Slashdot Mirror


Is Facebook Working On a Smartphone?

An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times reports that Facebook has resumed its stealthy efforts to create a smartphone, apparently to assert its position in an Internet increasingly accessed via mobile devices, and to counter products and moves made by major competitors Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon. The Times reports that Mark Zuckerberg has gotten personally involved in the project, which has recently landed several iPhone/iPad engineers from Apple. Wired ran a similar story a month ago, reporting that Facebook has ramped up its "Buffy" code-named collaboration with HTC on a phone which will probably be Android-based, support HTML5 and include a large touchscreen and high-quality camera (for Instagram). Facebook won't confirm or deny these reports."

160 comments

  1. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least it works on mine.

    1. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it's almost useless on my iPhone. It super sucks at updating stuff, it feels like it's downloading 15MB just to get an update on anything. And you have to refresh more than once in order for it to pick up any sort of update.

  2. is YAHOO working on a smartphone?? by gl4ss · · Score: 0

    almost as interesting.
    yahoo has also a similar suite of applications. did similar collaboration too.

    (i'm just tired of the is fb making a phon!?!?!?!??!!? articles on the interwabs these days)

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:is YAHOO working on a smartphone?? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yahoo has a much more diverse array of services though. Facebook basically has a platform API for making stuff that works on facebook. Yahoo has tie ins to e-mail (real e-mail), finances, travel shopping, internet search, maps, music players, TV translations, jobs personals etc. They do (and did) a hell of a lot more than facebook.

      I'm not really sure what facebook could do with a phone. They're a software on top of something company, google had to buy an operating system company to make android. I can't really see Facebook having a whole lot of traction making its own operating system to compete with Apple and Google. A Facebook branded phone sure, but who cares? You could put a facebook logo on a pair of speakers because they aren't in the 'music' business, I'm not sure that means much. They could make just an Android phone, again, why?

      I could see them wanting a developer phone, or developer tools, say a phone that can boot multiple versions of android (and Windows Phone 7/8), can emulate screen sizes etc. That could be a very interesting (and very lucrative) project, especially if you tie it to mobile services hosting (think amazon cloud), that works efficiently anywhere in the world. It's a decidedly developer product, but could generate revenue per app/user anywhere, and then the facebook 'app' is really just a demo. But trying to enter the consumer phone space because they have one icon of the 200 or so on my phone doesn't really seem like a great plan, and I can't seriously imagine anyone there thinking it's a great plan.

      I heard a rumour that they might look to buy out opera. It's probably a rumour, but opera is big in the mobile space. I guess that would give them a mobile browser... but why? I can see ways that facebook could use it's cash pile to make money on mobile, certainly buying opera could do that, but I'm not seeing a lot of ways facebook could make the facebook social network and privacy invasion service make money on mobile without ads. Which doesn't require apple engineers or a joint project with HTC.

    2. Re:is YAHOO working on a smartphone?? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's hard to imagine Facebook wanting their own OS, when they could more easily follow the 'android with the manufacturer's crap UI customizations on top' route. (Or do the same with whatever they are calling the twitching corpse of Maemo these days)

      If(and it's kind of a big if) they did want their 'own' phone, rather than just shipping applications for other phones, I'd expect something along the lines of Amazon's effort. Minimal or nonexistent changes to the boring under-the-hood OS stuff, fully branded interface on top and a hardware layout suited to the dominant use cases desired by Facebook.

      I wouldn't hold my breath on the 'developer phone' concept. If you just need basic emulation of screen sizes and OS versions, the SDKs for the respective products will do that in software right from the comfort of your workstation. If you need nitty-gritty testing-of-fucked-up-OpenGLES-edge-cases-on-Android-2.3-devices-with-Mali400-GPUs, you don't just need "a developer phone" you need either a huge stack of the things, or some PC-sized device containing a frankenstein's monster of ARM SoCs and peripherals from the past five years of phone development up to the present...

      Given the economics of mass production, I suspect that 'developer phone' will continue to mean "the phone the developer owns" for small-timers, a stack of purchased or gifted by platform vendors handsets for the more serious players, along with emulator testing for more basic UI reflow and screen size stuff.

    3. Re:is YAHOO working on a smartphone?? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that there already is a Facebook phone. Information about it is right now buried underneath articles for the current story, but I saw it advertised a while ago by either HTC, LG or one of the other Asian smartphone makers. It basically was an Android with a UI designed to make updating and reading Facebook very easy.

      Not sure what Facebook could add to that effort, outside of more space for ads.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. Re:is YAHOO working on a smartphone?? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's hard to imagine Facebook wanting their own OS, when they could more easily follow the 'android with the manufacturer's crap UI customizations on top' route. (Or do the same with whatever they are calling the twitching corpse of Maemo these days)

      It wouldn't be hard for them to do both. Have their own OS which is an Android customization. Google has a weak license on Android, which leaves them open for robbery. Facebook can either make private branch of Android, or, if they are really clever, they can make a copyleft branch which will make it impossible for Google to incorporate back Facebook improvements whilst Facebook can still take Google ones and benefit from community involvement.

      This would leave Facebook in a good situation since they would have the strongest O/S and none of their major competitors would want to touch it. I often wonder why Nokia didn't go for this strategy; however I guess they always failed to understand open source and never opened up enough to benefit from it. Facebook has more experience in this area.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    5. Re:is YAHOO working on a smartphone?? by petsounds · · Score: 1

      Well, Facebook buying the Opera browser makes some sense. As Opera sends all page requests through their servers to speed up the user experience, Facebook would obviously love to data mine this browsing information when hooked up to a Facebook login. It would mean they can more effectively whore out your life to interested parties.

    6. Re:is YAHOO working on a smartphone?? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      I wasn't seriously suggesting a developer phone product as something they should do. I'm just trying to figure out what they *are* doing. That was the first idea that came into my head as something that could exist in support of, or in conjunction with some other software service that fits their existing skills base.

      Facebook has a giant pile of money, for all it matters they could buy a phone company or build their own. I'm just not seeing how hiring a bunch of engineers translates into facebooks usual business model.

    7. Re:is YAHOO working on a smartphone?? by Monkier · · Score: 1

      The onion has covered this :) Fast foward to 2:21, the mockup phone always makes me laugh http://i.imgur.com/KO0Xg.jpg

    8. Re:is YAHOO working on a smartphone?? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      I'm not really sure what facebook could do with a phone.

      Perhaps to keep themselves afloat after someone develops a decentralized "Web 3.0" social networking app, thus destroying their monopoly practically overnight.

  3. focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    isn't that a sign of lack of focus? the same that afflicts google now?

    1. Re:focus by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      isn't that a sign of lack of focus? the same that afflicts google now?

