Zuckerberg: Betting On HTML5 Was Facebook's Biggest Mistake

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Zuckerberg: Betting On HTML5 Was Facebook's Biggest Mistake

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday September 12, 2012 @12:10AM from the passing-on-the-mega-death-ray-may-have-been-wrong-too dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Speaking yesterday at TechCrunch Disrupt, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged that the company's stock performance was disappointing. He also made an interesting remark about Facebook's development efforts over the past couple of years: 'The biggest mistake we made as a company was betting too much on HTML5 as opposed to native. It just wasn't ready.' According to Mashable, 'the benefits of cross-platform development weren't enough to outweigh the downsides of HTML5, which pulls in data much more slowly than native code, and is much less stable. ... Now, Zuckerberg says, Facebook is focused on continuing to improve the native mobile experience on iOS, as well as bringing a native app to Android.'"

42 of 290 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Correction... by war4peace · 2012-09-12 00:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Zuckerberg meant: The IPO Was Facebook's Biggest Mistake.
There, fixed that for him.

--
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
1. Re:Correction... by Grantbridge · 2012-09-12 00:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Hardly, the IPO was an amazing success for facebook. They managed to sell the company for twice the current market price! Anyone who had facebook shares before the IPO (which is who facebook was doing the IPO for) did rather well out of the deal.
2. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Zuckerberg meant: The IPO Was Facebook's Biggest Mistake.
  There, fixed that for him.
  You meant: The IPO Was Investors Biggest Mistake.
  There, fixed that for you.
3. Re:Correction... by synapse7 · 2012-09-12 00:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I fully agree with you, making a billion dollars over night is terrible, absolutely terrible, I sure as hell wouldn't have done that.
4. Re:Correction... by rudy_wayne · 2012-09-12 00:24 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Company-wise, their IPO certainly was a bigger mistake than using HTML5 in iOS.
  The IPO was inevitable and unavoidable. It was a bad idea, but it was inevitable and unavoidable.
  First, Facebook had already taken more than a billion dollars from investors, including half a billion from Goldman-Sachs alone. So that means that an IPO (aka pump and dump) was inevitable.
  Second, Facebook is the new MySpace and everyone knows it. An IPO (aka pump and dump) is the fastest way to cash in on the latest fad before the bubble pops.
5. Re:Correction... by dnaumov · 2012-09-12 00:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Zuckerberg meant: The IPO Was Facebook's Biggest Mistake.
  There, fixed that for him.
  You meant: The IPO Was Investors Biggest Mistake.
  There, fixed that for you.
  You meant: The IPO Was The Biggest Mistake of Speculators Trying to Get Rich Quick Off an IPO Pop.
  The investors who actually SOLD shares on the IPO made out like bandits.
6. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:03 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Zuck holds 57% of the "voting" stock and specifically told everyone in the IPO prospectus that he wasn't going to listen to them. Nobody has the ability to oust him and he isn't leaving on his own. The guy knows what he's doing.
  I knew what he was doing, too, which is why I didn't buy any shares, and will continue to not buy shares until they're at around $10.
7. Re:Correction... by drinkypoo · 2012-09-12 01:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Unless a company can continuously outgrow the investors' increasing demands, it will, in the end, get the short stick.
  So far practically everything on the web has been supplanted by something else. What's really and truly long-running, and in the No.1 spot? Has any of it occupied that spot since the beginning? The internet archive is still the first archive, but where is Hotbot? Where is IUMA? Who cares about Myspace? Are people still using Microsoft for email? Etc. (Lycos, Internet Archive, Apparently some musicians still, and only Microsofties, respectively... they're rhetorical questions you bastards.)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
8. Re:Correction... by arth1 · 2012-09-12 01:15 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Zuck holds 57% of the "voting" stock and specifically told everyone in the IPO prospectus that he wasn't going to listen to them. Nobody has the ability to oust him and he isn't leaving on his own. The guy knows what he's doing.
  He got married.
  I wouldn't be surprised if Priscilla divorces him after a few years, and sells the shares she got out of it. Unless he has a iron clad prenup, that will lose him his control.
9. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sorry Apple has growth, billions in free cash flow, lots of cash on hand, significant IP and real property, and multiple income streams, both hardware, software, services and media/content and a so far very loyal userbase.
  Facebook has some cash flow financed by ads and market research, and shrinking usage in their primary markets.
10. Re:Correction... by Jack9 · 2012-09-12 01:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  > Apple is a far far far larger bubble than Facebook.
  Apple's net revenue doesn't match the sharp downward slope, that Facebook kept under wraps, until Facebook's IPO. Apple is not a bubble by the simple fact that there's almost no speculation involved. People who own an iPod will get the next iPod etc. Apple's income is not dependent on leveraging potential advertising monetization (read: we'll figure it out later). Google's income is derived from potential advertising profits, with a great track record, in stark contrast to Facebook's published metrics and inability to come up with a working profit model.
  
