Facebook Home, One Way Or Another

How Facebook for Android is a trojan horse for Facebook's larger ambitions.



You've got to wonder whether this strategy is written on the board somewhere prominently in Facebook's offices: do something extreme, make people uncomfortable, and then when it's been soundly rejected, take a step back and find a way to make it happen without anyone noticing.  Since the days of Beacon Facebook has done this time and time again.  Facebook introduces a major change that take invasion of privacy, lock-in and control to a whole new level, cause a crazy uproar. Then, when the uproar has subsided and nobody is paying attention anymore, Facebook finds a new, quieter way to accomplish the very same thing.  Even Facebook's stock price has taken that path, finally flirting with profitability after a tumultuous IPO.

The latest culprit of this bait and switch strategy? Facebook Home, Facebook's attempt to own our mobile operating system.

Facebook Home's launch may have been the company's biggest failure yet.  It was announced with great fanfare, with commercial partners, and with lofty claims about this not only being the greatest version of Facebook ever-- but a whole new way of experiencing mobile.  The problem was, though, Facebook Home took mobile lock-in to a whole new level by suppressing much of what people do on their phones a layer below Facebook's own features.  It also showed a complete misunderstanding of the motivations of many Android users.  The result was a minimal usage and HTC's Facebook Home phone being discounted to 99 cents within a month of going on sale.

But as we should know by now Facebook never gives up.  While almost no one is using Facebook Home, a tens of millions of people are using Facebook for Android.  And Facebook Android app, it turns out, is the perfect back door to introduce Facebook Home features away from the critical public eye.  First came Chat Heads, Facebook Home's clever and fun messaging platform.  Then came Cover Feed, Facebook Home's very attractive newsfeed screensaver.  Both features were introduced as opt-in options, and I've activated each as soon as they were available (note: as a Facebook for Android Beta tester, I sometimes receive updates earlier than the general public).

As it turns out, Facebook Home's best features are pretty great.  Chat Heads makes messaging much more accessible than ever before by elevating text messages above the Android application layer so you can send messages without having to leave what you're doing.  And Cover Feed makes turning on your phone a few hundred times a day much more interesting and enjoyable by introducing new photos and status updates from your friends in beautiful full bleed panning display that you can 'like' or comment on immediately, every time the lock screen appears.  My Facebook usage had waned considerably over the years, but since turning on Cover Feed I've browsed and interacted with Facebook at exponentially greater volumes.

One day with Cover Feed and you can see why Facebook wants this so badly.

Facebook turning its regular Android app into a trojan horse for Facebook Home features isn't going to solve all of its problems.  Cover Feed is great, and new features seem to be getting added regularly (just this week Facebook added support for audio controls in the lock-screen).  My biggest critique with Facebook Home when it first launched was its blatant disregard for 3rd party applications, which it needs to play nicely with if it wants to own more real estate on the phone.  I'm loving Cover Feed, but I'll be more likely to stick with it if I can integrate photo streams from other applications as well (first-up, how about Instagram support, which at the very least is part of Facebook's own family?).  And Facebook is still quietly working on Facebook Home, hoping to get it to a place where Android users consider it a compelling alternative to the stock operating system.

It's clear to me, though, whatever happens-- one way or another, we'll all be using a version of Facebook Home sooner or later, whether we realize it, like it, or not.

Replacing Google Reader

Today is the first day us geekerati won't be powering our daily reading with Google Reader (at least those of us who still rely on RSS).  There were many of us who loved and relied heavily on Google Reader, and I wrote a story about how hard it is when a beloved product doesn't love you back.  But the question I'm being asked is, what are you doing now for RSS reading?

#1. Backing up my Google Reader data
Google has enabled us to export all sorts of data from Google Reader via its personal archive service Google Takeout, including a list of all of your RSS feed subscriptions, starred items, and more.  I exported my Google Reader data and stored it to Google Drive.  You only have until July 15th to do this, so get on it.

#2. Creating an account on Feedly
If you're a power RSS reader, you need an RSS reader that is flexible, personalizable and accessible on all of your devices.  Feedly is a good choice because it's an RSS reader in itself and has also built an API backend to replace Google Reader's 3rd party application community.  I am not in love with Feedly itself (it always seemed to pretty to me), but its leadership position in the RSS marketplace means it's dependable for all my needs.

#3. Transitioning my mobile applications
I do most of my RSS reading on my phone, and often underground in the subway.  I rely on power RSS reading apps that let you cache feeds to read offline, skim lots of content quickly, and sync data among other things.  I've opted for Reeder on iOS and Press on Android, both because they're the best in their respective marketplace and because they both sync cleanly to the Feedly cloud.

#4. Testing out new RSS products
While I'm relying primarily on Feedly, Reeder and Press right now, I'm also exploring other options.  The one I'm most excited about is Digg Reader, a very new product from the Betaworks team that is being developed with the power user in mind.  I love the synergistic social news ecosystem that Betaworks is developing with Digg, Digg Reader, Bit.ly and Instapaper.  They have a long way to go towards making this a reality, but I'm optimistic.  I'm also considering testing Feedbin and News Blur, two cross-platform RSS readers that have admirably put a stake in the ground for a paying business model that could help sustain them long term.

So that's my post Google Reader RSS plan right now.  What's yours?

Additional reading: A bittersweet goodbye to Google Reader, the online girlfriend who dumped me.

But Do People Really Want Video on Instagram?

This afternoon Facebook held an event to announce video capture would finally be available to Instagram's 130 million users. The experience of creating a video is ripped right from Vine (touch and hold to record, lift your finger to pause), which is good because Vine was the first mobile video product to be welcomingly easy to use. Instagram video also has some interesting new bells and whistles that differentiate it from its video predecessors-- video stabilization, filters, and the ability to import content, to name a few. With Instagram video you certainly have the ability to create a more visually compelling product than ever before, in a way that feels very native to the Instagram experience. But I have to ask, after the initial excitement is over, will people really want that?

Part of the magic of Instagram is its innate ability to make any photo instantly attractive. It essentially created the idea of "one touch magic button" apps that is now a benchmark for how simple and powerful a mobile product should be. But while adding stabilization and a filter might make any video more attractive than it was to start with, it does not in itself make every video interesting enough to spend 15 seconds with. In fact, applying the promise of Instagram magic to video content might even make viewers more upset when they stop flipping through beautiful photos long enough to watch.

That's my biggest concern with Instagram video. It's great that Instagram has developed such amazing tools to make regular video better looking. But if the Instagram community starts being bogged down by :15 second videos that would have been a lot more interesting and native to the experience as photos, it will make spending time in Instagram a lot more weighty. Almost like your friends ran a :15 second ad in the middle of your beautiful photo stream. I'm already feeling this in the first day-- browsing the feed is slower, and it's more complicated to discover new interesting content in the "Explore" tab. Myself and many others open Instagram countless times a day to briefly scan through the latest photos for a moment break and smile. A steady stream of sub-par video will make that a bigger lift, and less enjoyable.

Now how does this all compare to Vine? Vine has been so successful because if provides the right balance of capability and confinement. In 6 seconds people can be as creative as they want to be (and there's been some truly impressive Vine art). But 6 seconds also limits uninteresting content in a way that doesn't disrupt the flow of scanning content that is necessary in social platforms like these. Vine's limitations somehow lower the bar for what video content has to achieve to be compelling, and that's what so differentiating and impressive about it. It's also established itself for what it is-- browsing the Vine stream you get exactly the experience you're looking for. Wouldn't it be strange if people could suddenly start taking pictures with their Vine app?

So while I'm very impressed with the video product that Instagram has put together, and I'll probably even use it every once in a while, I don't think it's going to be the market disrupter that Instagram originally was. I don't think it's going to be the magic bullet to make ammateur video instantly more proliffic and compelling than before. And I do actually think one of two things will happen-- people will not use it all that often, or Instagram will add some sort of view filter that lets people browse only photos if they want to, to preserve the amazing experience they've been cultivating since their launch. And Vine, and other single-purpose apps, will continue to flourish despite Facebook's relentless attempt to take the whole cake.

At least I hope so.

Disclaimer: The SS+K Lab that I co-founded built the popular Vine search engine VineViewer and has previously built applications for Instagram, as well. We love both equally :)

Why Tumblr Should Sell to Twitter Instead

Awesome photo borrowed from The Verge

If the rumors or to believe, the ink is drying as we speak on a deal for Yahoo! to acquire Tumblr.  This is Marisa Mayer's biggest move yet in her effort to make Yahoo! relevant again.  I'm a big fan of Marisa and rooting for her to bring magic to properties that Flickr that I still rely on.  But as a Tumblr user, I can't help but wonder if this is a terrible fit.  In short, here's why: Yahoo! has a horrible legacy with forced integration, has never been innovative when it comes to monetization models, and is lacking any real creative credibility at the moment.  Tumblr users, myself included, have to be worried about all of these things.

As a regular user it may seem funny to think so intensely about the business functions of free consumer platforms  like Tumblr, but the truth is we have to.  Tumblr founder David Karp fought the good fight by keeping regular banner advertising off Tumblr's enjoyable platform for so long.  But free platforms have to make money somehow, and as we're learning time after time, the harsh reality of business is often bad news for us.  The question is whether Yahoo! is capable of recouping a $1.1 billion investment in Tumblr in a way that makes sense for itself and the Tumblr community.