      Unfortunately, detecting 'lack of focus' is much trickier than just looking at number of products/number of product areas. You both need to consider the possibility that the efforts are part of the same company largely in name(The badge above the door just says who built it or bought it, not uncommon for some largely-financial entity to have their sticker on a herd of operationally-independent companies), and that the efforts in multiple areas are in some way strategic. You also have to consider, of course, the distinct possibility that the company is running around like a chicken with its head cut off, throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks because they don't know what else to do...

      In case of 'Facebook Phone', the optimists's reading would go something like this: Facebook already has a substantial investment(through its API, authentication services, and whatnot) in making it possible for 3rd parties to develop on its 'platform' so that it can more efficiently farm users. It also, because smartphones are a major and growing avenue for access to facebook, has an ongoing investment in developing high-quality phone UIs. A "Facebook Phone" project is really just a software project that is an outgrowth of their API/Auth/Payment efforts and their smartphone application efforts, along with some possible hardware spec tweaks(eg. camera, certain hard buttons to speed common facebook operations) and eventually paying an OEM to slap their sticker on it and get it out the door. Best case, it works. Worst case, most of the hard work can be immediately recycled into their existing 'platform' and 'smartphone app' development processes.

      Pessimist's reading: Team Zuck has just IPOed at a ridiculous P/E, and it's a known fact that an increasing percentage of their traffic is coming from smartphones that are a bit small to show ads, and for which nobody but Apple and the carriers are making any money. Everybody knows that MOBILE IS THE FUTURE!!!!1!~, so Facebook has to show that they still have it by starting a crash, cargo-cult, attempt to replicate the success of the iPhone, and will flail around for a while, burn some money, and end up hiring HTC/Samsung/the low bidder to puke up a generic Android device with a really shit UI skin and a hardware 'like' button...

    2. Re:focus by dc29A · · Score: 1

      and for which nobody but Apple and the carriers are making any money.

      Right, Samsung is losing a lot of money these days. Oh wait ...

    3. Re:focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how much is Samsung making from ads? Read what was what written.

    4. Re:focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What have the the operators to do with ads?

    5. Re:focus by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      isn't that a sign of lack of focus? the same that afflicts google now?

      Not at all, the focus will be great, see they laid that out right here: "support HTML5 and include a large touchscreen and high-quality camera (for Instagram).". The whole no focus on Android phones thing was a temporary glitch, we swear. Won't happen again.

      Although you might consider it a design flaw that they are trying to improve the quality of instagram photos...

  4. FB phone will be awesome if... by csumpi · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...the Zuck will make it the only way to access facebook. He'll make another truck load of money selling 1 billion devices, and I'll be able to keep my kids off facebook by not buying them one. Everyone wins.

    1. Re:FB phone will be awesome if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And total strangers can log into my phone remotely, change my surname because they've become confused about their own email address and there's no real security to speak of - oh and all my phone's data will be sold overtly for profit, almost with a sneer.

      Total strangers and anyone that knows them will be able to rifle through all my personal photos on my phone and use them as they see fit.

      Awesome. I want three.

    2. Re:FB phone will be awesome if... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      .the Zuck will make it the only way to access facebook.

      Seriously, can anybody make a case that Facebook will not end up like Myspace?

      Unless they can somehow keep time from passing and people from innovating, Facebook will end up yesterday's news.

      Everybody's on the Internet (let's say for the sake of argument). Is the future really about this one social network? The idea of social networks is going to stick around, but there's just no way that one will become the everlasting social network. Somebody will say, "Why should I have to join one social network over another social network? Why shouldn't I have a social network aggregator that lets me keep in touch with friends no matter which network they are part of? Say, a "social network of social networks". Remember "chat"? Remember when everybody had their own little IM service? People aren't just going to say, "Facebook is network enough for me!".

      What if I could choose my own interface that would let me talk to people over whichever social network they happen to be on? What about a social network protocol, that allows for something like a Thunderbird of social networks? With it's own set of filters and controls for my private information. Why should I trust Facebook to give me the tools to protect my privacy when I can do it with some client? Why should Facebook be the one making money off of my very existence?

      I'm an idiot and I don't know anything about this stuff, but even a dope like me can easily foresee a time when Facebook is sitting on the ash heap of history. Will their purchase of a browser suddenly give them the thing they need to last forever? How about the purchase of a photo-sharing social network? Their willingness to overpay to such an extent for Instagram is proof that their time in the sun is almost finished. Hell, the fact that they went public and everyone yawned is proof that their time is about up.

      I don't use Facebook. I don't care about Facebook. I care about communicating on the Internet though, and Facebook has not reached the pinnacle of possibilities for Internet communications. But it will come, unless Facebook ends up somehow owning the very idea of a social network, which considering our effed up "intellectual property" laws is a distinct possibility. I like the idea of social networks on the Internet, but I don't like any of the ones out there. I should not have to choose between one and another based upon which of my friends belongs to which social network. I don't have to choose which set of websites I will visit, and the reason I don't is because HTML is an open standard. Social networks should not be proprietary if email is not proprietary.

      I'm betting whatever finally supplants Facebook stands a pretty good chance of being more like Thunderbird. Maybe open source. But standards-based.

      Facebook is so last decade.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:FB phone will be awesome if... by ranton · · Score: 2

      Seriously, can anybody make a case that Facebook will not end up like Myspace?

      It is easy to make such a case. MySpace capped at a little over 100 million users, compared to Facebook's 800+ million. That means their lock-in is an order of magnitude larger than MySpace's was. MySpace also had both Friendster and Facebook as serious competitors during its own meteoric rise, while today there is no viable alternative to Facebook. The massive flop of Google+ only cements the real possibility that Facebook is here to stay. (obviously this is only me making a case, I have no idea what will happen to Facebook)

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    4. Re:FB phone will be awesome if... by Aqualung812 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Remember "chat"? Remember when everybody had their own little IM service?

      Remember? We're still there. What address do I give you exactly so you can chat with me? There is still the disclaimer "On XX service" attached to anything I'd exchange with you.

      Email works regardless if I'm on Notes and you're on Pine and we CC someone on Exchange, without any notion of what the back end or client is. Chat still isn't there.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    5. Re:FB phone will be awesome if... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      yes. my mom and your mom never knew what myspace was. they know facebook.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:FB phone will be awesome if... by jez9999 · · Score: 2

      Why is G+ a massive flop? I use it, screw Facebook.

    7. Re:FB phone will be awesome if... by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't I have a social network aggregator that lets me keep in touch with friends no matter which network they are part of?

      You're on the right track.

      Here's what's coming: a distributed social networking app.

