Common complaints (after looking through a few pages):
* Only useful if you live and breath Facebook; it makes email and texts and phone calls second class citizens
* Removes all your widgets
* Would be better as a lock screen than a launcher
* Hides notification bar
* Quick Select only shows Facebook apps (and the most recent app)
It seems like a lot of complaints are from people who didn't really understand what they were installing ("Hey, I like Facebook! Let's try it!"), and were surprised when it turned their phone into a Facebook phone.
A lot of people seem to really like it, too, though.
It seems like a lot of complaints are from people who didn't really understand what they were installing ("Hey, I like Facebook! Let's try it!"), and were surprised when it turned their phone into a Facebook phone.
To be fair, these complaints -- those you bulleted -- validate the poor star-rating. I can't imagine a majority (Re: 2.5+ stars) being given to an application that more-or-less tucks away all of these smartphone features.
Does facebook offer an email system? That would explain making the emails a second-class citizen if you're meant to use your facebook email address instead... after all, making an Android device that moves away from the supremacy of the Google account is actually an interesting idea.
It does seem like Facebook skipped a step here... I mean, look at the massive suite of web-applications that MS put together before debuting their WinPhone7 thing. With Facebook's experience in webapps and their gigantic post-IPO warchest, I'd expect to see a Facebook branded answer to the MS's Live/Skydrive webapps and Google's family of products alongside the phone so they could offer a fully no-Google-account Android system.
Each release of Call of Duty sees the same sort of bizarre behaviour -- people who are not the target market seem simply offended that the product exist, going far out of their way to desperately try to sabotage the product.
I have zero interest in Facebook Home. But I can recognize that it is interesting and useful to some.
I installed it just to see what it was 'all about'. I pretty much agree so far with the 1-star reviews. It really would be something better left as a lock-screen. The application list is pretty terrible as well (and honestly other than access to the Facebook app, that seems to be all the 'Home' program is really giving you the ability to see).
Also, honestly, do people want to see their 'friends' all that much as the background to their phone navigation experience?
P.S: I ended up disabling it. I wanted to play with it for a day just to be able to say that I gave it a fair shot, but it changes the dynamic so far in favor to Facebook that it makes even dialing a phone contact problematic. Sorry Facebook, Messenger is NOT a replacement for my contact list.
The Facebook and Facebook Messenger apps just updated with new permissions:
Other application UI
* Draw over other apps
System tools
* Read battery statistics
* Read Home settings and shortcuts
Your applications information
* Retrieve running apps
* Reorder running apps, run at startup
Phone calls
* Directly call phone numbers
The ability to arbitrarily run at startup, read what apps I'm currently running, and draw on top of them all concern me, and I've chosen not to accept the update at this time as a result.
Really? I would hope the users at HN would be more inclined to understand the needs of those permissions rather than fear mongering. You know the features of Home and you should know that to accomplish those features, it needs those permissions. Remember that Home is more of a shell app and the majority of its abilities come from the Facebook app. The app shouldn't really be accessing that information if Home isn't installed, but they are necessary for Home to run.
"Drawing on top of other apps" seems to be the way that they have implemented their lockscreen replacement. I have seen a glitch recently which indicates that the default lockscreen is actually running underneath.
I'm fairly certain that they would use "retrieve running apps" to pull back information about how their competitors' apps are being used on phones. That could certainly be a competitive advantage in the mobile space.
I've done similarly. Sure, they have valid uses... but they could have done these things with Facebook Home instead of wiring it into the standard applications (which can communicate with Home via cross-process messages, so they could still do everything). Hopefully they'll roll them back if enough don't update, but probably not.
When I first read about it, I thought it sounded like something designed and dreamed up by marketing team with little regard as to whether it would be useful in practice.
For people who live Facebook as if its the sole purpose of the internet this app seams fantastic. Until they realize that the issues they've always rallied against on the website (typically UI stuff) will now be part of their device. Facebook is driven by ads and the research into fitting as many ads into a space as users will accept; how was a mobile app expected to be any different?
Someone who isn't targeting people who own a flagship Google device. There is probably very little overlap in the Venn diagram of people who go out of their way to get the pure Google experience and those who will truly enjoy and use Facebook Home.
Do poor ratings even matter for a super-brand-name application like this? I feel that if I want something like, say, Facebook messenger, I'm going to install it regardless of what its rating is on the app store.
(though I guess with something as "strange/new" as Facebook Home, ratings might matter in giving "on the fence" people enough confidence to try it out)
Sure. Facebook Poke did not receive a lot of positive reviews and has faded into obscurity. Likewise when Facebook was mostly an HTLM5 app and performed poorly, there were tons of negative reviews which prompted Facebook to refactor the app.
This is pretty separate from a UI redesign. This is a new application and then an integration with the existing Facebook app. I'd say there isn't grouching about the 'redesign' so much as 'Where the eff is my Android?'. I think perhaps there has to be a barrier of some sort between the phone and the user for a Facebook 'phone/home' to really work, but there is so much of a barrier that there is literally no dialer immediately available to you. There IS however direct integration with the Facebook Messenger, which I think is how they want you to interact with contacts... sooo... yeah. I don't think the grouching is similar to when the timeline stuff happened, etc.
That would be a valid point if it was a redesign of the facebook app - you can't say that here though, because it's not a redesign of an existing "Facebook Home" app, it's a completely new product.
This is one thing I recall Marcos Moulitsas saying every time DailyKos underwent a redesign. His rule of thumb was no matter what, 1/3rd of the community is going to hate the redesign.
That probably isn't THE rule but I think there is a real phenomenon here that hasn't yet been articulated in its clearest form.
Very true. While people's concerns might be warranted in this case (too early to tell), the most vocal people are the ones who have the most to complain about. It's the Amazon and Yelp 1 star/5 star problem (in this case.. 1 star).
Oh well, they thought they could simply "take over" the entire, front-facing experience of the phone. They probably would have had better success trying their hand at releasing a better widget, surfacing the same experience without removing the notifications bar, apps tray, etc, while being resizable and able to coexist with other widgets (eg. 1x4 Search, 4x4 FB, 1x4 App tray).
So, I don't yet have a Home Phone, however, I'd just liketo point out: when the iPhone debuted - it didnt even have copy paste, video, and many many other features that most other phones had at the time.
I love how every product launch of every 1.0 is always "GAH! Why doesn't this debut item have all features that my 10th generation other thing has!!!"
This is completely overshadowing the fact that Facebook, in its befuddled attempt to spark monetization, started charging for messages to people you're not a friend with (unless you don't want it to end up in the Other inbox, most users are not even aware of).
The launcher itself is beautiful, but it is extremely jarring when a function within the launcher opens the actual Facebook app which is a really poorly done app, especially when compared to Facebook Home which is actually rather nice.
I appreciate that scaling at Facebook must be another world to most developers but do they really have to start with such a small userbase each time? I knew the app was restricted to a few devices, but didn't realise it was US-only as well.
With the amount of scaling experience they have by now I'd have thought they had the resources to launch a little bigger.
[+] [-] gkoberger|13 years ago|reply
* Only useful if you live and breath Facebook; it makes email and texts and phone calls second class citizens
* Removes all your widgets
* Would be better as a lock screen than a launcher
* Hides notification bar
* Quick Select only shows Facebook apps (and the most recent app)
It seems like a lot of complaints are from people who didn't really understand what they were installing ("Hey, I like Facebook! Let's try it!"), and were surprised when it turned their phone into a Facebook phone.
A lot of people seem to really like it, too, though.
[+] [-] thezilch|13 years ago|reply
To be fair, these complaints -- those you bulleted -- validate the poor star-rating. I can't imagine a majority (Re: 2.5+ stars) being given to an application that more-or-less tucks away all of these smartphone features.
[+] [-] TazeTSchnitzel|13 years ago|reply
WHAT?! Why on earth would they do that? Knowing my battery and cell tower status is important!
[+] [-] fudged71|13 years ago|reply
* Doesn't support folders for apps, so you have to swipe through a limited number of pages to organize your apps, or go to a full listing of your apps
* The full listing of apps has a low scrolling speed/momentum, so if you have a lot of apps it takes a lot of time to get to the bottom
[+] [-] Pxtl|13 years ago|reply
It does seem like Facebook skipped a step here... I mean, look at the massive suite of web-applications that MS put together before debuting their WinPhone7 thing. With Facebook's experience in webapps and their gigantic post-IPO warchest, I'd expect to see a Facebook branded answer to the MS's Live/Skydrive webapps and Google's family of products alongside the phone so they could offer a fully no-Google-account Android system.
But yeah, that other stuff is pretty damning.
[+] [-] corresation|13 years ago|reply
I have zero interest in Facebook Home. But I can recognize that it is interesting and useful to some.
[+] [-] druiid|13 years ago|reply
Also, honestly, do people want to see their 'friends' all that much as the background to their phone navigation experience?
P.S: I ended up disabling it. I wanted to play with it for a day just to be able to say that I gave it a fair shot, but it changes the dynamic so far in favor to Facebook that it makes even dialing a phone contact problematic. Sorry Facebook, Messenger is NOT a replacement for my contact list.
[+] [-] Zikes|13 years ago|reply
Other application UI
* Draw over other apps
System tools
* Read battery statistics
* Read Home settings and shortcuts
Your applications information
* Retrieve running apps
* Reorder running apps, run at startup
Phone calls
* Directly call phone numbers
The ability to arbitrarily run at startup, read what apps I'm currently running, and draw on top of them all concern me, and I've chosen not to accept the update at this time as a result.
[+] [-] RandallBrown|13 years ago|reply
Drawing over other apps is core to their new messaging UI because it can show up no matter what app you're using.
Running at startup is pretty much required for an always on Messenger type app.
Reading your currently running apps is also required for any type of launcher app I would imagine.
[+] [-] smith7018|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fudged71|13 years ago|reply
I'm fairly certain that they would use "retrieve running apps" to pull back information about how their competitors' apps are being used on phones. That could certainly be a competitive advantage in the mobile space.
[+] [-] krschultz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Groxx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aeontech|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheCapn|13 years ago|reply
For people who live Facebook as if its the sole purpose of the internet this app seams fantastic. Until they realize that the issues they've always rallied against on the website (typically UI stuff) will now be part of their device. Facebook is driven by ads and the research into fitting as many ads into a space as users will accept; how was a mobile app expected to be any different?
[+] [-] taopao|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevingadd|13 years ago|reply
[1] Google Play insists the app is not compatible with my Nexus 4 phone, so I can't even try to install it.
[+] [-] slg|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hkmurakami|13 years ago|reply
(though I guess with something as "strange/new" as Facebook Home, ratings might matter in giving "on the fence" people enough confidence to try it out)
[+] [-] danielrhodes|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] druiid|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aeontech|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glenstein|13 years ago|reply
That probably isn't THE rule but I think there is a real phenomenon here that hasn't yet been articulated in its clearest form.
[+] [-] jonathanjaeger|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thezilch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samstave|13 years ago|reply
I love how every product launch of every 1.0 is always "GAH! Why doesn't this debut item have all features that my 10th generation other thing has!!!"
[+] [-] Skibb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] myko|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] underworld11|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Skibb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] turshija|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mongol|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eranation|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] film42|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OGinparadise|13 years ago|reply
1 Billion total users and less than 1000 reviews, of which 400 are really bad ones. But those reviews might set the trend
[+] [-] RossM|13 years ago|reply
With the amount of scaling experience they have by now I'd have thought they had the resources to launch a little bigger.