What could Facebook possibly do that would harm Apple more than it would harm Facebook?
Probably not nearly enough to cancel out the rest of their behaviour but at least some.
"The enemy of my enemy..."
Is still very much my enemy, and I'd be a fool to let my guard down.
Facebook plans a smartwatch with deep ties to Facebook to compete with the iPhone. Talk about a hard nope for me.
I just assume it's a direct feed of all your bodily activity direct to Zuck Central. Supported by real time advertising direct to your brain.
Supposedly the Portal is actually nice hardware wise, but the Facebook association was just toxic for them.
Without having an OS to back it up like the Apple Watch has iOS and the Android Wear has Android, it’ll just be a worse smartwatch.
What would their killer app be?
Why? Facebook, of course.
I don't think they will.
Apple dominates the smartwatch category because they are the only ones willing to invest in CPUs and components to make them really work well. Well that plus iPhone integration.
> What would their killer app be?
My theory would be perhaps the "Killer" feature would be communications. If they could come up with a killer cellular watch that just goes around the smartphone entirely, they might make something appealing.
But Facebook has shown zero capability to actually come up with good ideas on their own so I doubt this will go far. If Samsung with all their hardware chops can't really come up with a decent Apple Watch competitor, is Facebook with no hardware experience going to come in and hit a home run? Or even a single?
Seems unlikely
Why would they have to?
With Facebook money I could write a new OS, put it in a smartwatch, and give them away free.
Plus start a new app _store_ to go with it.
>What would their killer app be?
Anything that was free.
Maybe I shouldn't be giving them any ideas . . .
See also: Amazon
In fact, why don't they release their own version of spotify for the sole reason to prove how anticompetitive apple is with pricing.
If someone has the financial resources to do that, and the actual shareholder interest, it's Facebook.
*Pending FTC approval, which is questionable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_First
https://www.cnet.com/news/heres-why-the-facebook-phone-flopp...
https://www.gsmarena.com/flashback_the_motorola_rokr_e1_was_...
FB has a lot of engineering talent and experience on distributed operations and services side, so if they really want to diversify, perhaps should leverage that.
Facebook has leverage - if their future on iOS (and maybe even Android at some point) is at risk, they could very well release a Facebook phone and offer incentives to their users to move.
Developers would also be onboard if Facebook offers incentives to them. Despite all the bad reputation Facebook gets on the surface, most tech companies happily use and depend on Facebook for their marketing & advertising efforts, so they'd be more likely to embrace the Facebook ecosystem if iOS is interfering with their marketing ability.
They’ve very little chance to make their phone cool. Maybe if they use the Instagram brand.
However, the tables have turned to the point where Facebook's future on iOS appears to be in jeopardy, so a hardware bet might make more sense - as in they might not have a choice if they want to keep growing and maintain/increase their valuation.
I do not see Facebook playing catch up with Google, Samsung, the Chinese and Apple in OS, services (like maps) and hardware development, as it is too expensive to get FB into a competitive state in regards to tech, even if they forked AOSP instead of starting from scratch. A mere Facebook branded AOSP will not cut it (and then they'd still need to develop services on top, because people want more than just a facebook App, and app developers want more than just a generic AOSP + FB API)...
Then they'd have to solve the supply chain to get production rolling.
And then they would have to convince people to use their product, which is the toughest problem they'd have to overcome. Their reputation simply isn't great.
Any subsidies can only be limited. How much money could they reasonably offer a FB phone user (in exchange for their data) after having burned through billions in development, production development and marketing? Something like 50 bucks at most I'd think, if they want to still stay profitable. That's not yet a "convincer". Apple users do not mind paying a premium already, and in the Android world you already have lots of products at all prices. And let's not forget that phones (other than Apple phones) are relatively low margin.
Microsoft tried and failed to enter that market, already. And MS reputation with consumers compared to FB was a LOT better.
It's not impossible, but it would be a moonshot, and a moonshot that would be betting the company's well-being.
Entering the smartphone market is a lot harder than creating a new market like they try with Oculus, or Tesla did with electric cars[1]. And Zuckerberg isn't exactly an Elon Musk either[1] when it comes to public perception, or a Cook or Jobs or Brin or Page or even Bezos or still-at-MS Gates.
[1] The market was essentially non-existent and the few products that you could get were all rather subpar. Tesla essentially still had a first mover advantage, and supported their R&D with a limited premium car production with high margins, convincing investors to throw money at them and massive debt.
[2] Tho I have heard Zuckerberg described as a Martian, something that Musk aspired to be :P
It might not be severe pain, but we should not underestimate FB power as it controls our individual feeds.