  --
  
  Often wrong but never in doubt.
  I am Jack9.
  Everyone knows me.
11. Re:Correction... by kelemvor4 · 2012-09-12 01:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "The guy knows what he's doing".
  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
  If he knew what he was doing, he wouldn't still be about a sinking ship.
  Let's see.. The guy made billions on the deal, and simultaneously kept control of his company. You somehow have a superior knowledge on the subject and know better. How exactly does that work? If anyone didn't know what they were doing it would be the investors who bought the overpriced shares. Zuckerberg, on the other hand can laugh all the way to the bank - or wherever else he might want to go. Because that's the sort of thing you can do when you're a multi billionaire. Cocksucker might be a good description if you ask the other shareholders, but I don't think the incompetence you're pretending he has is really there.
12. Re:Correction... by crashumbc · 2012-09-12 02:10 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Apple most certainly is a "bubble"... It's not going to burst though, its going to be a "slow" leak back into mediocrity. One of the reasons Apple is so involved in lawsuits is they see the writing on the wall. History repeats itself. (see the 80's and Apple vs PC's). Their "profits" are based off the insane prices they charge. They can charge that much because of the "perception" by the public that Apple products are that much better.
  The gap between iphone and the others (android,windows) is MUCH smaller then 2 years ago. There's still a perception of a much larger gap then really exists and that is being propped up isheeple AND the wireless carriers. That is what is keeping Apple's dominance "a float" right now. Carriers are so desperate for the "iPhone" that they are eating the insane premium Apple charges themselves, making it seem as though the iphone is comparable. That is changing though. In a year or so the price of a iphone compared to a Android of the same quality is going to double/triple. Once "Consumers" start seeing they'll have to pay 500 for a iphone of 150 for a Android that works as well or better... Repeat the PC market, Apple will slip back into being a niche company...
13. Re:Correction... by Piata · 2012-09-12 02:20 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Ebay, Amazon and even Paypal have shown remarkable staying power. The web's still young, but as it ages sites tend to stick around longer and longer. It's going to take an awful lot to dethrone Facebook. I'm sure it will happen but that's the nature of business. Eventually every business either gets replaced or changes their business model to the point that you don't even recognize the company anymore.
14. Re:Correction... by alexhmit01 · 2012-09-12 02:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Google dominating for what, 8 years now?
  Our young geeks may NOT remember a time before Google, but there was a time where the "hot" search engine changed every two years, and there were new engines launching all the time.
  The Wild West phase of the Internet is over, but we're still on the frontier.
15. Re:Correction... by hawguy · 2012-09-12 02:32 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  "The guy knows what he's doing".
  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
  If he knew what he was doing, he wouldn't still be about a sinking ship.
  Let's see.. The guy made billions on the deal, and simultaneously kept control of his company. You somehow have a superior knowledge on the subject and know better. How exactly does that work? If anyone didn't know what they were doing it would be the investors who bought the overpriced shares. Zuckerberg, on the other hand can laugh all the way to the bank - or wherever else he might want to go. Because that's the sort of thing you can do when you're a multi billionaire. Cocksucker might be a good description if you ask the other shareholders, but I don't think the incompetence you're pretending he has is really there.
  A company is only as good as its employees, and having demotivated employees is not good for any company. If the employees are underwater on their stock for the forseeable future, it's going to be hard to keep them motivated. It's also going to drive up labor costs since they'll have to start paying out bonuses to keep employees happy as well as hire replacements for those that quit. Higher operating costs mean there's even more pressure to bring in more revenue.
  Zuckerberg is set for life, there's no doubt. Facebook as a company is ok for now,but I'm betting it will eventually go the way of Myspace. If Google put some marketing dollars behind Google Plus they might have a chance to take some serious marketshare from FB -- and not just online marketing, they need to reach a broader audience. Many non-geeks still haven't even heard of it.
16. Re:Correction... by hawguy · 2012-09-12 02:37 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If he lives in California and the divorce proceedings are started there that prenup is worthless after 5 years.
  Under California Law, she's not entitled to property he owned prior to getting married (gee, I wonder why he waited until the day *after* the IPO to get married!?). She'd be entitled to any gains the stock made after they were married, but she's probably in for a long wait before the stock rises to meet the IPO price again.
Correction... by Huggs · 2012-09-12 00:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

