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."

40 of 160 comments (clear)

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

    At least it works on mine.

  2. 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...

  3. 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 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.
    2. 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
    3. 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.
    4. Re:FB phone will be awesome if... by jez9999 · · Score: 2

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

  4. 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 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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...

  7. 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.
  8. 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."

  9. 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??

  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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...

  13. 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
  14. 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 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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?

  17. 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.

  18. 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)

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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

  22. 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.
  23. 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();
  24. 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.

  25. 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 Dusty101 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mod parent up. The Facebook iPhone app is terrible.

  26. 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
  27. 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