
Facebook Home: Another Android Lock Pick - Hoff
http://www.mondaynote.com/2013/04/07/facebook-home-another-android-lock-pick/
======
mtgx
Until now Google didn't really care about manufacturer skins/customizations,
because at the end of the day, they were still getting growth with Android,
and to put their services on each one of those devices. So no matter what they
might've said to the users that they care most about them, it's been pretty
clear that they didn't care _enough_ to force out all OEM customizations.

But this time - well, this time it might be different, because instead of
being complementary to their services, this one actually threatens them. It
might finally make them ban OEM/3rd party customizations, and get everyone to
use stock Android, just like every PC out there has to use the same Windows
interface.

As an Android user who would like to see more phones without OEM
customizations, Facebook Home couldn't make me any happier, if it actually
forces Google into banning it and any other such customizations, starting with
Android 5.0.

~~~
hayksaakian
the OS in AOSP stands for open source.

They can't stop anyone from customizing Android outright, but they reserved
the right to ban them from the Open Handset Alliance, a lá Amazon.

The closest I've seen to straight up bans from Google are against
malware/virus apps and selective bans against violators of their ToS (some ad-
blocking apps were banned for using a workaround, but other apps that used
that workaround were not banned).

Don't forget that Windows is closed source.

While they could potentially close off the platform going forward, they can't
retroactively un-open source code.

~~~
mobbom
They control the ability to add Google services (Maps, Gmail, Google Play
Store, etc.) on top of Android. So they do have some power that they can exert
without destroying the open source concept.

------
zmmmmm
This article seems to miss the main threat of Facebook Home - it's pushing
aside Google+ integration and subverting Google's strategy to weave G+ into
their user's experience. While that is eventually about advertising, the
advertising is a far removed long term goal.

Nonetheless, the Play Store is the beating heart of an android phone, and as
long as all the Facebook phones are running it I think Google's going to be
pretty philosophical about this. It's a lot better than Facebook launching
their own phone or teaming up with Samsung on Tizen or something like that.
And while ever Facebook is playing on Google's turf, Google can afford to give
them a pretty long leash, knowing they always hold the reigns through the Play
Store requirements, and their ability to out code Facebook on their own
platform is always going to give them a big advantage.

~~~
notatoad
>Google+ integration and ... Google's strategy to weave G+ into their user's
experience.

does this exist? i've got the google+ app on my phone, and i quite like it,
but i wouldn't call it an integrated experience. i get notifications and it
installs itself as a sharing option, but that's just like any other app.
google+ isn't deeply integrated with android at all.

------
ChuckMcM
This certainly advances an interesting argument. That Facebook Home could
capture an Android device. It raises a really interesting question of where
the ad revenue goes. Which is to say if Home starts showing you ads ("Your
friend Johnny just got a copy of Halo9 want to buy a copy and play him?") that
ad revenue won't go to Google obviously any more than Ad revenue collected by
web sites that happen to be accessed by Chrome.

Here's my off the wall prediction, Google makes an equivalent product for
Google+ but some how figures out how to credit you with the bandwidth you use
while its on your home screen.

Interesting times indeed.

~~~
niggler
" some how figures out how to credit you with the bandwidth you use while its
on your home screen."

This is the bothersome part of the ad proposal: who pays for the bandwidth?
And I'm guessing facebook is expecting users to bear that cost.

~~~
bsimpson
Facebook has deals with carriers in countries where mobile data is hard for
the average customer to afford that enables free access to Facebook Zero even
without a mobile subscription.

------
andybak
Don't forget that Google's primary goal with Android was to avoid an Apple (or
anyone else's) monoculture. That was a serious risk when the iPhone came out
and it no longer is.

We're now looking at a market likely split between Apple, Android proper,
Android forks and maybe some market share for RIM and Microsoft.

That's a lot less horrific than Google being shut out of mobile entirely which
was a not-implausible scenario at one stage.

~~~
bsimpson
Android started before the iPhone was announced. Google's stated goal with
Android was to build a rich, common phone platform to enable the smartphone
revolution. Remember that before Android, most phone's came with shitty little
browsers and little-to-no room for third-party software.

When Google bought Android, very few people had done any amount of mobile web
browsing. Now, mobile makes up a notable fraction of total web usage.

Google's accomplished its goal so far with Android, but it certainly didn't
start out to prevent an iOS monoculture - it did to prevent a carrier-
dominated oligarchy of shitty web-less feature phones. (More strategically,
it's made sure that when the mobile web became important, Google services were
still front-and-center.)

~~~
Zigurd
"Android started before the iPhone was announced."

That's true. They were actually worried about Microsoft and Windows Mobile. I
believe Android's runtime was influenced by .NET Compact Framework and the
mobile .NET VM. At the time, it was by far the coolest mobile app runtime
architecture. ndroid took it several steps farther by figuring out how to run
multiple VM instances in (relatively) small memory, among other innovations.

Now that's kind of funny.

------
jusben1369
This is interesting for Google. It one way it's huge validation. Afterall,
Facebook is working with Android and not Apple. Android still in general
suffers from at best apps on par with Apple's and usually they feel a little
behind. So this is significant from a simple PR coup perspective. Facebook's
big announcement evolves around Android!

Yet as noted in this article it comes with it's own set of challenges which
are well documented here. In general, I think Google is the winner here - only
because I don't see Home being that much of a threat as a concept. I think
Facebook has now positioned itself as a "necessary evil" in our culture. In
general people use it to keep up on friends and family. But embracing the
entire experience a la home probably makes you look like more of a dork than a
hipster.

------
radley
By my understanding, only the HTC First will have Facebook's lock screen.
Without that, Home is just another Launcher.

The upside of HTC First: will be the first HTC device to have native Android
UI - if you turn off Home.

~~~
Zigurd
That is probably correct. There is no kosher way to replace a lock screen if
you are not the OEM (or have rooted).

Home is more than another launcher, though. In some ways it defines a new
class of application software for Android - a cooperating suite of apps, with
a coordinated set of interfaces.

~~~
codesuela
I would not say rooting your phone is not kosher. A little inconvinient maybe
but nowadays you don't have to be a hacker to unlock your phone. Every tech
literate person should be able to do this (as annectodatly wittnessed by me, a
couple of my friends flash CW when purchasing a non Nexus Android and they
aren't software devs)

~~~
Zigurd
I should be more specific since there are plenty of apps, even on Google Play,
that outright require you to root your phone.

There is no way for an app that expects to be installed normally, using the
normal system of permissions, to change out the lock screen. In practical
terms, Facebook could not insist their users root their phones. For some
debugging tools, that's much less of a problem.

There are "pseudo lock screens" but those are very hacky.

------
mikecane
TechCrunch made a good point: Home introduces chat multitasking. That's as
innovative as webOS' Synergy.

And we saw that both iOS and Android incorporated Synergy.

So I don't think it'll be too long before both iOS and Android introduce
multitasking chat.

If anything, we should thank FB for forcing their hands and moving everyone
forward.

Home's advantage might not last for long, in other words.

------
Irishsteve
Inqmobile ( <http://www.inqmobile.com> ) were doing this for a while (Deep FB
integration into android). It never really took off.

------
crag
FB is in direct competition with Google. So Google _has_ to respond. If they
ban it, then everyone will fork the source and it'll be the end of Android as
we know it. If FB is successful (which I have serious doubts) then, I suspect
the same thing will happen. Everyone will fork and "brand" their version.

And since Android is already Google branded their only choice is to integrate
Google +. Google + isn't exactly a runaway success now.

Now that FB has changed the rules.... if I was Verizon I'd be thinking "why
the hell am I giving Google ad revenue"?

Google is gonna get squeezed. And the funny thing is, they did it to
themselves.

~~~
andybak
Why has this changed the rules? It's a launcher. Google still has a zillion
other hooks into the Android ecosystem.