"Zuckerberg: Betting On HTML5 Was Facebook's Biggest Mistake For The iOS App". Company-wise, their IPO certainly was a bigger mistake than using HTML5 in iOS.
I don't give a Zuck! by Elminster+Aumar · 2012-09-12 00:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

I wish that guy would take a hike... As for his comment, well, let's see him come up with a markup language standard that appeases every vendor while supporting every aspect of media delivery for users. That's not an easy task. Say what you want about the consortium, but what they did in the amount of time they did it in is rather impressive... These things are done in baby steps--but their efforts delivered more than this. Just because HTML5 might have wrinkles to iron out doesn't mean that it's a failed endeavor. Rather, it means that the browsers, companies behind said browsers, and the users have created a massive cluster of epic proportions. The consortium is just trying to make everything more accessible while accommodating for everyone. Again, not an easy task at all.
1. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by radio4fan · 2012-09-12 00:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If that were really the problem in this case then the Facebook website would have exactly the same issues, and you'd have to download a Facebook client app for desktop use.
  The real problem is that browsers on mobiles still suck.
2. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by bWareiWare.co.uk · 2012-09-12 00:34 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Not supporting the type of moble App Facebook were trying to write is a feature of HTML5 not a wrinkle to iron out.
3. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The problem is more complex than that: Mobile devices lack CPU grunt to do things which are easier to do on a desktop systems.
  Because of this the mobile OS builders concentrate what little CPU they do have to make sure their apps run the best as they can at the cost of anything else you may wish to run on top of that. In fact I think they even cripple Javascript on iOS to make sure the OS keeps ticking nicely, for example native scroll events take precendence over Javascript scroll events. I think the main reason that flash was killed in iOS was because it was a closed source CPU hog that they couldn't cripple.
  The only thing that will change this for mobile development is more CPU power, which is difficult if we don't want to have personal hand warmers in our pockets.
  I don't have a problem with JS for application GUI development as long as there is enough juice to run it.
4. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by jeffmeden · 2012-09-12 01:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The problem is more complex than that: Mobile devices lack CPU grunt to do things which are easier to do on a desktop systems.
  Because of this the mobile OS builders concentrate what little CPU they do have to make sure their apps run the best as they can at the cost of anything else you may wish to run on top of that. In fact I think they even cripple Javascript on iOS to make sure the OS keeps ticking nicely, for example native scroll events take precendence over Javascript scroll events. I think the main reason that flash was killed in iOS was because it was a closed source CPU hog that they couldn't cripple.
  The only thing that will change this for mobile development is more CPU power, which is difficult if we don't want to have personal hand warmers in our pockets.
  I don't have a problem with JS for application GUI development as long as there is enough juice to run it.
  I suppose that *is* a problem, but really the big thing that Facebook has screwed up in mobile is not having the infrastructure (server side) to push all content as updates to the app. Instead, each time a user wants to browse their wall, they have to download the whole flogging thing again. The absolute biggest threat to mobile experience is the actual content download itself, it requires the user to stand around and wait, and it eats battery like crazy. Twitter got this right, partly because that's the entire model of their service, but if you look at how well their app runs on mobile you kind of get tired of even tolerating Facebook at all.
5. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by LordLucless · 2012-09-12 01:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Just because HTML5 might have wrinkles to iron out doesn't mean that it's a failed endeavor. Rather, it means that the browsers, companies behind said browsers, and the users have created a massive cluster of epic proportions.
  So, basically, blame everyone but the people who wrote the spec? Sounds like the consortium's made up of entire middle-managers.
  HTML5 is the poster-child for designed-by-committee, slow-as-molasses processes that are out-paced by everyone else because, in the real world, things actually need to get done this decade, and the rest of us can't wait. HTML5 has been in development for eight years, and their current target is another two years before it becomes a Candidate Recommendation. Bearing in mind that they've already missed all their previous targets, Ian Hickson estimated that they'd have the requisite two, independent working implementations in 2022. That's eighteen years from start of development, 10 years from now.
  By the time the spec is completed, devices will have been forced to roll their own solutions, simply because the spec isn't done. Now, they might have some inter-operable features, if that aspect of the spec had been fully codified before they had to implement it, but that's precisely the situation we had in the Netscape v. IE browser wars - each had a somewhat common base, but were independently adding new features to try an improve the browser. The features they added were mutually incompatible because there was no common standard - and we're staring straight down that road again. It's a very clear example of perfect being the enemy of good.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
6. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by mounthood · 2012-09-12 03:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  HTML5 is the poster-child for designed-by-committee, slow-as-molasses processes that are out-paced by everyone else because, in the real world, things actually need to get done this decade, and the rest of us can't wait.
  
