
Introducing Facebook Camera - sahillavingia
http://newsroom.fb.com/News/Introducing-Facebook-Camera-170.aspx
======
JCB_K
I really don't see the point of separate apps. The main Facebook app, Facebook
Messenger, Facebook Photos...what's next?

Anyone who can enlighten me why this would be a good strategy? Seems like
unnecessary fragmentation to me.

~~~
dominostars
It's the iOS paradigm to make feature simple standalone apps. Why do you think
Apple has both a "Photo Album" and "Camera" app? And both a "Phone" and
"Contacts" app?

Many users upload photos to Facebook, so there's a huge incentive to make an
app that makes it simple to do this. Even if the main Facebook app has feature
parity with FBPhotos, it's still going to come with all of the cruft.

~~~
niketdesai
This.

Two things people do that FB wants channeled through their systems: Photos &
Chat.

Replacing your camera app with FBs means that all photos go to Facebook, which
also represents the most important content on Facebook.

If your photos and your friends photos are all on FB then they go to FB.

If everyone you know is on FB then you'll probably use FB to talk to them.
Thus, the chat ecosystem. Because FB is device and OS agnostic, it works even
better than what Apple is trying to do with iMessage.

So why separate apps? Because people today already do these things as separate
apps. You take a photo with your camera and then upload to FB. Now you just
take a photo. This is actually what Google does with G+ and its automatic
photo uploads. But FB can't do that, because they don't own the device
ecosystem so this is their technique...for now.

~~~
smackfu
Plus it's pretty seamless replacement. Same label "Camera". Same icon, just
with a blue background instead of grey.

~~~
malandrew
TBH, I'm kind of surprised Apple is totally cool with this since one of the
AppStore guidelines is to not create apps that replicate core iOS features.
Now I know that Facebook's Camera app does more than take photos, but they are
a direct replacement for the Camera and Photos apps that are native to iOS.
Making the name and icon so very similar is close enough to be construed as an
obvious intent to confuse/mislead.

------
templaedhel
UX bug that is actually fairly glaring when it comes down to it:

I searched for "Facebook Camera" in the app store, but because it is so new,
it is not there (ok, seems normal)

I went to the site and clicked "Text link to my phone", phone number already
filled out, text went through fine (so far so good)

Clicked on the link, but facebooks mobile detection caught it before the
redirect happened, didn't know how to handle the url, and redirected me to the
facebook homepage instead (I was logged in, so this was my news feed page).

This leaves me with basically no way it install the app unless I wait for it
to be indexed in the app store, or download to my computer, both of which I do
not want to do.

~~~
ja27
I just Googled the iTunes link and followed it on my iPhone. Opens the app in
the store even though it can't be found by searching yet.
[http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/facebook-
camera/id525898024?l...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/facebook-
camera/id525898024?ls=1&mt=8)

------
cletus
I said earlier today [1] that mobile proposes a strategic risk to Facebook as
they don't control the mobile platform like Apple or Google.

This is really the best they can do to change that. I believe they're
attempting to create a base mobile experience and use that as a selling point
for mobile devices. On iOS for example there are standard apps for Mail, Maps,
Search (browser), etc. I wouldn't be surprised if you see a suite of apps from
Facebook to be the base functionality for some phone.

The next logical step would be to then bundle that on something and call it a
Facebook Phone as a branding exercise. Carriers can bundle software, on non-
IOS anyway, why not Facebook?

Mozilla ends money through the selling the default search engine on Firefox.
Why can't Facebook do the same thing?

Part of this mobile strategy is to create a mobile platform (aka Project
Spartan [2]).

Good for Facebook. At least they realize the risk they face.

[1]: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4016950>

[2]: [http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/28/this-sure-looks-a-lot-
like-...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/28/this-sure-looks-a-lot-like-
facebooks-project-spartan-screenshots/)

~~~
baby
This!

My Android phone (HTC Desire) recently broke and I got a old iPhone 3G. One
feature (among a lot of others) I really missed was being able to combine a
contact with his facebook account. This feature could really make my next
purchase be an android phone and not something else.

~~~
Z3UX
Then just buy an Windows Phone! There you can combine Facebook + Twitter +
LinkedIn + you name it ;)

~~~
baby
is it good compared to what android do? I never considered buying one but why
not actually.

------
mlinsey
This is fantastic. I hope Facebook continues with the break-apps-up strategy,
because it makes a lot more sense for mobile. On mobile, you have less screen
real estate, a less precise pointing device (fat fingers vs. a mouse), and
you're generally shorter on time, especially compared to when you're wasting
time on Facebook on your laptop. All these things mean that simpler apps with
fewer UI elements and with a single clear purpose are much better on mobile. I
already use Messeger alone as much as the actual Facebook app, which is
disastrously unwieldy. Here's hoping we see events and contacts as the next
apps. Games is also probably a big priority.

------
patrickod
They split Camera and Messenger out into their own separate applications
recently on Android. This was quickly reverted seemingly due to really bad
reception. It puzzles me why they're repeating this

~~~
Kylekramer
The problem with the Android version is you got three apps in your app drawer
when installing the main Facebook app. That was confusing, spammy, and
impossible for the user to opt out of if they wanted to use Facebook on
Android at all. A separate app is just confusing (unless you are coming from
Facebook's perspective), so it is an improvement. I am positive there will be
a separate Android app in the coming weeks.

~~~
jen_h
The Android shortcut was really confusing - a guy at our local watering hole
last week was showing me his favorite Android apps, then pointed out an app he
installed because his camera app broke. "It just stopped working last week,
but I installed this app and use it instead, it works. Don't know what
happened to my camera."

Turns out that the Facebook Camera shortcut just said "Camera" - and of course
it didn't open up the stock camera app (I think it showed up on the main
screen and first in the apps list, too). Once he updated Facebook and the
shortcut disappeared, the stock camera app was more obvious.

The shortcut itself was really confusing - it said Camera on it and it wasn't
immediately obvious that it was Facebook-specific. You want to take a picture,
you look down & see "Camera," and you click on it. Combine that with the fact
that icons change underneath you a lot anyway (see also "Android Market
becomes Google Play Store"), and you just default to reading the app name
anyway; so you tap to open the first app whose caption matches what you're
looking for.

I mean, why would anything but your stock camera app be named "Camera,"
anyway?

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Yeah, the "Camera" thing was confusing. They later added a little white F in a
blue circle to the bottom-right of the icon. But before that, I thought it was
something my launcher had added, since there were two Camera and two Messenger
apps.

------
nicholassmith
I must admit, this looks great. There seems to be a couple of design choices
that are a bit weird that have been mentioned below, but it's a solid bit of
work.

But Facebook, why are you still cursing the world with your terrible main
applications and spending precious development hours making additional apps?
If you ever want to monetize mobile you need to make the mobile experience not
terrible.

Take the team working on this, give them the main app, give them 3 months and
let them go nuts. It'll work. It'll be great. Your users will want to engage
more.

------
kurtvarner
Bad news for Batch from Dailybooth (YC S09). They focus on uploading photos in
batches.

<http://batch.com/>

~~~
maybird
I see this as an inflection point for them. Pivot or die. Hopefully they'll do
the former, and reach new heights.

~~~
gkoberger
The just pivoted less than a year ago from DailyBooth to Batch.

(The team is awesome, though, so I'm not worried about them.)

------
dylanvee
How interesting: I installed and launched the app expecting to see the
standard "Log in with Facebook" screen, but instead there's a big button that
says "Continue as [my name]" (and a smaller one, "Not you?"). I wonder how
exactly they're doing this, and if it will make its way into 3rd-party apps.
It made the first launch experience quite seamless.

~~~
vl
On iPhone you can share secrets between apps by the same developer if there
are signed in the same way, there is no easy way to do it across apps.

------
raimondious
Note the author is Dirk Stoop, of recently acquired Sofa. (Congrats Dirk if
you're reading.)

------
rwc
Isn't the point here that instead of creating hardware and developing the
software on top of it, Facebook is creating its own mobile offering in
reverse? Building all of the software and setting the hardware component as
priority two.

Facebook Messenger's new read/delivered functionality is much like BBM or
iMessage. They just unveiled their app store. Now a Photos app.

Once the core apps are done and everybody who has an iOS or Android phone
already uses them and enjoys them, convincing people to jump to an actual
Facebook phone may not be a stretch.

Not saying that will ultimately happen, but it seems like this approach is
keeping that door wide open.

------
drewwwwww
this app is clearly worth a billion dollars.

------
aguynamedrich
[http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/19/facebook-is-secretly-
buildi...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/19/facebook-is-secretly-building-a-
phone/)

This article is from nearly two years ago and claims that Facebook was very
secretively working on its own mobile OS. If this is indeed the case, a lot of
their somewhat recent acquisitions make a little more sense (GoWalla, Karma,
Instagram obviously, and LightBox).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Faceboo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Facebook)

The fact that their valuation gets beat down on the lack of ad revenue in the
ever growing mobile space turns into a bullish signal if they release a high
quality phone with a high profit margin. I wondered why they were splitting up
their mobile app into many recently on Android as well, and this tells me that
it's possible they want to create a suite of "necessity" apps as the basis for
their platform.

------
sev
Since this app seems to directly "compete" with the Instagram app, I wonder if
their goal is to get rid of Instagram completely.