      I believe the main thing holding it back right now is the sore lack of good Web technologies. "Web 2.0" is a fucking joke. HTML5 is not much better. With a good "Web" standard (i.e. communications protocol) with the proper capabilities, someone can then create a social network which does not rely on a central authority.

      Hell, maybe I'll even be the one to invent it myself, if nobody else gets around to it first.

    8. Re:FB phone will be awesome if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whe had it, it was called wave, and didn't work.

    9. Re:FB phone will be awesome if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is G+ a massive flop? I use it, screw Facebook.

      You use it. Realize your demographic, that most of the world is not in that demographic or even knows or cares what /. is, that is why it is a massive flop.

    10. Re:FB phone will be awesome if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP is not referring to the service, but the software. Today, you load up Pidgin and you can chat with anyone. Just like how by using Thunderbird you can email anyone. Eventually, someone will write a universal social network program that aggregates all of your friends, likes, photos, etc across FB, Google+, MySpace, and Friendster, making the actual social network in use irrelevant. Much like how it is irrelevant if you use Gmail or Hotmail as your email service.

    11. Re:FB phone will be awesome if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Email works regardless if I'm on Notes and you're on Pine and we CC someone on Exchange, without any notion of what the back end or client is. Chat still isn't there.

      A universal chat system to send short messages to anyone you know, regardless of what hardware, software, or backend they are using...some sort of universal "Short Message Service"... We could call it "SMS"

  5. The real question: by AdrianKemp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do they need to work on it at all?

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and put two possible scenarios out there:

    1) Facebook makes a phone, and millions of Facebook drones buy it for no reason other than the fact that it's "the Facebook phone"

    2) Facebook makes a phone, and millions of Facebook drones buy it because it's the Facebook phone, another few thousand buy it because it's legitimately better hardware.

    Now sure, I'm oversimplifying here... but I really feel like they would be just as far ahead to have Samsung rebrand an S III with their logo on it and call it a day. So to that end, I have my doubts about them working on it.

    (also, what the hell is with the autocorrection of facebook to Facebook...)

    1. Re:The real question: by swb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My guess is that they are targeting the low-end of the market that has a high-end feature phone now but can't afford a traditional smartphone. The kind with a texting keyboard, weak camera and limited internet access via carrier apps.

      My guess is the idea is to provide a phone optimized for Facebook and picture taking but with low end enough specs that it can be sold very cheaply.

      My guess is that there are a lot of people at this end of the market who use Facebook on PCs and who see a smartphone's primary purpose as being for Facebook or social media and who would take hardware more comparable to a real smartphone even if most of what it did well was Facebook.

      Done well, Facebook could create an ecosystem of Facebook apps exclusive to this platform and along with their data mining sell the phones at cost and actually make money on the larger project.

      Done poorly, it's a train wreck. Either way, I don't see any kind of Facebook phone taking Apple or Android's place.

    2. Re:The real question: by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if you're right and they get the carriers on board it could be a pretty big boon for facebook.

      I guess after the... what was that microsoft phone called... the Kin? I don't really see that sort of phone as a viable strategy; I do recall though that most of it's death was due to terrible plans more than the phone itself.

    3. Re:The real question: by rvw · · Score: 1

      Done well, Facebook could create an ecosystem of Facebook apps exclusive to this platform and along with their data mining sell the phones at cost and actually make money on the larger project.

      Done poorly, it's a train wreck. Either way, I don't see any kind of Facebook phone taking Apple or Android's place.

      They could do it the Kindle tablet way. Like Amazon, provide a platform with disk space and backup in the cloud, voip services, etc. If they offer a complete eco-system, which makes it easier and cheaper for the user, it could work.

    4. Re:The real question: by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      This seems like a potential niche. However, Android based smartphones are now available pretty much free with a contract. What's keeping out potential low-end buyers is not the cost of the phone, but the cost of the contract. One possibility would be a phone that updates your Facebook feed only when WiFi is available, and otherwise functions as a generic low-end phone

    5. Re:The real question: by neorush · · Score: 2

      I think this niche is really already filled though. What you describe this is exactly why I use one of these. Since I do not have cell service at my home (and I live in NY state) it is difficult for me to justify a $100 / month phone. Especially since about the only time I'm not near wifi is when I'm driving between home / work. I'm not sure there is a market for what you are describing, so I hope they have a different plan.

      --
      neorush
    6. Re:The real question: by slazzy · · Score: 1

      Carriers sometimes have a "facebook only" internet plan for a discounted price. That type of thing could be a big money maker for both parties.

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    7. Re:The real question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the third scenario (which I think is most likely):

      3) Facebook makes a phone, hundreds of hard-core Facebookers buy it because it's the Facebook phone, everyone else keeps using their Facebook apps on their existing phones.

    8. Re:The real question: by sootman · · Score: 1

      > My guess is that they are targeting the low-end of
      > the market that has a high-end feature phone now
      > but can't afford a traditional smartphone.

      Both the iPhone 3GS and many Android phones are free, and the iPhone 4 and many, many more Androids are $99. I don't think it's the price of smartphones that's keeping people away, it's the mandatory $180/yr data plans.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    9. Re:The real question: by ranton · · Score: 1

      I would have guessed that someone who uses their smart phone only for Facebook would use more bandwidth than your average smartphone user. But if these facebook only internet plans actually exist, it seems I am wrong.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    10. Re:The real question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 10-18 market: tied to a FB account, lets parents monitor kids, unlimited text & data, but few voice minutes.

    11. Re:The real question: by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They could do it the Kindle tablet way, like Amazon - sell only the shit models outside the US, at prices 80% higher.

      FTFY.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. Google Nexus Revisited? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Facebook is working on a phone they will learn what Google learned when they released their first phone: customers expect and demand customer support. Facebook is not prepared to provide customer support any more than Google was.

    1. Re:Google Nexus Revisited? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      that's why they're letting phone manufacturers make the phones and charge them with money and sw r&d for the privilege of adding a quick launch button for the suite.

      another angle is working with operators to exempt their site from data quotas.

      neither is particularly fresh.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Google Nexus Revisited? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm still rockin my Nexus One. I'd get an updated one if HTC made it, I prefer their phones to Samsung's. I'm not saying I'd pay a premium for a facebook branded phone, and I don't use the site, but I'd be curious to see the specs before I ruled it out.

    3. Re:Google Nexus Revisited? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Facebook is working on a phone they will learn what Google learned when they released their first phone: customers expect and demand customer support. Facebook is not prepared to provide customer support any more than Google was.

      Just use Android and offload customer support on Google.

  7. Argh not another vendor smartphone by pointyhat · · Score: 5, Funny

    First I tried Apple and it didn't let me move my music around, then I tried Android and it didn't let me upgrade, then I tried Windows Phone and it went flat in a day, now I can try Facebook and it won't let me keep my privacy. I wish I still had my old Nokia 3310 now...