  HTML5 was compromise of existing implementations and small improvements, adopted because the XHTML standards were being ignored. Your rant is misdirected: HTML5 is a solution to the lack of standards progress, not a cause of it.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#History
  
  --
  tomorrow who's gonna fuss
For Mobile by mlingojones · 2012-09-12 00:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ooooh. What the article MEANS is "betting on HTML5 as a MOBILE strategy instead of writing native SMARTPHONE applications was a mistake." That's much less broad. Also, as HTML5 is still in its infancy and not yet a finished standard, I think it's kind of early to make this statement.
1. Re:For Mobile by LordLucless · 2012-09-12 01:25 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  HTML5 is projected to be finished in 2022. By that stage, vendors will have adopted proprietary standards, not because they want to, but because the open standard was simply too damn slow to get done.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Biggest mistake - HTML5? by markdowling · 2012-09-12 00:30 · Score: 4, Funny

So not any of FB's many privacy "mistakes" then?
1. Re:Biggest mistake - HTML5? by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-09-12 00:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The privacy mistakes don't cost them much money.
I'd second that. He's spot on with this. by Qbertino · 2012-09-12 00:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Zuckerberg isn't dumb. This judgement on the whole HTML 5 craze goes to show. Techwise HTML5/CSS3/Ajax is a huge step backwards compared to other approaches, like, for instance, Flash. Flash is proprietary and invites doing all kinds of non-sense (sic), but it *is* a far better x-platform VM.
Going HTML5 is not to be triffled with and will bog down your systems performance way further than other VM solutions such as Java or Flash/AS. Any web developer worth his salt could have told Zuckerberg that.
The "problem" (lets just call it that for now) here is that geeks, i.e. opinion leaders, are willing to make huge technological concessions if the technology is more open than the alternatives. Some devs would rather chop their right arm off than develop against (semi)prorietary systems like iOS or countless versions of Android. Hence we've got native looking apps, that are web UIs in disguise, slowpoking about at speeds we know from Windows 95 Applikations back in the day. I presume Zuckerberg got himself talked into this by his devleads, who are, just like any respectable geek, probably way more concerned with system openess and anti-lock-in development wise than with business critical performance and end-user experience issues. That's my guess anyway.
You can say and think what you want about Zuckerberg and Facebook - I dislike the whole direction thinks have taken with this FB thing just as much as the next geek - but his conclusion is spot on. He's a developer himself and it's to his credit that he recongnises where his company bet on the wrong technology. You have to give him credit for that.
My 2 cents.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
1. Re:I'd second that. He's spot on with this. by tgibbs · 2012-09-12 01:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  From the actual quote, it does not sound like Zuckerberg is really down on HTML5 overall. I think, rather, he is saying that the company invested too much time trying to optimize the HTML5 client for mobile clients, when the company was ultimately able to get better performance with less effort by developing native apps.
Re:BS by nstlgc · 2012-09-12 00:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

What you're saying is "I don't need it, so nobody needs it". I hope you know how stupid that sounds.

--
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
Anything that causes pain for Zuckerberg is fine by iBod · 2012-09-12 00:48 · Score: 5, Funny

Anything that causes pain for Zuckerberg is fine by me.
Yeah! Go HTML5!
Re:Whole quote by ledow · 2012-09-12 00:59 · Score: 3, Funny

Nothing to do with their Android app once wiping out your phone contact's email addresses and replacing them with @facebook.com equivalents?
People use the web version not because it's more convenient but because it's safer and you KNOW what it has access to.
Facebook never bet on HTML5 by groovepapa · 2012-09-12 01:00 · Score: 3, Informative

Does anyone remember the convoluted rambling of Dave Fetterman at f8 developer conference last year? No? Here it is again:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/mobile/2011/09/how-facebook-mobile-was-design.php
TL;DR:

"So, how does this work? Project FaceWeb is an extension of this progressive enhancement idea. So, instead of the phone saying I am rendering for a WebKit browser, we send an agent that says you are going to be rendering for a WebKit UI WebKit view inside the iPhone app. So, what you have to do is detect that, style a Web code to make that work, build a bridge between the things that you want to write to interact natively with the Objective-C, say in Javascript, then build HTML pages for Facebook in the iPhone. So, you build much smaller native goop instead of having to build over and over again. ... HTML5 is probably the way that we should have done it."

