Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Home Flagship Phone, HTC First, May Be Discontinued
zacharye writes "The HTC First, or 'Facebook phone' as many prefer to call it, is officially a flop. It certainly wasn't a good sign when AT&T dropped the price of HTC's First to $0.99 just one month after its debut, and now BGR has confirmed that HTC and Facebook's little experiment is nearing its end. BGR has learned from a trusted source that sales of the HTC First have been shockingly bad. So bad, in fact, that AT&T has already decided to discontinue the phone. Our source at AT&T has confirmed that the HTC First, which is the first smartphone to ship with Facebook Home pre-installed, will soon be discontinued and unsold inventory will be returned to HTC. How much unsold inventory is there? We don’t have an exact figure, but things aren’t looking good. According to our source, AT&T sold fewer than 15,000 units nationwide through last week when the phone’s price was slashed to $0.99."
They should have charged extra and made them sign up for a waiting list.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I thought that the Facebook phone would have been the ultimate iPhone killer. It is, after all, the social media age and Facebook integration should have ensured success.
The Facebook phone flops like few phones have ever flopped. Zuckerberg's lobbying group is collapsing like few lobbying groups have ever collapsed (http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/12/why-zuckerbergs-lobby-fwd-is-collapsing-like-a-house-of-cards-outside-of-dc/).
Many of us are stuck with Facebook due its powerful networking effects (much like AT&T in the old days). But still the FB brand is renowned as being member-abusive, terrible about privacy, cavalier about interface changes and wiping out settings, etc. Perhaps this is a sign that few people are interested in letting FB expand its grip on their lives.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Yes. I loved my HTC s620 (AKA: "Excalibur," and "T-Mobile Dash"). Except for some of the limitations of Windows Mobile it was some really solid hardware. And reviews for the Nexus One, also built by HTC, were stellar, the Tytn II was pretty popular, and people seemed to like the T-Mobile G1. For the longest time there, HTC really did rule the roost. It's only relatively recently, if I remember correctly, that Samsung started to totally dominate, right around the time they launched the Galaxy platform.
Rawr
...the ONLY reason they have the number of users that they do is because everyone's friends are on Facebook.
People do not like Facebook. They hate the lack of security, the constant changing of format, the increasingly annoying advertising, etc, etc, etc.
One day (and I believe it will be soon), a viable alternative will appear and their collective mass of users will leave practically overnight.
No one loves Facebook. Its not cool. Its just where everyone is hanging until something better comes along.
Word game?
Can anybody name me a smartphone that doesn't have Facebook integration already? It's hard to build a phone around a killer feature when literally every competitor already has that feature.
I read the internet for the articles.
I believe it's called the "sell" button in your stock portfolio. Either that or make something bad happen for them.
Rawr
[......] has anyone ever had a positive experience with an HTC?
Yes. I used an HTC Desire for two years and never had any problems with it at all. It was the best phone i'd had up to that point by far.When it came to replacing it, the Galaxy S3 only won out over the One X because it had a replaceable battery and an SD card.
**T-Mobile** Dash
That's where HTC went wrong. I had 3 HTC phone, and I was happy with all 3. All of them were branded as T-Mobile phones.
I'm sure most HTC phone owners have no idea who HTC is.
There was a translation problem when the order came in,
"We want a smart, flip-phone" got translated to "We want a smart, flopped-phone".
And boy, did HTC deliver!
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Because, really, there was never a 'Facebook' phone in the first place. It was just an annoying app launcher that should never have been bundled with a phone. This also demonstrates the sheer power that the default app launcher has to make or break perfectly fine hardware. Even though the customer can easily replace the launcher, bundling a phone with a messed up launcher basically destroys sales of the phone.
Vendors try to lock people into these sorts of things all the time, it just usually isn't quite so blatant and most people don't even realize that it is happening. Buy a Motorola phone and you get some minor but interesting stuff that is generic but locked into the platform (can't be downloaded and run on other android phones). Same with all vendors, but they have to tread carefully or risk alienating their entire user base. The FB stuff was so in-your-face that even a 5-year-old could turn away from the foul stench.
-Matt
This being a GSM AT&T phone might be a big roadblock in you activating it on Sprint's CDMA network
People don't get sucked into a "gadget" when they have real needs. Users want a product with a real answer they can RELY on.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
i think the problem is that the number of people that actively use facebook is grossly overstated by the additional number of users (probably far more) that have merely joined up at some point and then forgot it
i log into facebook maybe once a month, but i'm sure there are plenty of registered users that use it less or not at all
facebook is an ok platform for sharing photos... that's probably about it. eventually something simpler and less commercialized will take over and i'll move to that after the rest of my friends and family migrate.