    1. Re:Argh not another vendor smartphone by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      just buy a nokia 303..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Argh not another vendor smartphone by pointyhat · · Score: 1

      just buy a nokia 303..

      It's got a touch screen. A phone with a keyboard and a touch screen is a big WTF in my mind.

    3. Re:Argh not another vendor smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is a 3310 worth to you? I still have mine and so do many others, only problem is the battery (which is to be expected for a 12 year old phone), but those can still be bought new, even today.

    4. Re:Argh not another vendor smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Music companies didn't let you move your music around. It's very simple to get around the restriction

    5. Re:Argh not another vendor smartphone by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      just buy a nokia 303..

      It's got a touch screen. A phone with a keyboard and a touch screen is a big WTF in my mind.

      yeah but 101 has just dualband gsm. vs. 303's quad gsm + pentaband 3.5g.

      (isn't it stupid how you have to dive into options in slashdot nowdays to turn off karma bonus?)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:Argh not another vendor smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the same way that a computer with both a keyboard and a mouse is a big WTF in your mind?

    7. Re:Argh not another vendor smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "didn't let me move my music around"

      Ah, the classic epic disingenuous statement.

    8. Re:Argh not another vendor smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technology is not for you. Go back to vinyl and 8-track tape. Thank you.

    9. Re:Argh not another vendor smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      just buy a nokia 303..

      It's got a touch screen. A phone with a keyboard and a touch screen is a big WTF in my mind.

      Why is that? Despite all the great progress in soft-keyboard they still suck compared to a read one.

    10. Re:Argh not another vendor smartphone by exomondo · · Score: 1

      It's got a touch screen. A phone with a keyboard and a touch screen is a big WTF in my mind.

      Why? Your computer probably has a keyboard and a mouse.

  8. Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes sense to me... I'd think branded android with ad support and a lowish hardware price.

  9. Do Not Want by FSWKU · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd steer clear of any smartphone that FB had a hand in making. I have a FB account, but I also have my PC setup in such a way that when I log out, FB gets NOTHING from me. With a FacePhone(tm), I'm sure there would be all kinds of things embedded into it that track everything you do so they can get better information for the market trolls (their real customers).

    Google is at least transparent with the information the stock flavors of Android have access to, and make it (relatively) easy to keep your information as exactly that - your information. The FB version I'm sure would be full of trackers that you can't turn off or uninstall, because that would make it "just another phone" and not a FacePhone(tm).

    Come to think of it, it will probably sell like crazy to the idiots who get a kick out of broadcasting every excruciatingly annoying detail of their empty lives to everyone on the Internet...

    --
    "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
    1. Re:Do Not Want by PerfectionLost · · Score: 5, Funny

      They could let HP make it, and call it a FacePalm(tm).

    2. Re:Do Not Want by cultiv8 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or blackberry, and call it a BlackFace.

      --
      sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    3. Re:Do Not Want by Dzimas · · Score: 1
      "I also have my PC setup in such a way that when I log out, FB gets NOTHING from me.."

      This makes no sense. Facebook makes 85% of their money by selling targeted ads on their site. Your personal information (location, age, gender), friendships, interactions, preferences and links clicked while on the site are used to build a marketing profile. If you have an account, FB is mining it for profit. Period.

    4. Re:Do Not Want by sethmeisterg · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's one of the best one-liners I've seen in a long time. Bravo.

    5. Re:Do Not Want by Analog+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Facebook also tracks your movements on other, non-Facebook sites. Since he specified that FB gets nothing when he logs out, I'm guessing he's installed a browser extension to block the widget that allows them to track you outside of Facebook.

    6. Re:Do Not Want by game+kid · · Score: 1

      Close. Whether you have an account or not, FB is mining whatever they can get from you.

      This is yet another mobile phone I'd rather not get.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    7. Re:Do Not Want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Microsoft, and call it Facebox 728.

  10. Privacy... by doug141 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder what THAT license agreement is going to look like...

    1. Re:Privacy... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Informative

      I wonder what THAT license agreement is going to look like...

      "Click 'OK' to let us do what we want or you'll never be able to access Facebook from your phone. Please don't ask about the details because frankly, you don't want to know."

    2. Re:Privacy... by vlm · · Score: 1

      Please don't ask about the details because frankly, you don't want to know.

      Coming soon to late night TV, infomercials for combination sausage maker and facebook phone (order now for a free solyent green flavor pack!)

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  11. Pointless waste of investors' money by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 2

    In an age of quickly evolving smartphones, where today's hottest releases are soon forgotten, Facebook is blowing IPO money on this.

    Does anyone even remember the HTC ChaCha??

    1. Re:Pointless waste of investors' money by theurge14 · · Score: 1

      Nobody remembers last summer's HTC ChaCha. Which is why people are doomed to repeat it.

  12. Why? Why? Why? by xtal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This makes as much sense as Facebook announcing they're going to build a PC.

    Why on earth would you do such a thing?

    Just an app? Facebook IS an app!

    A tip for anyone from facebook who's watching - if you want to get into hardware, at least go make a enterprise applicance for people wanting to organize their companies - privately - around social media. Throw in some storage and then negotiate the tie-ins to the bigger infrastructure to keep the advertisers happy.

    But a phone? Seriously?

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:Why? Why? Why? by vlm · · Score: 1

      A tip for anyone from facebook who's watching - if you want to get into hardware

      I could see them selling a "firewall-ish" inline device for retail business owners that squirts out some psuedo-realtime feed of the customers using the complimentary wifi. Maybe spam people using your wifi on facebook? Seems terribly obvious?

      The landing page makes you log into FB for free access which also at least temporarily auto-friend / auto-follows whoever is paying for the wifi?

      Or a different kind of firewall for businesses that deep inspects each connection to log exactly what each user is reading or posting. Doesn't take much to look at raw data and see whats read and posted, but deep detailed metadata of friends might be helpful... Oh look you have friends at our competitor, so sorry but must downsize. Or "oh look you have 3 FB friends who friended NORML so we have probably cause to drug test you".

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Why? Why? Why? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Because they can . . . ?

      Jack up the stock price . . . ? "Our FacePhone will be bigger than that puny iPhone!!! Buy our stock now, and get rich like Apple stockholders did!"

      Wanting to own the content AND the device it is used on . . . ?

      The FacePhone will look nice with the telephone carrier that they plan to buy next . . . ?

      They have no better idea what to do with all that IPO cash . . . ?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Why? Why? Why? by water-and-sewer · · Score: 1

      Ahem. (puts on curmudgeon hat). That's better.

