Hacker News Reader

Comment by danmaz74 | Hacker News Reader

All the user needs that the article lists and that a Facebook browser would answer to (instant notification, always on chat, etc.) could be just as easily be answered by a simple toolbar, on top of another browser.

As for the adoption of a FB browser, I would be curious to see how it would fare. I'm pretty convinced that most early adopters which sustained the initial adoption of Firefox and Chrome would never use a FB browser, because they would be worried about Facebook becoming the sole owner of the internet - and because they're perfectly able to be always on on FB, should they want to.

Could the typical Facebook user become an early adopter? Everything's possible, but it wouldn't be very easy.

View on HN

Exactly.

If Facebook wastes their time and resources building and supporting a full-fledged BROWSER, they would be out of their mind. A Toolbar makes perfect sense.

The same way there's a new phone out there with a Facebook button right on the front. They are an add-on.

Building a browser is not just about adding neat social features. People use their browser to do everything - Facebook related or not, and when things happen OFF of Facebook, Facebook doesn't care - not in the same capacity as Google anyway. But if they build a browser, then they open a whole new can of worms.

The adoption rate for Facebook Browser or even toolbar will be very insignificant. Why?

Majority of Facebook users (35 - 45 yr old females and older) are not the crowd who like to install or capable of installing a new browser or even a new Firefox or Chrome toolbar without the help of GeekSquad or their nerdy nephew.

The other majority are tech users who are already on Firefox or Chrome and the last thing they want is another browser or let Facebook monitor all the websites they are visiting (although this is already happening in some levels)

Facebook probably doesn't need "early adopters" per se. A big banner across the top of Facebook would drive tens of millions of downloads within days and this would generate tons of ambient discussion on Facebook feeds. Assuming normal people don't turn against it (possible if the right frantic all caps messages start being spread around), it would definitely make a dent in IE usage.

That would be the easiest route probably. There's a big difference between "Facebook's Browser" and "A Facebook Toolbar for Firefox". You can't really do a toolbar for Chrome (just one icon per plugin).

From a sociological and geeky point of view, I would be curious to see how this would turn out...

Look at Google's ad for Plus via their search engine page. It's pretty powerful.

Why aren't people equally worried about Google becoming the sole owner of the Internet?

Honest question - is it because people are ok with Google being in that role, or because they don't think Google is trying to get into that position?

Because Google spins things better.

Google has a nerd-friendly message, and produces things that are building dependence and are genuinely useful (like, say, gMail). So, people are less scared of it, and after some time denial kicks in.

Also, I'm bitter because Google is the one software company that I'm scared of more than of Facebook :-D

For Gmail, you can withdraw your emails out via IMAP/POP. You can export your contacts.

Of course you can. But then you'd be also abandoning the workflow, and I meant dependance on that. Only relatively recently mail clients supporting a workflow similar to Gmail show up.

Speaking for myself, it is because I see google as something that brings you traffic (and revenue if you use adsense), not as something that tries to bring away your traffic: You go to google to leave it as soon as you find your destination, while you go to facebook to stay there... and facebook is trying to cajole everyone into closing themselves inside their walls, with their pages, their apps, and so on.

Of course, with Google betting so much on G+, this could change. But I can still hope that google will try to differentiate itself from FB, at least in the eyes of developers, by being more outwardly than facebook. If they can make an offer that is more compelling for third parties, not driving them to completely relocate themselves inside the G+ environment, they could benefit from that in the long term.

I think people are ok with Google in that role because they are not (obviously) trying.

Could they fork a release of Chromium and customize it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com