~~~
slantyyz
I've always thought that the goal was to slowly let Instagram die in the same
way Flickr has.

~~~
derrida
Flickr is dead? News to me, I've been using it today to search for creative
commons images. Software is much broader than what you and your friends use.
:-)

------
tferris
There're pros and cons.

Breaking apps up feels smart—it's like Unix. But otherwise you have more
overhead, more apps and more updates. But I guess the app quality would
heavily benefit because then the devs have to fulfill just one use case and by
focussing on one thing the overall app quality might be better.

They could also introduce a system similar to web bookmarks: one app and many
entry points—or like a command line app which does different things by adding
options. Android widget often fill this gap offering different entry points
into one app.

------
sparknlaunch12
Agree the comments supporting Facebook's fragmented strategy of introducing
new separate apps.

To compete with Microsoft, Apple, Google you need a platform (OS and phone).
While Facebook messenger didn't really take off, photos may be more of a
popular transition as many send photos to Facebook anyway.

I feel that the mobile app market will mature along the same lines as computer
software. Eventually the majority of users will want a simple experience of
picking up a phone without having to make choices in an 'store' environment.

------
mstefanko
So confused. I understand the instagram deal is on hold, but a separate app
for facebook photos, even if it's been in the works for awhile, seems like a
waste of time. It's a deterrent from what should be their main focus. When
investors are skeptical about the future of their revenue/stock, this would be
the last thing I'd want to see. If this was built into the facebook app, as an
improvement, that be cool. LNo one would care about it, but it would at least
make sense.

------
uptown
Reminds me of when Yahoo Photos was competing with Flickr.

~~~
sahaskatta
Google did something similar too. They had "Google Videos" which competed with
"YouTube" for a very long time.

------
smackfu
Two thoughts:

1) This makes it even clearer that a lot of stuff that is allegedly tagged
photos of people on Facebook is memes and "inspirational" posters. And you can
only unsubscribe from photos in the web version.

2)You can't just change photos from 3:2 to square aspect ratio. The subject
isn't always in the center of the photo!

------
neilparikh
This looks a lot like Instagram to me.

You can upload pictures from here, there's a constant stream of photos, and
you can apply effects to your pictures. There are a few differences from
Instagram, but the essence seems the same to me.

------
EricDeb
How does this compare with instagram? (I have yet to upgrade to a smart phone)

I wonder if FB could have simply released this as a direct competitor to
instagram and crowded them out versus shelling out $1B.

------
gagabity
So no Android version? Plus there seems to already be an unrelated App named
Facebook Camera in the Android Market, it should get a nice little downloads
boost.

------
arihant
I followed the link from Google to app store. It gives "This request could not
be completed" error on the app store. Maybe I'd have to wait.

I would also love an FB contacts app.

------
sriramk
How does the app know who I am without asking me to log into Facebook? Is it
guessing somehow from my FB app's login + UUID? Or am I missing something
basic

~~~
nupark2
Just a guess, but the iOS keychain can be used to share information across
applications with a common bundle prefix.

------
borski
I realize this was probably in the works for a long time, but is it crazy to
think that the Instagram folks helped build this?

Perhaps filters are coming soon. :)

~~~
tommi
Yes it is. See "Expect a 6 month freeze on Facebook’s Instagram acquisition"
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3965961>

~~~
hornokplease
From another article on Facebook Camera:

"Stoop confirmed to [All Things D] that Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom and his
team had nothing to do with building Facebook Camera."

Source: [http://allthingsd.com/20120524/as-facebook-launches-a-
standa...](http://allthingsd.com/20120524/as-facebook-launches-a-standalone-
camera-app-the-instagram-buy-comes-into-focus/)

------
wluu
My initial impressions upon launch was that it seemed to load much faster and
was more responsive than their main iOS app.

------
mkr-hn
The style reminds me a lot of Google+. It's good that they're willing to
accept design inspiration from outside Facebook.

~~~
alexpenny
A lot of the people working on the app were from Sofa.

~~~
tga
The Zowieso reference in the screenshots is a nice hint to that, it was (is?)
the Sofa company cat.

------
gfosco
More ad-free mobile experiences from bubblebook... This ought to generate so
much value. /roll

~~~
duaneb
The userbase is almost always more valuable than immediate monetization.

------
nthitz
This reminds me of a certain other mobile camera app that FB acquired quite
recently...

~~~
zecho
I've said it in this thread already, but that acquisition is definitely not
finalized.

------
justhw
What's with the generic name _camera_. Good luck ranking for the term.

~~~
psylence519
Why rank when you can just shove it in the user's face with your other app?
Just like they did with Messenger.

------
creativityhurts
Why is it available just for the US App Store?

~~~
koeselitz
I'm in the US, and it doesn't look like it's available yet. I'm just searching
the App Store on my iPhone, though; I'm not sure if things show up there later
or something.

------
pixelphantom
We're still using Facebook?

------
briansugar
is this run on a windows box??

.aspx

~~~
flyt
Facebook's press site is operated by NASDAQ.

------
Greg12x
Wow. Do we really need this?

------
nivertech
Rebranded Instagram with Feacebook photos integration?