      I remember when people started to have trouble differentiating between the Internet and the WWW, and nerds got their knickers in a twist pointing out the WWW was just a subset (hey, what about Usenet? What about FTP?)

      Now we can enter a brave new kingdom where no one knows the difference between Facebook and the WWW.

      Anyway, curmudgeon aside, I don't get all bent out of shape by a Facebook phone because I don't use Facebook, and if you don't take one seriously, it's impossible to take the rest seriously. This can only distract them from their main game, put a buggy phone on the market that further dilutes the quality of their brand, and waste time, money, and energy.

      From the competition's point of view: woo hoo! Go for it, suckahz!

      --
      If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
    4. Re:Why? Why? Why? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It's not a bad idea. Facebook desperately needs to grow their profits. They're an advertising company, just like Google. So all the arguments for Google making a phone also apply to Facebook, except that in Facebook's case, Google has already done all the hard work (designing the OS and getting the manufacturers to build compatible phones) and FB basically just has to modify the ad server address and slap their logo on it.

    5. Re:Why? Why? Why? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      This makes as much sense as Facebook announcing they're going to build a PC.

      Actually, when you put it that way, as strange as it seems, it sounds less insane. The phone market is already twisted beyond belief; many people buy their handheld PCs from their ISPs. Why not buy phones from an advertising middleman .. or from a cement mixing company or from a haberdasher or from religious iconography and spell component shop? Those are some bizarre and senseless ideas, I'll admit, yet they are no more bizarre than the status quo! Phones are a fucked-up market which can't possibly get worse.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  13. What would be the point? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In anyone buying a Facebook-branded phone, I mean. I can understand why Facebook might want to offer their own phone - a lot of people use their mobile app on iOS and Android, and yet Facebook doesn't have carte blanche access to that user's personal information and habits.

    But Facebook, popular as it is, only does a few things - and the mobile app already handles those functions reasonably well. It's hard to see them offering a compelling reason to pick up a Facebook-branded phone. I'm sure some Slashdotters will smugly refer to "sheeple" and "mindless Facebook drones"; but in reality it's unlikely there are enough of those to make this idea a commercial success.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:What would be the point? by vlm · · Score: 1

      the mobile app already handles those functions reasonably well

      My wife says it crashes all the time and needs to be upgraded all the time, on iOS. You wouldn't think a simple viewer would be this hard to run, but...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:What would be the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can't keep an app from crashing when many other developers can easily do, what makes you think they can do the same with their own platform?

    3. Re:What would be the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only use the mobile version in a browser, that way their app isn't running in the background, other than to keep it from updating in the background using up data or who knows what.

    4. Re:What would be the point? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Your wife bitches too much. Facebook for iOS (unfortunately) doesn't update nearly as often as it could. Far less than plenty of other programs I use. It does tend to get horked up from time to time. I prefer to avoid it unless I'm mid conversation while AFK.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  14. How about this, Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Learn how to create an Android/iOS app or mobile interface that isn't fucking horrendous, and move on and up from there?

  15. Android Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I confess, I doubt it'll be an Android phone. Microsoft made a substantial investment in Facebook ($240 million, iirc) before the ipo so I imagine they still have a considerable amount of say within the company and I doubt that Microsoft would approve of Android being used in, well, anything... I could obviously be wrong, but that's my suspicion.

    1. Re:Android Unlikely by gtirloni · · Score: 1

      So less than 1% ?

      --
      none
  16. I must be really, really tired today by bjohnso5 · · Score: 2

    I read the summary title as "is anyone able to use Facebook on a smartphone?". Now if only the bank encouraged napping...

    1. Re:I must be really, really tired today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're not alone. I have had a lot of trouble using the facebook for android app.

    2. Re:I must be really, really tired today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen. Came here to post exactly that (and what the parent wrote).

  17. Misleading article by vlm · · Score: 2

    Misleading article.

    Facebook has resumed its stealthy efforts to create a smartphone

    OK so they're writing OS code, talking to RF designers about antenna design, selecting the appropriate display technology/hardware, designing yet another hopefully non-patent infringing on-screen keyboard.

    Now compare that to:

    collaboration with HTC on a phone which will probably be Android-based

    Oh they're just picking a winner and slapping their name on it. Not creating a phone at all.

    Its the difference between inventing a completely new clothing technology like "the tee shirt" and calling it "the facebook shirt" vs taking a tee shirt off the rack, silk screening the FB logo on it, and calling that "the facebook tee shirt". I believe my wife has a "facebook pen" not sure how she obtained that, anyway FB merely silk screened their logo on an existing pen, they did not invent the technology of the ballpoint pen. Another way to look at it is "creating a baby" means taking pre-natal vitamins for nine months and eventually squirting out a genetically similar copy of mom (more or less), "creating a baby" does not mean the process of legally changing an adopted babies name.

    Frankly if my wife wants a "facebook" phone the best solution is to pick out the best phone, then purchase a FB sticker and paste it onto the back.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Misleading article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If FB releases a branded smartphone, obviously it will be manufactured in the Far East by an outfit that has experience and capacity to make them in high volume.

    2. Re:Misleading article by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Well, it depends on what they eventually come up.

      Remember that HTC builds a lot of phones that don't have the name "HTC" on them. So if Facebook gives them a list of specs and HTC builds a phone to those specifications, one could say that Facebook "created" a smartphone.

      Of course, if Facebook says, "Take the HTC One and stick a Facebook button on it which launches our app," then I agree with you wholeheartedly.

  18. Just buy RIMM by Lev13than · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, Facebook could just go out and pick up RIMM for the price of six photo apps (give or take - there may be another 1/2 app in premiums). However, they probably wouldn't have the slightest idea what to with a profitable company that generates $18B in revenue every year.

    --
    When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
    1. Re:Just buy RIMM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, they probably wouldn't have the slightest idea what to with a profitable company that generates $18B in revenue every year.

      Profitable? Just because they generate revenue does not mean they're profitable. Heck, they're damn near in total free-fall right now...

    2. Re:Just buy RIMM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      RIMM had sales of $18.5B and earnings of $1.5B for the year ending March 3rd 2012. They also have $1.5B in cash. The company has a ton of issues but they are far from dead.

    3. Re:Just buy RIMM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is they don't want to pick up tens of thousands of employees from an old school tech company.

      That's smart. In order to make that work, you need to keep the old middle management pretty much intact, and my experience is that these types of people operate on three speeds: slow, slower, and slowest.

    4. Re:Just buy RIMM by Missing.Matter · · Score: 2

      You know the actual company name is RIM.... it's even shorter than their ticker so using it saves time and has the added effect of making you look like less of a douche.

