I really don't see the point of separate apps. The main Facebook app, Facebook Messenger, Facebook Photos...what's next?

Anyone who can enlighten me why this would be a good strategy? Seems like unnecessary fragmentation to me.

UX bug that is actually fairly glaring when it comes down to it:

I searched for "Facebook Camera" in the app store, but because it is so new, it is not there (ok, seems normal)

I went to the site and clicked "Text link to my phone", phone number already filled out, text went through fine (so far so good)

Clicked on the link, but facebooks mobile detection caught it before the redirect happened, didn't know how to handle the url, and redirected me to the facebook homepage instead (I was logged in, so this was my news feed page).

This leaves me with basically no way it install the app unless I wait for it to be indexed in the app store, or download to my computer, both of which I do not want to do.

I said earlier today [1] that mobile proposes a strategic risk to Facebook as they don't control the mobile platform like Apple or Google.

This is really the best they can do to change that. I believe they're attempting to create a base mobile experience and use that as a selling point for mobile devices. On iOS for example there are standard apps for Mail, Maps, Search (browser), etc. I wouldn't be surprised if you see a suite of apps from Facebook to be the base functionality for some phone.

The next logical step would be to then bundle that on something and call it a Facebook Phone as a branding exercise. Carriers can bundle software, on non-IOS anyway, why not Facebook?

Mozilla ends money through the selling the default search engine on Firefox. Why can't Facebook do the same thing?

Part of this mobile strategy is to create a mobile platform (aka Project Spartan [2]).

Good for Facebook. At least they realize the risk they face.

[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4016950

[2]: http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/28/this-sure-looks-a-lot-like-...

This is fantastic. I hope Facebook continues with the break-apps-up strategy, because it makes a lot more sense for mobile. On mobile, you have less screen real estate, a less precise pointing device (fat fingers vs. a mouse), and you're generally shorter on time, especially compared to when you're wasting time on Facebook on your laptop. All these things mean that simpler apps with fewer UI elements and with a single clear purpose are much better on mobile. I already use Messeger alone as much as the actual Facebook app, which is disastrously unwieldy. Here's hoping we see events and contacts as the next apps. Games is also probably a big priority.

They split Camera and Messenger out into their own separate applications recently on Android. This was quickly reverted seemingly due to really bad reception. It puzzles me why they're repeating this

I must admit, this looks great. There seems to be a couple of design choices that are a bit weird that have been mentioned below, but it's a solid bit of work.

But Facebook, why are you still cursing the world with your terrible main applications and spending precious development hours making additional apps? If you ever want to monetize mobile you need to make the mobile experience not terrible.

Take the team working on this, give them the main app, give them 3 months and let them go nuts. It'll work. It'll be great. Your users will want to engage more.

Bad news for Batch from Dailybooth (YC S09). They focus on uploading photos in batches.

http://batch.com/

How interesting: I installed and launched the app expecting to see the standard "Log in with Facebook" screen, but instead there's a big button that says "Continue as [my name]" (and a smaller one, "Not you?"). I wonder how exactly they're doing this, and if it will make its way into 3rd-party apps. It made the first launch experience quite seamless.

Note the author is Dirk Stoop, of recently acquired Sofa. (Congrats Dirk if you're reading.)

Isn't the point here that instead of creating hardware and developing the software on top of it, Facebook is creating its own mobile offering in reverse? Building all of the software and setting the hardware component as priority two.

Facebook Messenger's new read/delivered functionality is much like BBM or iMessage. They just unveiled their app store. Now a Photos app.

Once the core apps are done and everybody who has an iOS or Android phone already uses them and enjoys them, convincing people to jump to an actual Facebook phone may not be a stretch.

Not saying that will ultimately happen, but it seems like this approach is keeping that door wide open.

this app is clearly worth a billion dollars.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/19/facebook-is-secretly-buildi...

This article is from nearly two years ago and claims that Facebook was very secretively working on its own mobile OS. If this is indeed the case, a lot of their somewhat recent acquisitions make a little more sense (GoWalla, Karma, Instagram obviously, and LightBox).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Faceboo...

The fact that their valuation gets beat down on the lack of ad revenue in the ever growing mobile space turns into a bullish signal if they release a high quality phone with a high profit margin. I wondered why they were splitting up their mobile app into many recently on Android as well, and this tells me that it's possible they want to create a suite of "necessity" apps as the basis for their platform.

Since this app seems to directly "compete" with the Instagram app, I wonder if their goal is to get rid of Instagram completely.

There're pros and cons.

Breaking apps up feels smart—it's like Unix. But otherwise you have more overhead, more apps and more updates. But I guess the app quality would heavily benefit because then the devs have to fulfill just one use case and by focussing on one thing the overall app quality might be better.

They could also introduce a system similar to web bookmarks: one app and many entry points—or like a command line app which does different things by adding options. Android widget often fill this gap offering different entry points into one app.

Agree the comments supporting Facebook's fragmented strategy of introducing new separate apps.

To compete with Microsoft, Apple, Google you need a platform (OS and phone). While Facebook messenger didn't really take off, photos may be more of a popular transition as many send photos to Facebook anyway.

I feel that the mobile app market will mature along the same lines as computer software. Eventually the majority of users will want a simple experience of picking up a phone without having to make choices in an 'store' environment.

So confused. I understand the instagram deal is on hold, but a separate app for facebook photos, even if it's been in the works for awhile, seems like a waste of time. It's a deterrent from what should be their main focus. When investors are skeptical about the future of their revenue/stock, this would be the last thing I'd want to see. If this was built into the facebook app, as an improvement, that be cool. LNo one would care about it, but it would at least make sense.

Reminds me of when Yahoo Photos was competing with Flickr.

undefined

Two thoughts:

1) This makes it even clearer that a lot of stuff that is allegedly tagged photos of people on Facebook is memes and "inspirational" posters. And you can only unsubscribe from photos in the web version.

2)You can't just change photos from 3:2 to square aspect ratio. The subject isn't always in the center of the photo!

This looks a lot like Instagram to me.

You can upload pictures from here, there's a constant stream of photos, and you can apply effects to your pictures. There are a few differences from Instagram, but the essence seems the same to me.

How does this compare with instagram? (I have yet to upgrade to a smart phone)

I wonder if FB could have simply released this as a direct competitor to instagram and crowded them out versus shelling out $1B.

So no Android version? Plus there seems to already be an unrelated App named Facebook Camera in the Android Market, it should get a nice little downloads boost.

I followed the link from Google to app store. It gives "This request could not be completed" error on the app store. Maybe I'd have to wait.

I would also love an FB contacts app.

How does the app know who I am without asking me to log into Facebook? Is it guessing somehow from my FB app's login + UUID? Or am I missing something basic

I realize this was probably in the works for a long time, but is it crazy to think that the Instagram folks helped build this?

Perhaps filters are coming soon. :)

My initial impressions upon launch was that it seemed to load much faster and was more responsive than their main iOS app.

The style reminds me a lot of Google+. It's good that they're willing to accept design inspiration from outside Facebook.

More ad-free mobile experiences from bubblebook... This ought to generate so much value. /roll

This reminds me of a certain other mobile camera app that FB acquired quite recently...

What's with the generic name camera. Good luck ranking for the term.

Why is it available just for the US App Store?

We're still using Facebook?

is this run on a windows box??

.aspx

Wow. Do we really need this?

Rebranded Instagram with Feacebook photos integration?