If you think that's an HTML5 approach, I have some lean agile behavior-driven coaching hours for which I'd like to bill you.
Blame? by theurge14 · 2012-09-12 01:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Facebook is a webpage, not a 3D game that pushes the hardware. Is it possible he is blaming the technology for the failure of his coders? After all, we're talking about an app that when you viewed the comments on a photo you had to back out and come back several times in order for it to "refresh". Or sometimes clicking on a friend's name would take you to an entirely unrelated part of the app. And photos would take ages to load. Sometimes entering in a comment would work, sometimes it would say "you can't comment on something that doesn't exist" even though you could open up Facebook on a desktop computer and make a comment in the same place without a problem. I don't know of any other "webpage" app on the iPhone that performed that poorly, and granted I don't know what the Google+ app used but in comparison it blew the doors off of the Facebook app. Was it really the technology to blame?
HTML5 by interval1066 · 2012-09-12 01:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

So that's it? Snotty but successfull kid declares html5 a toss and that's it? I've noticed a few other people making comments that they're disappointed by html5. Its a bit early to make that determination yet I think.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Well next time by Anarchduke · 2012-09-12 01:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Do your homework and your HTML5 implementation wont suck.

--
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
Re:HTML 5 Java by Xest · 2012-09-12 01:40 · Score: 5, Informative

"HTML5 is roughly equivalent to Java as far as a multi-platform programming language and development platform."
No, not in the slightest. Not even close
"The only successful approach I've ever encountered to using a virtual machine was employed by the Digitalk VM which cached successive VM invocations so that you ran at native 'raw iron" machine speeds after encountering the performance hit the first and only time an pseudo-instruction was executed in a method.".
When did you last read anything about the JVM? 1995?
"The lethal performance problems that WordPerfect encountered trying to implement their suite of office products in Java still apply."
No, no they don't. That was the best part of a decade before Hotspot even came along, which was basically a complete rewrite.
You could've typed your post about 15 years ago, and you might've had a point. Now however, your post makes absolutely no sense, and shows an understanding that only someone who had literally been living under a rock for 15 years would have. Java has changed a lot since 1997, and your criticism is nonsensical in the context of those changes.
i call BS by shadowrat · 2012-09-12 02:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

HTML5, which pulls in data much more slowly than native code
How can this be? HTML5 is not relegated to some throttled network interface. the data all comes through the same pipe. I've made plenty of html5 implementations that had small streamlined exchanges of data with the server. My observations indicate that the facebook apps just pull in obscene amounts of unoptimized crap.

Well, since it's facebook data, i guess no implementation can get around the fact that you are pulling down crap.
Really? by xXShadowstormXx · 2012-09-12 04:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

Really? Betting on HTML5 was Facebook's biggest mistake? You sure about that?

--
I see dead pixels!
MySpace was shit, even compared to Facebook by cbhacking · 2012-09-12 04:47 · Score: 4, Informative

You badly, badly misremember the awfulness of MySpace. Please don't make me post this more than once, the memories are painful...
Embedded Flash objects in the page. Lots of them. All set to auto-play when the page loads. Facebook doesn't allow embedding arbitrary content, and doesn't allow auto-playing video on your page either.
Incredibly atrocious CSS, like text that ballooned to 40pt on hover or that was in incredibly unreadable fonts, or covered up / replaced navigation links on the page... Facebook doesn't allow custom styling.
I'm not sure if this is the fault of ColdFusion or just of MySpace programmers being incredibly shitty, but every 5-10 navigations on MySpace would usually result in a server error. Sometimes, you'd get a server error when the server tried to serve the error page! Facebook has had occasional stability issues, and PHP is lame (but then, apparently very little of their backend is still PHP), but it's rock-solid by comparison.
Back when MySpace was hemmorhaging users to Facebook, there was a limit on the number of pictures you could host on MySpace. Considering that one of the main uses of Facebook for some people seems to be "host every single picture my phone can take" you can see why this appeals.
Strange though it may be to think of Facebook and security together, they beat the pants off MySpace, which has such glamorous characteristics as being the first site to host an in-the-wild XSS worm (because it was trivial to inject script into your page, and somebody figured out how to exploit that).

--
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...