    5. Re:Just buy RIMM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/05/28/rim_to_cut_40_of_workforce_as_another_top_exec_resigns.html

      40% of their workforce is being laid off. I don't know what metrics for success/failure you use but that sounds a lot like a company that is in near freefall and is desperately scrambling to avoid complete and total collapse. Not to mention their stock price has plummeted from $140-ish five years ago to around $11. Again, while the stock market isn't the only measure of a company's success or failure, that sort of drop is never a good sign.

      And for a company of RIM's size, they could burn through $1.5B in cash very quickly (hence things like laying off almost half their workforce...). You say far from dead - I say right on its doorstep.

    6. Re:Just buy RIMM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such pedantry epitomizes douchebaggery.

    7. Re:Just buy RIMM by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      RIMM had sales of $18.5B and earnings of $1.5B for the year ending March 3rd 2012. They also have $1.5B in cash. The company has a ton of issues but they are far from dead.

      Just wait a bit.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  19. Rip a page from the Microsoft manual by gelfling · · Score: 2

    The one where they build it w/o any customer feedback and stuff it full of things that no one wants and no one can easily work or use. Then publish no recognizable upgrade plan or strategy to move forward. Last but not least don't have any customer service or tech support apart from simply telling callers that it's not their problem but, for a small annual subscription they'd be happy to add your name to the email list of sales initiatives.

  20. I'm just waiting by MsWhich · · Score: 3, Interesting

    for the FaceHouse. Automatically "checks you in" when you walk through the front door. Updates your Timeline with a graph of your daily shower times, for easy comparison with your friends. Knows exactly what you stock your fridge and pantry with so that it can appropriately target fridge-front ads at your specific buying habits. Senses when you've been sitting at your computer for over two hours playing a game and calls the Facebook-sponsored pizza place for you to have a pizza delivered. (As specified in the Snack Delivery settings section of your Preferences. Default reset to Maximum Delivery Mode as of March; users can of course change it back if they manage to see this notice, find the settings dialog, and then check the appropriate boxes three separate times so that Facebook knows they're really sure.)

    And of course everyone will want a FaceHouse. I mean, why wouldn't you? Do you have something to hide?

  21. BORING by gtirloni · · Score: 1

    TL;DR - Don't care.

    --
    none
    1. Re:BORING by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      TL;DR - Don't care.

      Yet concerned enough to post.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:BORING by gtirloni · · Score: 1

      Not as much as you care about other people's throwaway posts.

      --
      none
  22. The App Sucks by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is Facebook Working On a Smartphone?

    I seriously doubt I'm the only person in here that read this headline and thought it was another complaint about how shitty their iOS app is. Heh.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    1. Re:The App Sucks by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      you weren't the only one. It was my first thought too. I posted below before I saw yours.

      "the answer to 'is the facebook app on the smartphone working?' is FUCK NO! One of the brokenest damn apps.....yet, I still use it"

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    2. Re:The App Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me, too.

      I was about to post "I thought from the title this was about how crappy the iOS app is" but decided to scroll down and read the comments to see who else thought this. I'm surprised to see only two so far.

  23. i can see it now: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    FB fone:

    stops working randomly
    unable to access uploaded photos older than a couple months
    intemittent chat/txting/SMS service
    randomly requests userid/SIM re-insertion to resume service
    subject to employer examination

    yea, i'd hit that!
     

  24. facebook and smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can a phone be smart with if stuck with Facebook?!

  25. Their long term survival is at stake by melted · · Score: 1

    Their long term survival is at stake. Their whole business model is based on showing people ads, and being the default provider of social networking services to 1 billion people. As more and more people go mobile (to the iPhone where Twitter is the default, or Android, where G+ is the default), both the ads and the user base might start disappearing.

    Here's another prediction (and you've read it here first): within 2 years FB will own Bing. The only high margin way to show ads on the web is on a search engine. Microsoft doesn't know how to do it and doesn't have a strong brand in advertising. FB does. Pay MSFT $10B to take Bing off their hands, and boom, you have a state of the art search engine which you could wire into everything FB related and expose to 1/6th the planet's population on whom you have unparalleled demographic and behavioral targeting data for ads.

    1. Re:Their long term survival is at stake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their long term survival is at stake.

      Well that explains the codename, then.

  26. Lost potential by michaelmalak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are a lot of things Facebook could be doing to increase revenue. Building a smart phone is not one of them. Facebook is reminding me of Microsoft: some early standing on the shoulders of giants and good timing on being second to market, then total bust on later creativity.

    Facebook has identified the lack of screen real estate on mobile devices as limiting their revenue growth. So their solution is to come out with their own phone with a larger screen? This reminds me of Microsoft's solution to Google's competition by coming out with Bing. I dunno, maybe this lack of creativity comes from the constraints of being a public company, but nevertheless it's a lack of creativity.

    Facebook should embrace the smartphone rather than fight it. Along with limited screen real estate comes continuous connectivity and more frequent interaction. Facebook should improve its ad-serving algorithm and present users with one good ad at a time instead of a panoply of irrelevant ads. Here are some ideas for you Facebook execs out there:

    1. Nice idea to make a default Facebook page for every Wikipedia entry. But they're not only all dead, they're also all locked! Why not create an automatic discussion group out of every one of those pages instead of waiting for a masochist to claim ownership of it? Then people would be more inclined to Like those pages/groups instead of ignoring them. And then Facebook would be able to create an even better profile on each user.

    2. When there is a quotation on a Facebook group dedicated to an author, how about an Amazon affiliate link to buy the book from whence it came?

    3. Expanding on #1 above, how about a DMOZ-style human-edited directory of Facebook interest pages? User interests could be determined by which portion of the DMOZ tree the user focuses on, as well as of course also encouraging users to express their interests by joining additional groups.

    4. Buy Yelp! or one of the other city guides. Facebook needs to not only know more about its users to serve more relevant ads, it needs to know what its users' desires are when they have them and are actually searching (the advantage Google has over Facebook -- e.g. GM and Facebook didn't know when users were actually in the market for a car).

    5. Allow advertisers to target fans of any given group, not just the groups/pages they own! Extending that, allow advertisers to select whether to have their ads displayed when users are actually on that group page.

    In short, Facebook needs to think, "I have room for one ad; what is the one ad I will show this user right now?" I remember Facebook used to show only one or two ads at a time. Now they show five or six. More of the same. Lack of creativity.

    1. Re:Lost potential by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Facebook should improve its ad-serving algorithm and present users with one good ad at a time instead of a panoply of irrelevant ads.

      I would like to believe that it is impossible for facebook to do that. I think targeted marketing is just snake oil being sold to snake oil salesmen. I think that whatever success facebook has had with "targeted" ads so far is nothing more than a manifestation of regression to the mean. In other words - facebook ads have worked reasonably well because facebook is new, not because all that of demographic information makes a substantial difference in the effectiveness of advertising. People like new stuff - including new forms of advertisements, but once the novelty wears off they just tune out and response rates fall back to near nominal levels.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Lost potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to Target which uses targetted ads to get pregnant women addicted to their stores. I agree that most targetted masketing is BS, but when done well it works well too.

