Facebook's App Center has a distinct advantage over alternatives: they have much more information on the users of their apps. Also, because ratings are based on real names, they'll have a much easier time preventing ratings spam.
Because of this, Facebook has the potential to develop a more accurate app recommendation engine and solve the problem of app discovery. If Facebook can make their platform more merit-based than the capricious Apple App Store, both users and developers will flock to them.
And this isn't even considering Facebook's social graph. Not only could Facebook recommend apps based on your demographics + interests, it could also recommend them to you based on how much you previously liked the games that some of your OTHER friends liked. Things like this could add a whole new dimension to app discovery - all completely exclusive to the Facebook platform.
> Facebook's App Center has a distinct advantage over alternatives: they have much more information on the users of their apps. Also, because ratings are based on real names, they'll have a much easier time preventing ratings spam.
How bad is the ratings spam problem? (I'm not a mobile app developer)
Don't Apple and Google require a credit card to have an account, which means there's at least some barrier to making accounts to spam? They also have data on if a user actually downloaded an app they're rating, if they've made many ratings before or if this is a brand new account, etc. Meanwhile, there are already "Like" farms that you can pay to boost like counts on Facebook for your content.
It seems like if there's motivation to spam ratings, Facebook won't have a great advantage over the problem.
Facebook's App Center has a distinct advantage over alternatives: they have much more information on the users of their apps. Also, because ratings are based on real names, they'll have a much easier time preventing ratings spam.
Amazon distinguishes the reviews from people who actually bought the item they are reviewing from other reviews, I generally read only those. Probably Apple and Google could do the same, might help them a bit in reducing comment spam
"The inner-platform effect is the tendency of software architects to create a system so customizable as to become a replica, and often a poor replica, of the software development platform they are using."
It's for more than just canvas apps that run inside Facebook. It's also for apps that use Facebook login, but they can be full-blown iOS or Android apps like Draw Something or web apps.
I wonder if they'll allow apps where Facebook Login is just one authentication option, like Draw Something. I'm guessing not for the little guys.
This is fantastic. It might solve the issue of low quality apps on Facebook, and it's awesome to see that they're using their knowledge on who their users are in developer analytics - that's something Apple can't provide.
This is a good way for Facebook to leverage existing mobile App infrastructures without stepping on too many people’s toes. Developers are responsible for developing an app, and putting it on as many stores etc as they like. In this sense, there is no additional lock in by using the Facebook App Center if you are already using Facebook Connect.
I think the big question is - what happens for paid apps? Will Facebook be asking for a cut of any referrals? Take Draw Something for instance, which is $1.99 (or free). I know Facebook gets benefit from people playing and using Facebook Connect, but they have essentially handed that store the sale. I would think they would want to monetize this, and will be interested to see how this plays out. I wouldn’t be surprised if agreements are in place - as it would really be of mutual benefit.
Is total sales volume good metric to compare the Ubuntu, Apple App store, Amazon app store, Facebook App Center, the Microsoft Metro app store, and Google Play with one another?
Is the consensus that Google Play has too many free apps and they need to move many more apps for the same $ volume? Should app stores be working to establish a more enterprise-y (Amazon and Microsoft) or sophisticated (Apple) culture so that customers expect to spend money?
How serious is the potential for one successful store to sell HTML/CSS/Javascript apps that start eating the other stores' lunches?
Is Facebook in good shape because others' apps won't run directly in its domain? Or is it more vulnerable because it has so many vendors working against it to make "sticky" apps that could pull them away from the Facebook experience altogether?
App stores should make it easier to pay for the apps without having to register a credit card. Going for an enterprise feel won't help if people don't want to (or can't) register a credit card but can't pay any other way.
Apple has done this extremely well with the iTunes cards, which has made people more inclined to pay for apps.
I took a quick peek and am not familiar with the Facebook app ecosystem; but am I getting it right that if you develop an HTML5 Facebook app that it will be able to run inside of FB's native application on both iOS and Android?
Or is this just a showcase for Facebook enabled applications (native & web.)
HTML5 Apps for mobile are such a lost cause for non-trivial apps. Native apps have so much more control over the user experience and aren't crippled by poor performance. Facebook and other internet companies that think HTML5 is a viable choice for mobile are naive and putting their monopolies at risk.
The most interesting thing about this is that it's the first app store that will be available across devices. You could (potentially) own an Android phone and an iPad; but today you need to buy two copies of the app. With Facebook, you only need buy it once.
It's not a store. There is no purchasing through Facebook (except for I guess apps that run on Facebook, rather than Android or iOS). It's just a user review site like hundreds of others except for the scale.
Wonder how Apple will treat FB apps purchased via the FB iOS app running on iOS device? iirc there's been some controversy in this area regarding Apple taking a cut of the sales.
Also wondering what Google will think of the FB Android app helping users side-step the Chrome store or whatever it's called.
Think it's time for FB to get a device of their own ;-)
Mobile native apps are not cross platforms so if you download the app in Android, I don't think it will show up in your iPad. The documentation from Facebook Developer says: "If a mobile app requires installation, they will be sent to download the app from the App Store or Google Play."
This is a good move. With the proliferation of Facebook apps there needed to be a better way to discover apps, especially ones that your social network is using. It is a social version of Apple's App Store.
The app center will be a milestone in mobile computing process. The developers will definitely get their share of income by placing their android or iPhone based applications.This platform will be easy to find their app by the random users who will otherwise find it difficult to search the apps.
http://www.techendeavour.com/Mobile_Application_Development
I'm Curious: what's the incentive for Apple not to ship the FB app w/ iOS like they do w/ Twitter? Seems like Apple would benefit from all the consumption of Facebook on the iOS devices.
I suspect the Facebook Apps will be HTML5 embedded in Facebook? The Apple App Store still has the advantage of native apps. Is this basically the Chrome Web Store but built within Facebook (full access to user's data)?
I've been convinced for a couple years now that Facebook's next big thing will be a Facebook phone (likely based on Android, but partnering with a single manufacturer).
I'd like to get my start-up (Verelo.com) using this, but its more suited for technical/IT guys.. is this something that would fit in? We've been mostly going with places like Heroku Apps, Wordpress plug-ins, etc.
If you take all combinations of similes for "App" and "Store/Market/Center/Hub" and trademark all of them, I wonder if some random company could become a trademark troll.
This wouldn't work nearly as well, given that trademark law generally only protects marks one actually uses in trade. So, given N and M synonyms for "app" and "store," respectively, your potential troll would actually need N*M storefronts, each sufficiently similar to one or more of the established app stores to cause confusion and sufficiently successful to be considered "use in trade".
In contrast, one can hold patents without making or doing anything (including licensing the patents).
This is the beginning of the end for Zynga. Quality will now drive users to new games, not news feed spam and who has the biggest userbase to promote to or the biggest marketing budget.
Bravo Zuck! Though I suspect Zynga's declining growth led to this decision more than them wanting to level the playing field.
[+] [-] yangez|14 years ago|reply
Because of this, Facebook has the potential to develop a more accurate app recommendation engine and solve the problem of app discovery. If Facebook can make their platform more merit-based than the capricious Apple App Store, both users and developers will flock to them.
And this isn't even considering Facebook's social graph. Not only could Facebook recommend apps based on your demographics + interests, it could also recommend them to you based on how much you previously liked the games that some of your OTHER friends liked. Things like this could add a whole new dimension to app discovery - all completely exclusive to the Facebook platform.
[+] [-] magicalist|14 years ago|reply
How bad is the ratings spam problem? (I'm not a mobile app developer)
Don't Apple and Google require a credit card to have an account, which means there's at least some barrier to making accounts to spam? They also have data on if a user actually downloaded an app they're rating, if they've made many ratings before or if this is a brand new account, etc. Meanwhile, there are already "Like" farms that you can pay to boost like counts on Facebook for your content.
It seems like if there's motivation to spam ratings, Facebook won't have a great advantage over the problem.
[+] [-] vijayr|14 years ago|reply
Amazon distinguishes the reviews from people who actually bought the item they are reviewing from other reviews, I generally read only those. Probably Apple and Google could do the same, might help them a bit in reducing comment spam
[+] [-] bobwise|14 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner-platform_effect
"The inner-platform effect is the tendency of software architects to create a system so customizable as to become a replica, and often a poor replica, of the software development platform they are using."
[+] [-] ja27|14 years ago|reply
I wonder if they'll allow apps where Facebook Login is just one authentication option, like Draw Something. I'm guessing not for the little guys.
[+] [-] cmelbye|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acanby|14 years ago|reply
I think the big question is - what happens for paid apps? Will Facebook be asking for a cut of any referrals? Take Draw Something for instance, which is $1.99 (or free). I know Facebook gets benefit from people playing and using Facebook Connect, but they have essentially handed that store the sale. I would think they would want to monetize this, and will be interested to see how this plays out. I wouldn’t be surprised if agreements are in place - as it would really be of mutual benefit.
[+] [-] bgilroy26|14 years ago|reply
Is the consensus that Google Play has too many free apps and they need to move many more apps for the same $ volume? Should app stores be working to establish a more enterprise-y (Amazon and Microsoft) or sophisticated (Apple) culture so that customers expect to spend money?
How serious is the potential for one successful store to sell HTML/CSS/Javascript apps that start eating the other stores' lunches?
Is Facebook in good shape because others' apps won't run directly in its domain? Or is it more vulnerable because it has so many vendors working against it to make "sticky" apps that could pull them away from the Facebook experience altogether?
[+] [-] Trezoid|14 years ago|reply
Apple has done this extremely well with the iTunes cards, which has made people more inclined to pay for apps.
[+] [-] masonhensley|14 years ago|reply
Or is this just a showcase for Facebook enabled applications (native & web.)
[+] [-] tomwaddington|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alaskamiller|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soup10|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bignoggins|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nigham|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ja27|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spaghetti|14 years ago|reply
Also wondering what Google will think of the FB Android app helping users side-step the Chrome store or whatever it's called.
Think it's time for FB to get a device of their own ;-)
[+] [-] jackyyappp|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chadyj|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lakshmibalu|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tyrant505|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spaghetti|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spaghetti|14 years ago|reply
Wonder what this means for the App Center running on iOS?
[+] [-] jonnycoder|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zomgbbq|14 years ago|reply
> 2.7 Apps that download code in any way or form will be rejected. > 2.8 Apps that install or launch other executable code will be rejected
[+] [-] chc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GuiA|14 years ago|reply
I've been convinced for a couple years now that Facebook's next big thing will be a Facebook phone (likely based on Android, but partnering with a single manufacturer).
[+] [-] buss|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] captaincrunch|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hkmurakami|14 years ago|reply
Google: Android Marketplace
Facebook: App Center
If you take all combinations of similes for "App" and "Store/Market/Center/Hub" and trademark all of them, I wonder if some random company could become a trademark troll.
[+] [-] mullingitover|14 years ago|reply
And Apple went after them for trademark infringement, so we already have our trademark troll.
[+] [-] dannyr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasomill|14 years ago|reply
In contrast, one can hold patents without making or doing anything (including licensing the patents).
[+] [-] wilfra|14 years ago|reply
This is the beginning of the end for Zynga. Quality will now drive users to new games, not news feed spam and who has the biggest userbase to promote to or the biggest marketing budget.
Bravo Zuck! Though I suspect Zynga's declining growth led to this decision more than them wanting to level the playing field.