Advocates of this deal will point to Google's successful acquisition of YouTube as an example of how the relationship between Yahoo! and Tumblr should be structured.  But YouTube actually benefited immensely from Google's ownership and was more synergistic than it may be looked on the surface.  Google's infrastructure innovations have helped reduce the operating expense and increased the compatibility of the platform.  Google's ad targeting and performance pricing were both exactly right for YouTube.  And search is incredibly important for YouTube.  Does Yahoo! have that type of synergy with Tumblr?  I'm not so sure.

If Tumblr really had to sell, I would have much rather seen Twitter as the acquirer.  In many ways, Tumblr and Twitter are incredibly compatible.  David Karp and Jack Dorsey are both creative leaders who have proven they care about user experience.  Tumblr's diverse content posting platform would be a perfect way for Twitter to fill in support for all media types in its growing Twitter cards platform.  Tumblr has recently started making money through native advertising techniques that replicate Twitter's monetization-- promoted posts and promoted accounts--  and both platforms approach the advertising with careful restraint, which is greatly appreciated by users as compared to Facebook.  Twitter and Tumblr also both have the respect of a younger audience, which means their loyal fans would probably not be appalled and run for greener pastures if the acquisition took place (which is a major fear should the Yahoo! acquisition go through).  Both companies use tagging and topic pages to tell cover events and tell stories through the power of their users.  The examples of synergy go on and on.

Yet again we users are in a scary situation as a company we considers its on future.  It's time for users to take some responsibility for these fates.  We have to signal the ways in which we'd be comfortable with the services we use making money.  We can be willing to pay, we can appreciate and support good ad experiences, we can willingly give up our data.  Hopefully users and companies can work together to ensure the product we both love can thrive and secure their own fates.  And if that's not possible, hopefully companies can make smart acquisition decisions that lead to outcomes like YouTube, not Flickr.  I hope I'm wrong and Marisa Mayer is the right parent for the job.

The subtlety of (don’t be) evil

The subtlety of (don’t be) evil: considering Google's ambitions
[A blog post I wrote for Medium, but never published, after Google IO]

In the aftermath of Google’s annual IO conference that ended with an impassioned speech by Larry Page pleading with the tech industry to stop fighting and start focusing on making the world better, it’s worth revisiting Google historic Don’t Be Evil mantra. The irony was not lost on anyone when, at the same time Larry Page was preaching unity, Google lawyers were requesting that Microsoft pull their recently launched YouTube app from the Windows Phone Store.

Here is why I believe in Google, why I buy into their mission: more often than not, Google’s work helps make the world better. Whether its breaking new ground with products no one ever thought of, or entering competitive industries that already have clear leaders, its typically doing so to significantly benefit us all by starting massive leaps forward.

Oftentimes critics label Google’s ambitions in productivity (i.e., Google Docs), web utility (i.e., Chrome), Geography (i.e., Maps), and mobile (i.e., Android) as evil because they were competitive efforts in someone else’s industry. But in each case, Google helped drastically change the market for the better. Microsoft wasn’t innovating with its Office product and clearly had no vision for the era of web connectivity. Firefox had done the hard work of unseating Microsoft’s hold on the browser market, but it took Google’s entry into the industry to ignite the incredible acceleration in web browser speed, standards compatibility and cross-platform sync. Google Maps proved MapQuest was actually a laughable product that was doing a fraction of what mapping was capable of. And while Apple made the biggest contribution to the mobile industry ever by breaking the carrier stranglehold, it needed a foil in Google to expose the value of open platforms. In each instance, Google entering the market has ignited competition that has lead to greater and greater products and services for users.

For me, whether Google is acting evil or not is determined by whether it can really effectively make a difference in a market it enters, not just steal someone’s revenue.

Facebook Home is a beautiful, but contradictory, vision for our mobile future

The rumors of a Facebook phone have been around for years now. And with each new mobile app or functionality that Facebook launched-- Facebook Messenger, Facebook Camera, Facebook Messenger with voice calling... the noise grew louder. But the question always remained: a Facebook phone sure seems great for Facebook, but why is it great for us?

Finally on Thursday Mark Zuckerberg walked on stage and gave us our answer in the form of Facebook Home. Its not a phone, he said, its a whole new way of experiencing mobile. Its a paradigm shift from apps to people. Its the way mobile social was always supposed to be. Oh and by the way, its the best version of Facebook yet.

Well therein lies the rub. Mark Zuckerberg did unveil a beautiful vision for the future of mobile. The immersive cover feed seems like we could get lost in it for hours. Elevating chat above the app layer is a stroke of brilliance that changes the meaning of multitasking. It certainly feels right to be looking at people and actions, not apps.