  27. No... by pcgfx805 · · Score: 1

    They're working on a mobile data miner.

    1. Re:No... by faedle · · Score: 1

      Working on?

      Install the Android app and just watch how much data leaks out to Facebook. Google at least requires me to opt-in to Latitude: Facebook sends "fine" location data regardless of whether or not I want it to.

      To the point that the Facebook app will crash if installed on a device with no GPS receiver (say, for example, a rooted Nook Color).

  28. HTC Cha Cha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's already a HTC phone with facebook tie-in, the Cha Cha. It has a dedicated facebook button that allows you to instantly upload photos or go straight to facebook or something. It's got to be over a year old now though, and it wasn't high-spec when it came out. I imagine this is nothing more than Facebook collaborating with HTC over a newer version.

    1. Re:HTC Cha Cha by jjjhs · · Score: 1

      That's a stupid feature. Just install the FB app and put a shortcut on your main/home screen. I have a FB account just 'cause everyone else does and to keep in touch w/ family, Facebook really is what some people live for.

    2. Re:HTC Cha Cha by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      indeed. I had an ex that would click refresh on her browser every 10min. She was/is an insane control freak so we didn't last long cause I didn't obey her every controlling command. I just threw my shit in the back of my truck one day while she was at work and never came back. She had no way of getting a hold of me either...I still want to know what her reaction was when she came home later that day and over the course of the next few days.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
  29. I imagine it would be similar to past pig tricks by tlambert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, opt you in, when you opt out, recategorize it, and since it's a new category, opt you in to the new category by default; wash, rinse, repeat.

    "By default, you are opted in to share your GPS information; you are permitted to opt out after you realize we are collecting it."

    "We now have a new category of information which we have opted you in to share by default called 'location'; you are permitted to opt out after you realize we are collecting it."

    "We now have a new category of information which we have opted you in to share by default called 'position'; you are permitted to opt out after you realize we are collecting it."

    "We now have a category of information which we have opted you in to share by default called 'venue'; you are permitted to opt out after you realize we are collecting it."

    "We now have a category of information which we have opted you in to share by default called 'place'; you are permitted to opt out after you realize we are collecting it."

    "We now have a category of information which we have opted you in to share by default called 'travelogue'; you are permitted to opt out after you realize we are collecting it."

    "We now have a category of information which we have opted you in to share by default called 'iternarary'; you are permitted to opt out after you realize we are collecting it."

    "We now have a category of information which we have opted you in to share by default called 'orienteering'; you are permitted to opt out after you realize we are collecting it."

    "We now have a category of information which we have opted you in to share by default called '10-20'; you are permitted to opt out after you realize we are collecting it."

    "We now have a category of information which we have opted you in to share by default called 'safety monitoring'; you are permitted to opt out after you realize we are collecting it." ...

    -- Terry

  30. This would cause the stock to plummet by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    If they are actually looking into their own phone platform I think this would pretty much shake any remaining confidence investors have in Facebook and cause the stock to tank.

    Microsoft is having significant trouble creating a competitive phone to iPhone/Android, who in their right mind thinks Facebook, with absolutely no physical real world presence, would be able to create their own phone platform? All they could possibly do is re-skin Android with embedded Facebook services, not like they are going to make their own OS or hardware platform.

    I think Facebook should stick with the idea of making (start making that is) ubiquitous and rock solid web services so Facebook becomes a prevalent feature of any mobile device.

    I fear a Facebook phone will become the Kobo of the cellphones, a half-assed Android incarnation lacking in almost every conceivable way.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    1. Re:This would cause the stock to plummet by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      I am sure you've noticed, but the stock already has been dropping steadily ever since it went live and there was no cause for that. I think even if Zuckerbutt sneezes wrong the stock will tank. I agree though. They are trying to be like Google and they just don't have the physical presence to give them any ground at all. Not to mention they would need to fix the Andriod/iOS app before they even start tackling any (proprietary?, re-branded?) phone platform.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
  31. Nobody wants that crap by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Beginning of the end for Facebook.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  32. I dont want a phone that is facebooked or by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 3, Interesting

    a phone that is Yahooed or even a phone that is verizoned. I want a phone. If i want to put facebook, yahoo, verizon stuff on my phone then I will do it. I dont see why companies are trying to come out with their own versions of phones that are supposed to be agnostic. We dont need any more walled gardens.

    1. Re:I dont want a phone that is facebooked or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gotta agree here - my phone costs $49 a *year* w/per-min payments - about $7 a month

      smartphones are for ID10Ts

    2. Re:I dont want a phone that is facebooked or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the guy who fucked up his own leetspeak.

      Seriously... hang your head in shame.

    3. Re:I dont want a phone that is facebooked or by Fri13 · · Score: 1

      When I toke a tablet, it replaced my smartphone.

      I used smartphone a lot for email reading (Gmail), map routing (Google Maps) and some information searching (stores timetables and contacts).
      But otherwise now with tablet, I have emails on it and I can actually type longer emails than "I will take care of that" and it is faster and nicer to go trough them. Map routing is awesome with 10" display on car, I don't like voice turn-by-turn as it is not perfect but just seeing 1-2 kilometer forward where is next turn is awesome. And browsing web is much nicer.

      Now I have again just a basic phone what I can use to make calls and send those twe or three SMS when needed.

      Next tablet is 7" (1280x800 resolution altough, for web pages) what I can carry in jacket pocket.

  33. linux by boast · · Score: 1

    So the phoronix article that said the phone will be linux was a lie?!

  34. I'm very sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    that the Facebook phone won't let me disable GPS and/or any kind of internet connection and the camera takes a photo every ten seconds and uploads it to Facebook.

  35. I thought they were talking about the APP by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

    the answer to 'is the facebook app on the smartphone working?' is FUCK NO!

    One of the brokenest damn apps.....yet, I still use it

    --
    "That's right...I said it."
  36. I for one wouldn't buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it'd probably have beacon on it and they'd probably be selling all your data to the highest bidder if facebook's anything to go by.

  37. Facebook = Titanic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have never seen a leading company so obviously inept. I didn't think Zucker would come off smelling even worse after the IPO ... but some people have no limits. Now they want to develop their own phone. Good luck with that. The market is already saturated with Android phones.

    If you're a shareholder, i'd bail NOW. For the record, I also said don't buy the shares because they were not worth the price and a high risk. The PE ratio is still way off base.

    Sell Chuckie, Sell.

