

Path and Instagram are making Facebook look incredibly uninventive at mobile - strandev
http://www.splatf.com/2011/11/path-facebook/

======
imjk
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.

~~~
fromedome
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?

~~~
EwanToo
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.

~~~
davedx
I've noticed a lot of penetration of WhatsApp here in the Netherlands. It's
quietly exploding.

------
statictype
_As the “mobile Internet” becomes the Internet_

This sounds like the type of thing you'd hear from someone who thinks the blue
'e' icon is 'The Internet'.

~~~
fromedome
Actually, I am still using the green N. Is there something new I should try?

------
dannyr
What's inventive for me is having a social networking app that is usable by
most phones worldwide.

Facebook has mobile web app that is accesible even with the most basic feature
phone out there.

Path & Instagram only works for Android & IPhone while majority of the phones
out there are still feature phones.

~~~
davedx
But where is the money, feature phones or smartphones?

~~~
dannyr
Money?

None of them (Path, Instagram & Facebook) make money off their mobile apps.

Facebook makes its money off its web site.

------
timerickson
Huh? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Facebook's iPhone app was the first to use
the slide out menus that don't take you away from the main screen. Path copied
this exact approach with its new app.

~~~
pazimzadeh
And the cover idea on profiles. But Facebook's app is still barely usable. For
me, profiles take at least 30 seconds to load.

~~~
adamjernst
Joe Hewitt's original native app was great. But now that Facebook is moving to
using HTML all over the place, it's slow as can be.

~~~
smackfu
Well that's certainly revisionist history. I heard nothing but complaints
about the old app too.

~~~
iqster
I'm not so sure about that. At the time Joe H. wrote the original iPhone
Facebook app, it was considered by many of my friends and myself to be a gold
standard. It was limited ... sure ... but quite elegant for an initial
version. I don't know the details but the App seemed to get buggier as FB
started adding more features and changing things. Also, I believe Joe H. moved
on to other things at FB. When I complained about how the iPhone app had
started to suck, I was told to use touch.facebook.com - at that time, this was
a sucky experience and HTML based. None of the subsequent iterations of
Facebook's mobile app approached the design eloquence of the original (IMHO).
Oh well ...

[FYI: I have no association with FB. I was just a big fan of theirs at that
time.]

------
AznHisoka
Uninventive? Path and Instagram are just better looking CRUDs in mobile. Come
back to me when either of them improves the quality of social interactions by
a multiple.

~~~
phillmv
>Come back to me when either of them improves the quality of social
interactions by a multiple.

Path is up there. We'll see how it bears out over time, but the interaction is
much more tightly thought out. The seem to have reduced a lot of friction with
both participating and consuming social media.

------
rjd
"But boy is Facebook’s mobile presence looking bland these days."

TBH if the guy is just judging business and there processes on visual appeal
and not product/content/service or any concern for users he's an idiot. What
works for one company is no guarantee it will work for another.

He's also failing to comprehend how large the user base is how much they
organise and fight change already. The demographics are completely different.

------
jklp
I admit the Facebook iPhone app is a little buggy, though I have to hand it to
them, they have made a number of UI elements which now seem to be common place
on the App Store.

e.g. IIRC they were one of the first apps to have a grid based menu system
(ref: Google+ app, Bump, etc) and (I think) also the first app to have sliding
menus (where the main view is slid to the right to reveal the menu hidden
underneath the main view).

~~~
fromedome
Totally. No arguing that Facebook wasn't an app pioneer. Joe Hewitt's work was
incredible.

But what have they done for us lately?

------
andrewhillman
FB is on a way different level than path and instagram. first off, path and
instagram focus on mobile and FB doesn't. If FB was a tiny little startup I
think they would be rockin mobile. FB is focusing on what makes them $... the
website. Lame to compare a big apple and to raisins.

~~~
fromedome
That's what makes them money now. But I don't think they will disagree that
the future is mobile. And that's where they don't seem to be pushing as
strong.

------
natrius
Inventiveness and compellingness are orthogonal. Facebook's mobile
applications are excellent. They don't feel like a crippled, compromised
version of Facebook. They feel like Facebook. Instagram and Path have the
opposite problem: their web interfaces are second-class.

~~~
fromedome
Perhaps. But their web interfaces will improve. Both are pretty small
companies that will grow.

My main question is: Will something that "feels like Facebook" be what people
want on their phones indefinitely? Or will something that feels more like a
mobile app/service take over?

~~~
natrius
Facebook's mobile apps _do_ feel like mobile apps. Sure, Path is prettier, but
claiming that it's significantly more usable than mobile Facebook requires
some objective substantiation.

------
rplnt
Path with rating of 3.2 on Android Market doesn't look too convincing.