But by its very nature, the Facebook phone-- or loader or whatever you want to call it-- is a contradiction. It simply turns your smartphone into one big Facebook app, suppressing almost anything but Facebook's already people-first behavior. Its a glorified app at the expense of how people really exist today-- as a multitude of experiences and behaviors across a wide variety of platforms and ecosystems.

You see, people today don't just want to communicate on Facebook. They want to stream news on Twitter, express themselves on Tumblr, explore on Foursquare and more. A Facebook phone can never really become the world's first truly people-first phone unless it embraces every way people really communicate. Facebook, on its own, cannot be a phone for the people.

Mark Zuckerberg mentioned several times on Thursday how Facebook Home wouldn't have been possible without the amazing commitment by Google to make Android open. If Zuckerberg really wants to be the champion of a people-first mobile future he should match that by building Facebook Home to embrace all of the other interactions, on Facebook or otherwise, that people want to have. THAT will be the best version of Facebook yet.

Trading in my iPhone 4S for a Google Nexus 4

Ever since I fell in love with the Google Nexus 7, I've been thinking about trading in an iPhone for an Android phone.  As I mentioned before, I think innovation in the mobile Operating System space is largely coming from Google (and even Microsoft) right now, and in comparison Apple's iOS is starting to feel stale.  The release of Android 4.1 Jellybean this summer was a turning point for Android, but there wasn't a phone worth buying yet until Google released the Nexus 4, a flagship phone in the same lineage of Nexus 7 that would always feature the latest version of Android.  As lucky would have it, I won a new Nexus 4 at a Google event, so this week I decided to take the plunge. 

I popped the sim card out of my iPhone and transitioned full time to an Android phone.

I'm going to spend a lot more time with the phone before I give an official review, but until then it's worth sharing some my initial reactions for anyone about to make a similar phone change cold turkey.  The phone itself is beautiful.  It's slim and light, but with a big beautiful screen.  Multi-tasking and cross-app integration is pretty fantastic (as It's always been on Android).  Voice recognition and other typing alternatives like native swype-style keyboards make information input a breeze.  The operating system is much more informative and actionable-- from better app notifications, to better data about your power usage.  And I have really high hopes for Google Now.

But there's also a lot of surprises.  Though the phone is very fast, the touch response feels a bit slower, akin to how Windows trackpads often feel compared to Apple.  And even though the operating system itself is fantastic, many applications aren't matching it in quality.  It seems many companies delay in rolling out their best features to Android, so applications I love on iPhone are only subpar on Android (for example, Evernote Hello doesn't have business card scanning functionality yet, and Nike+ doesn't have friend leaderboards or Path integration yet-- both popular features on their iOS equivalent).  And some great apps are still missing all together.

Also, Android's old selling point-- the most powerful versions of Google own applications-- isn't even true anymore.  The latest versions of Google Maps, Gmail and Google+ on iPhone are pretty killer, even better, I think, than what's on Android right now.  I think this is because on iPhone Google has a the highly evolved standard gestures of iOS, a refined standard that doesn't yet exist on Android (things like pull to refresh, left-swype menus and click-to-top headers).

So it will be an interesting ride.  I can already see a ton of pluses and minuses of both iOS and its standard hardware build (the weight and size is definitively easier to hold, but harder to read on) and the operating system (a more open OS leads to better integration but less polished functions).  I'm sure I'll learn a lot more as I spend an extended period with the phone.  And then come July, when the next iPhone comes out, I'll be ready to make an informed decision on what platform I'm going to commit to my next two years.  In the mean time, let me know if you have any Android suggestions or questions.

Our Vineviewer Vine Search Engine Gets Some Love

We launched our labor of love VineViewer (a Vine video search engine) to the public one week ago now.  It's been an exciting seven days, so I wanted to provide an update on our web app.

Since roll-out, our development partner Firefall Pro has been killing it with feature updates and stability optimizations.  Now each Vine video has its own "card" which includes a link to the video post's original Vine post page as well as the shared Twitter post page.  You can search for multiple keywords at once, and search results now have unlimited scrolling.  Videos fail much less often, but when they do, we serve a nice error graphic instead of a 404 page.  There's a new "about" message that appears when you roll over the corner plus (+) graphic.  And the design is a lot cleaner overall.

We've gotten some pretty awesome coverage in the press:

• A full article in FastCompany Co.Create
• Featured on AdAge: Creativity
• Bylines in Business Insider and Media Bistro: AgencySpy
• Listing in AdAge's Ad Critic Top 20

And most of all, people seem to really enjoy using it.  Over 2,600 people have used the app so far, to search for everything from video game clips to peeks at the winter storm Nemo.  And the average visit duration is climbing to now over 3 minutes per visit (amazing, considering Vines are 6 seconds).

I hope VineViewer grows as a part of the Vine community.  We'll be thinking about ways to make it more useful.  In the meantime, continue to share it, and let us know what you think.