Comments on: A Facebook Smartphone – Why?

By: Cheap Dr Dre Headphones

Cheap Dr Dre Headphones — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 02:36:14 +0000

good post,thank you share it,i like it very much

By: Marco

Marco — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:28:58 +0000

“There must be something else in Facebook’s future, a new revenue stream that it will eventually need to promote/protect. But what?”

Maybe Facebook will become an MVNO on international mobile networks?

By: Voyance Gratuite

Voyance Gratuite — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:05:47 +0000

With Carrier IQ out, Facebook follows Google…

And maybe Facebook will be sued by Oracle ?

By: iphoned

iphoned — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 02:49:09 +0000

i suppose they all just want to be sued by Oracle?

By: Brian S Hall

Brian S Hall — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 02:37:48 +0000

Great article!
“What” revenue stream probably is the correct question but I’m not so sure that Facebook believes they need to offer an answer, at least not yet.
Zuckerberg has a mission to connect everyone. To do this, it will require Facebook (or easy access to Facebook) everywhere, meaning on every phone, smartphone or otherwise, and without interference (as we should assume Google will attempt on Android).
Facebook has yet to discover a business model as magical and revolutionary as Google’s Adwords. I suspect Facebook’s execs believe that just the very process of connecting billions will, big bang-like, lead to a vast ecosystem of revenue streams.

By: Why a Facebook Smartphone? | TightWind

Why a Facebook Smartphone? | TightWind — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 01:28:58 +0000

[...] a Facebook Smartphone? November 28th, 2011 Jean-Louis Gassée wonders if there’s a bigger reason for a Facebook phone than defending agai…: I can’t help but think that there’s more to this hypothetical Facebook phone than a play [...]

By: .log : трубка

.log : трубка — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:36:17 +0000

[...] Гассье абсолютно справедливо интересуется, почему все больше разговоров о Facebook-телефоне. и сам же [...]

By: bob

bob — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:21:58 +0000

Bernard,

Its only a misstep if they make it. You or I dont know what FB is GOING to do. But even though they have left platform to others doesnt mean they will do that in mobile forever.

In fact, I believe FB HAS TO make a big move in mobile. Imagine using your phone to call people with FB as your contact list. The whole VOIP/messaging space would bve disrupted. And then FB could deal with (improve) its shitty privacy and app handling issues on a platform that matters to people. And get paid handsomely for doing it right.

Isnt that all FB is is a contact list? With multiple methods of communication?

Its so obvious that if FB doesnt try to own mobile with their own platform that they will be myspaced in 2014.

By: Bernard SG

Bernard SG — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:44:04 +0000

Typo here too: I meant “Apple (…) is NOT in the business of being nice,” of course!

By: Bernard SG

Bernard SG — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:36:23 +0000

Walt, of course Apple (nor Google nor Facebook) is in the business of being nice. However they all are in the business of making profits and, at this point, as far as Google is concerned, the Android adventure is cash-draining: the Motorola mobility acquisition, the potential nuclear meltdown if Oracle wins its lawsuit (and I wouldn’t bet against that!), Microsoft levying a tax on every Android handset sold and so on and so forth… All of that seems to be a heavy price to pay to protect oneself from some hypothetical ‘Apple imperialism’.
Just in is some news about a patent Apple is filing for ( http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2011/11/apple-reveals-new-ios-developments-social-networking-app.html ); guess what? It suggests Apple seriously considers some big social-networking move. I’m not saying it would kill FB. Of course it won’t, but it could hurt badly while I can’t help thinking that Apple wouldn’t bother if they had that iOS’ Facebook-integration secured already.
Google, and now Facebook are making a classic strategic misstep, which is to lose their focus.

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 08:02:59 +0000

Quoticus – I was going to post that. FB is about identity and communication. The world is going mobile. Our phones are a digital proxy for ourselves. Our phones know our real social graph – who we call, how often, how many mails we get on weekends and from whom. FB is losing out on that and stands to be dis-intermediated.

FB can be an app on somebody else’s platform, always hoping the phone OS makers don’t just build all relevant FB features directly into the operating system, or they can change the fight by competing for that platform.

By: Walt French

Walt French — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 06:09:02 +0000

@Bernard SG, you’ve understood the gist of what I wrote but I want to pivot and talk about the value of independence from Apple. They’re NOT in the business of being nice to everybody (although their ad on the back of this week’s New Yorker features “Google” pretty prominently on that map of Point Reyes Station).
.
Certainly, if 90% of mobile traffic came from iOS devices, the terms for referring links would be quite a bit more in Apple’s favor, you’d have to believe. I barely understand Facebook’s monetization strategy, so I won’t comment other than generally: I think it’s necessary for firms to put a placeholder, at least, into play and see how it works; they can probably strike BETTER partnership deals if they bring something, such as a few dozen million mobile users, to the table. Will FaceBook succeed? I don’t see how. But in 1980 I couldn’t understand why people wanted VisiCalc, with so much less power and I/O flexibility than FORTRAN or BASIC. So I’ll watch with interest.

