
that apple was ignoring, cheaper smart phones for people that don't
necessarily care so much about apps.

With google's buyout of motorola, im just waiting for the 'free' phone. where
sms and a phone line are free for users in exchange for reading/listening to
ads. Data plan is free (with a limited amount of usage) in exchange for a
permanent status bar that displays ads.

~~~
jasomill
Presumably the market segment who uses Facebook a lot, and, in particular,
those apt to spend lots of money on Facebook "platform" products and services.

Specifically, if future Facebook revenue plans involve apps and, in
particular, in-app purchases, reclaiming Apple's 30% revenue share from even a
small percentage of Facebook's best customers could make the project
worthwhile.

------
ippisl
Maybe there's an option to create a custom android rom by facebook. something
based on cyanogenmod(which support 60 devices), that deeply integrates
facebook.

Then push installations using independent installers ,for people who already
got phones and new phone buyers ?

~~~
Danieru
So Facebook gets all of the support burden and none of the hardware money?

That is never going to happen. Nor should it.

------
shangrila
Reminds me of these guys:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helio_(wireless_carrier)>

and their TV commercials in which there was always a teenager shouting "it's
got MySpace mobile!"

------
idspispopd
1\. A single worldwide 3G/4G handset is a difficult proposition.

2\. Networks are fiercely competitive against being commoditised. While a
single carrier in each country won't allow for sufficient coverage.

3\. Consumer trust for facebook is decreasing, they're less likely to buy into
something which they'll perceive as a big brother device.

4\. It's a specific novelty device in comparison to everything-goes
Android/iOS.

5\. Android proves that price matters. Top of line hardware requires a top of
line price. (Especially if supporting all 3G/4G implementations.)

6\. Many of the services listed aren't internationally available.

7\. How does Angry Birds fit into it?

8\. How does this make money?

~~~
AlexDanger
1.) Agree.

2.) Agree.

3.) Perhaps in the blogosphere, its a non issue for the other 99% of users.

4.) Again I think you've got your head in the blogosphere. Try inverting your
statement. For a large set of users, iOS/Android are just devices that allow
them to use Facebook away from the PC. Easy to see how calling, messaging,
photos and games could integrate seamlessly with Facebook.

5.) Perhaps a bit more expensive, or they can just do what device
manufacturers do now and market different versions for different regions. Not
many people need a phone that is compatible with every single wireless
protocol.

6.) Dont understand.

7.) Facebook games?

8.) Pay for handset. Monthly access fee. Whatever. People are used to paying
for their phone.

If it wasnt for the telcos, this idea might have some traction.

------
colinsidoti
I feel like I may have missed something with all of this new talk about the
Facebook phone.

About a year ago, it was announced that Facebook had partnered with HTC and
would be releasing a phone in 18 months. I believe it was reported to run on a
forked version of Android with an HTML5 front end (presumably to avoid the
software update issues that Google is facing)

Is there any reason to believe that's changed? I feel like they still have 6
months before I really expect to see anything

------
swalsh
I highly doubt Facebook wants to make their own phone... but if they were
here's my take on it.

1.) They could benefit by adding new hardware. Imagine they remove the screen
and opt for a google goggles like interface. If they own this channel, they
become a real 100 billion dollar company.

2.) having closer access to users communication gives them more vectors to
scrape users personal data...

------
AznHisoka
I just don't want another Platform to develop for other than iPhone and
Android... Don't tell me it's gonna give me more traction/users.. 100% of
users divided 1 way is better than 100% divided by 3!

------
olog-hai
Says the Skype website: "Skype is not a replacement for your telephone and
can't be used for emergency calling." It's also not possible to port an
existing phone number to Skype.

~~~
buu700
Ah, good point. I'm guessing gaps in 3G coverage and/or the unnecessary extra
layers of SkypeOut are the risk? In any case, I suppose my idea could be
revised to include CDMA/GSM specifically for emergency calls (which would rely
on roaming).

As far as porting, it would definitely be a nice feature, but I'm not sure
would be necessary for a successful market entrance.

------
nvrmor
no thanks

------
wavephorm
I think Facebook should cozy up to Mozilla and use Boot2Gecko. Facebook's
strength is in their web presence, and by leveraging a web-oriented phone,
they could offer something that doesn't compete directly with other handset
makers.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Mozilla would curl up, sell/give their assets to charity and die before
partnering with Facebook. Boot to Gecko is free, open source, and arguably
more "open" than Android. There's no need for a partnership.

Mozilla and their leadership care very much about privacy and freedom.
Facebook does not jive with that at all.

~~~
notatoad
openness and freedom means giving your open and free code over to people who
might not share your values quite so much. North Korea has a linux distro. A
partnership with facebook would not be against mozilla's ethos at all.
Facebook could contribute to the development of B2G and use the final product
without compromising its openness in any way.

Furthermore, facebook might be somewhat evil when it comes to customer data,
but they're an upstanding citizen in the open source community. they manage or
contribute to many open source projects.

------
somesomeone
I wouldn't take that seriously. The guy is most likely some bored teenager
posting to reddit with an iPod Touch or something.