    1. Re:Facebook = Titanic by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      " don't buy the shares because they were not worth the price"

      This is why I didn't buy stock. My grandfather, who has made his millions on the stock market, I warned him not to buy and he is glad he listened to me.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
  38. Well... by froggymana · · Score: 1

    I'm sure it works on at least one smartphone out there. Just never seems to work too well on mine, and it's not a cheapo one either (Motorola Photon). You would think they would work on getting it to work well on other phones before starting to build their own phone.

    --
    "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
  39. Why do this? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Not pushing android, but its there, and its for the most part an open platform.. Just develop some sort of new 'interface' for it like some of the phone makers have done, ( and some apps ) instead of spending the money on developing an entire new device/OS.

    I understand why they don't want just an app-suite as it doesn't give them the ad exposure they want. But then again, if they start pushing ads down our throats, i bet people wont want their phone anyway.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  40. No by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You must not have an iPhone.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or an Android phone, for that matter...

    2. Re:No by Dusty101 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mod parent up. The Facebook iPhone app is terrible.

    3. Re:No by durin · · Score: 1

      The same can be said for the Facebook Android app.

      --
      Why, yes! I AM new here.
    4. Re:No by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Well the Facebook Android app would have to be the most popular 3 and a half star app I've ever seen. It's got more 1 star ratings than 4 star, and that's nearly half the amount of 5 star ratings.

      It's slow, buggy, crashes a lot, is feature poor, they change the interface constantly, and I've actually just given up on it. I use friend caster now. For my limited facebook functionality I am after on my phone I get everything I want to do done in half the time and on the first attempt too.

    5. Re:No by pulski · · Score: 1

      Amen to that. I can browse Facebook on my phone faster through a browser than through the app.

    6. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found it less buggy and more of a battery wasting piece of spyware.

  41. Facebook is an identity provider by rsborg · · Score: 1

    I'm not really sure what facebook could do with a phone.

    I could. If even 90% of the people or organizations you call would have their number listed in Facebook (of course, with whatever privacy controls are in place), then Facebook could disintermediate the dial-by-number and even the "dial-by-stale-contacts-list" - You could just say "Call Marie" and it would go and find out a) which Marie you wanted to call based on your network, and b) what her best number to reach is (assuming she's sharing that information with you).

    This would be a killer feature... not all the pieces are in place (I sure as hell don't have my contact info on FB), but FB is placed better to pull this off than Google, Amazon, Microsoft. It would also reinforce Facebooks dominance in social - maybe I'd be forced to update my contact details there if it became ubiquitous.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Facebook is an identity provider by psiclops · · Score: 2

      when i first added my facebook account to my android it imported all contacts who had shared their phone number with me.

      if i go into contacts and type the first few letters of their name(usually takes about 3 to get them to the top of selected list) then i can just hit call if i want to call them.

      i don't see how facebook could improve on this.

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    2. Re:Facebook is an identity provider by shiftless · · Score: 1

      If even 90% of the people or organizations you call would have their number listed in Facebook ...

      What if only 87% have their number in FB though?

    3. Re:Facebook is an identity provider by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      Again though, that's a 'single icon on my existing phone' sort of problem. It doesn't get them a whole lot in the way of a full featured phone. It gets them one feature they would be better to put on other peoples phones.

      It's also not a hardware problem.

  42. High-quality camera (for Instagram) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the point having a high quality camera if you're just going to process them so they look like they were taken with an instant camera from 1983?

  43. Why not? by Casandro · · Score: 1

    They already had their own Eurovision Song Contest entry. Unfortunately they had to remove the word "Facebook". If you look for it, you'll find 2 versions, one with the name being replaced.

    Actually given the current status it would be stupid for Facebook to do anything, people already do stuff for them for free. Just wait till someone else brings out a Facebook-Phone.

  44. i know where have some cheap fitness dvd by fitnessdvdathome.cm · · Score: 0

    You must not have an iPhone. but i like fitness. and i know, some cheap fitness dvd at http://www.fitnessdvdathome.com./ on sale.

  45. The sad thing is by arcite · · Score: 1

    These ideas all sound viable for Facebook to try. On the other hand, they would fuck up the internet even more than my worst nightmares can conjure.

  46. HTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand HTC used to create hardware for branding but this brand can kill it ... Two opposites - company having very good designs and great respect from their devices owners for its quality ... and Facebook on the other side ...

  47. The great thing about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    these "phones" is that finally you don't have to communicate with your friends over the Internet. You can just talk to them.

  48. FTFY by shiftless · · Score: 1

    Facebook is terrible.

    YW

  49. I thought they already made one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't the HTC Status their test bed? (It didn't sell too well, IIRC.)

  50. Heard on the news this morning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are. The more important question is why should I give a shit? Even if I cared about the humdrum mundane details of useless people trying desperately to be famous, even amongst people who don't matter, why would I need a phone tailor made to keep up with them? Also, since I tried having a "smart" phone, realized it was a waste of time, money, and effort, this really doesn't matter to me. I upgraded, (YES, UPGRADED) from a smart-phone back to a REAL PHONE, that way when I have to make or take a call, I don't have to worry the phone will be too busy doing something else to be a goddamned phone, (a problem I had with my last and final "smart" phone). Also, the battery seems to last forever by comparison. So... the whole "smart" phone thing is a fad, as far as I'm concerned. If all phones eventually become "smart", I'll cling to my real phone... until I can't use it anymore then I just won't have a phone.

    Good riddance, I'll say. We didn't need to be that fucking connected anyway.

  51. Facebook and HTC by Conspire · · Score: 1

    Well, I ditched my HTC when Galaxy IIs came out. I loved the phone except.....could not get rid of facebook app without rooting the phone. So, switched to Samsung and rooted the HTC and gave it to the Ms. Facebook options chain started trading today. STock is down almost 5% already. There will be a huge scramble to produce a "plan", and I'm sorry a crappy app for a crappy service tied to a really cheesy brand is not going to save the farm here.

    --
    Real men don't need signitures!!!
  52. #jumpingtheshark by edmicman · · Score: 1

    So Facebook is going to buy Opera and then build a phone? These both seem like desperate moves to stay relevant and even then I don't know if I'd call either of those ideas *good*. Why not focus on making a mobile app that doesn't suck first? All the news around Facebook lately seems to revolve around them realizing they need to have some sort of future plan to remain profitable, relevant, and grow at the same time. And it's like they're just realizing this newfangled mobile thing is going to take off.

    1. Re:#jumpingtheshark by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of good ol' AOL.

      Unprofitable core business, let's buy a web browser (Netscape).

      As for slapping your brand all over a pre-existing smartphone OS... not sure what the point is there?

      Sam

  53. Sounds like by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Hotmail working on a smartphone.