By: bob

bob — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 05:43:38 +0000

A facebook phone makes total sense, I will take two of them… You can go into technicals all you want re google, thats all crap. Facebook is about communication and I would love to see FB step up to what its really about, and to integrate my experience with FB into my most important communication stream in a way that transcends “apps”.

But facebook has a problem. Its own approach to integrating “apps” is a total pile of suck. Mobile is all about integration, and they will have to think a little deeper than owe lets embrace html 5 to get around that….in fact ALOT deeper.

They will have to pull an Apple with FB technology in place of iOS. I wouldnt count them out and if they try it with serious disruptive intentions, they might just pull it off.

If they do it with the same lackluster, who cares its just cloneware approach that google has taken with plus, the first facebook phone will be a collectors item sold on ebay.

By: Bernard SG

Bernard SG — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:35:28 +0000

I want to expand on Walt’s allusion about Android users not being online that much. It’s very ironic that, according to a Google executive testifying under oath in front of the US Senate, 2/3 of Google’s Mobile Search emanates from iOS devices. On that basis, I can’t help wondering whether Google would have been better off not entering the smartphone arena at all but go for a stronger alliance with Apple… Now, as Google has pissed off Apple, their services are gradually being booted out from the iOS ecosystem, starting with SIRI and soon with Apple’s own 3D mapping services.

I think Facebook is doing the very same mistake as Google by not playing nice with Apple to grab a status of “Very Important Partner” inside the iOS ecosystem. Instead they kind of torpedoed Apple’s Ping with “very onerous” terms and apparently doing the same in terms of Facebook integration to iOS, driving Apple to turn to Twitter instead (which leads me to think that Zuckenberg’s language of aiming to be “across all platforms” rather than being a platform in itself is load of BS).

I understand that companies like Google and Facebook want to preserve their independence, hence their resistance to build deep collaboration with Apple; but, again, pissing off the leader never is a good tactic, especially considering that Apple has little to none interest for ad-based revenue models.

As a post-scriptum, I don’t think Facebook is after a new, mysterious revenue stream in their phone efforts (if those are real!) It’s more likely that they want to expand/integrate their already existing communication tools like messaging, videochat and possibly VOIP. For the foreseeable future, Facebook’s revenue sources will most likely remain Ads and Apps; while social services will remain free.

By: r00fus

r00fus — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 01:06:43 +0000

Quoticus,

Facebook may be aiming for identity, but G+ is attempting to challenge that (not sure how they will fare long-term, but Google has a very large war chest).

Compare with Apple’s digital wallet – every AppleID is tied to a credit card of some sort, and to register a AppleID (which unlocks many functions in an iPad or iPhone) you need to give them a credit card… this makes future purchases fluid… you can now even purchase Apple hardware using your AppleID in a store – no credit card swipe or even interaction with sales clerk.

Google’s disadvantage against Facebook is that it’s fighting against three or more fronts (vs. Apple, vs. Microsoft and also FB) and it’s not as focused an entity as, say Apple or Facebook.

By: Resumo da Semana. 27 de Novembro de 2011 | ZWAME Portal

Resumo da Semana. 27 de Novembro de 2011 | ZWAME Portal — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:02:33 +0000

[...] Coluna do Jean-Louis Gassée sobre os rumores de um smartphone do Facebook. Pessoalmente as observações sobre o Google parecem-me excelentes. [...]

By: Quoticus

Quoticus — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:18:36 +0000

Here’s another hypothesis. Depending on your point of view, Facebook has succeeded (or is attempting) to become the de facto issuer of digital identity on the web. The phone is your digital face to the world. The prize in mobile isn’t just advertising, it’s payment. Follow the money, indeed.

By: Walt French

Walt French — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:35:35 +0000

Yikes, mis-edited.
.
…very likely, the top 75% WOULD BE/FEEL BETTER OFF paying a dollar or two for an app versus watching ads, …

By: Walt French

Walt French — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:32:27 +0000

Great “Follow the money” analysis of Google’s disruption of the old value-added propositions.
.
Presumably, @JLG, your attention span is worth more to you than it is to some advertiser unless the ads are incredibly effectively targeted. As someone whose spending is heavily tied to a stable (repetitive) list of staples, plus a very eclectic set of luxuries, I find it hard to imagine that ads work at all for the user’s benefit in the top-quartile demographic; very likely the top 75% wouldn’t be able to justify paying a dollar or two for an app versus watching ads, paying extra for Siri to get results instead of distractions from sellers, etc.
.
I don’t see consumer psychology working that way today, certainly not among the Android audience, but wonder whether that’s the next disruption: paying cash for a first class connection versus the cheaper coach ticket where you feel like you need a shower when you put your phone back in your pocket. Or maybe, it IS happening today, with Android users reportedly less frequent online users. Cheaper hardware makes good sense for very occasional online use.
.
Specifically regards the Amazon challenge, their inexpensive Trojan Horse may appeal to the price-sensitive types, but these would seem to be exactly the users less likely to spend big on books, music and video. Or is there some sort of negative income elasticity (similar to the Giffen Good effect) to online apps, where lowered income results in more spending?