Coming from the G1 and Desire Z, new HTC phones lack a lot of features:
-no replacable battery
-no trackpad
-no SD
-no keyboard
all these features are missing on any "modern" phone, the trend is to make all buttons disappear at the cost of screen real-estate. So when it was time to get a new phone I went for the one with the biggest screen and most of the disappearing features, I went for Samsung.
OIL, Coal, Microsoft Windows, inkjet printers, Fiat Currencies, cable television, pop with glucose/fructose. There are lots of things that people don't like, but merely put up with because they do not have (or perceive to have) a better alternative.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
Apple's first foray into cell phones was the ROKR made in conjunction with Motorola. It was just a rebadged Motorola E398 with the Apple iTunes music store accessible directly from the phone via licensed Apple software. It launched in September 2005.
Apple severely cut motorola off at the knees by soon announcing the iPhone and discontinuing support of the ROKR in September 2006, with the iTunes software being set up and configured to work with the as yet undisclosed iPhone hardware. So even Apple had a mis-step with Motorola on its first time out on the cell-phone dance floor. Why shouldn't Facebook make a misstep or two? (Not that I condone facebook's existence, the utility of facebook pages, or even any point to checking up on facebook at all. I just have an opinion about 1st generation hardware attempts! ! !)
It's also like the Zune phone. Just when MS started its advertising blitz with ?uestLove a.k.a. Questlove, the stores started discounting and discontinuing the damn useless phone and music player.
Facebook isn't where users want it to be. We like Facebook in the browser and as an app, but collectively users don't feel it belongs as their shell. Consumers had the same reaction to Chrome OS: phenomenal as a browser, but we're rejecting it as the OS, hence, Chromebook has floundered. Same thing goes for Windows - consumers like it on their desktops and laptops, but so far looks like we don't really want it on a phone and tablets. Same thing for Linux - we flocked to it for server apps, but overall avoided it on our desktops.
It's not that I feel they made a mistake, though. I think it's very worthwhile to bump software experiences up and down the stack to see if there's a better fit. But when consumers reject the positioning, it also makes sense to go back to what works.
Everybody hates it and everybody uses it? That doesn't make any sense.
Mind = Blown @ how much you must think everyone loves the shitter...
Actually, it appearz that Facebook is one of the most hated companies in America:
http://247wallst.com/2013/01/09/the-10-most-hated-companies-in-america-2/2/
Facebook has had customer satisfaction issues for some time, but recently did a particularly good job of alienating a portion of its nearly one billion members. According to the ACSI, Facebook is one of the most strongly disliked American companies, beaten out only by three public utilities companies. This comes in part from the company’s continuing user privacy concerns. Mark Zuckerberg’s company did not help itself in this regard in 2012, after it announced that it had the right to republish any and all photos in the accounts of its Instagram users.
Is it normal for the carrier to not outright buy the phone until they sell it?
I don't know about phones, but in the distribution world, it is very common for a reseller to not actually buy a product before it is sold.
Many companies these days work on a virtual inventory basis with their primary supply chain. The basic idea is that the seller of the product effectively leases space in the warehouse to the supplier with a contract such that the supplier agrees to maintain a certain amount of virtual inventory. When the seller sells-through a product, they don't actually have to pay for the inventory until the second the unit is "pulled" from this hub and then the supplier bills the seller and is on the hook to replenish this inventory. Of course the seller discontinues that product, then it just never pulls any more units from hub and the supplier is left holding the bag (even though the inventory is in the seller's warehouse). On the sale, the seller often still has "net-90" days to pay for it as well. As you can see, the life of the supplier isn't easy, nowdays they need to pay for both the inventory and the account receivables side...
For the inventory on the shelf there is a similar paradigm, as part of the shelf stocking agreement, a repurchase agreement is made that the seller can require the supplier to purchase back some or all of the inventory (although usually at a discounted rate), if the inventory hasn't been sold in a certain number of days. This type of stock/repurchase agreements happens in industries far and wide, supermarkets to bookseller to electronic's retailers.
The rationale for the seller offering a high repurchase price and percentages is for the seller and supplier to maximise the amount of product on the shelves (to prevent out-of-stock sales loss) given the seller's risk tolerance for the product. Of course the supplier may be irrational, but the seller is covered a bit in this case... Usually the seller says I'll risk $X to stock your product on the shelf and the agreement is structured by the supplier that although $Y of inventory is stocked, $Y - #units X repurchase_price = $X.
Everybody hates Facebook - they only use it because everyone else does and they have to use it to keep in touch
I won't say everybody hates Facebook
I do not hate Facebook, but that does not translate to mean I have to use Facebook
I do not
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !