Introducing Poke for Mobile | Hacker News Reader

Introducing Poke for Mobile

newsroom.fb.com

38 pointsfriggeri41 comments

"Each message expires after a specific time you've set, either 1, 3, 5 or 10 seconds. When time runs out, the message disappears from the app."

Sure it disappears from the app, but the message probably stays on Facebook's servers for the rest of your life. Then someday in the future Facebook will probably change their privacy settings suddenly (on purpose or accidentally) and all your messages will appear on your timeline for everyone to see.

The younger kids won't switch from snapchat to this and they seem to be the audience for this kind of feature.

Why not? They can already send photos to all their friends, because Facebook already knows their friends. To me, it seems like it would be a hit.

I thought it was proven that previous reports of "private messages" showing up on poeples' Timelines were false and were down to user confusion?

While that's true, the fact is that the data stays forever.

If you copy the direct CDN url of a photo on Facebook and then "delete" it, you can keep returning to that URL to see if it is still active. I've one saved from 2009 that still loads, despite having being "deleted" for almost three years now.

Facebook deletes poke data. http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/22/your-facebook-pokes-are-sto...

Apparently this app has been built in 12 days[1].

[1] https://www.facebook.com/blake/posts/448334501889024

That is not surprising, because it isn't a new feature of facebook, it is just a UI skin which facilitates certain operations.

The last time Blake Ross cloned an app for Zuck was when Facebook Answers came out to compete with Quora. I guess Zuck feels like Snapchat is a threat? I wonder if he tried to buy them.

Blake Ross Clones usually scare people, but they never work out. I don't think Snapchat has much to fear.

Oh, so message expiry is the new hot trend? Quickly, pivot!

Only for the user. Facebook probably still keeps those messages around for 5+ years.

There are pop-up restaurants, why not a pop-up status? Although the former makes money.

I haven't heard of pop-up restaurants before, but they sound a lot like food trucks.

The level to which this is a clone of Snapchat is kind of astounding. Did FB ever try to buy them, or are they trying to destroy competition before they have to pay big bucks like they did for Instagram?

It's all business, so I suppose all's fair, but it hardly paints Facebook as a hub of innovation.

I responded to this on the other post regarding the Poke app on the homepage:

Sure, it's like SnapChat, but isn't that always the dynamic in this industry: the Feature Qua Product (simplicity, focus) vs. Feature Qua Feature (integration)? Some folks, like those who use Buffer, for example, simply prefer tightly-focused, standalone apps while others prefer ones that do more, that integrate many features into a (sometimes) cohesive product a la HootSuite. Personal note: while I'd have been tempted to compare them to Apple or Google in the past, Facebook's turning out to be a lot more like Microsoft for the web, appropriating features or buying companies to Do Everything, even if they're not the best in each vertical.

I agree- I'm not faulting the reasons for doing so, but it doesn't mean I have to approve of it. I just feel for the developers that were tasked with cloning an app.

Before starting a startup, you take into consideration the chance that a tech giant might implement your idea better, faster, and stronger than you. It's a risk that Snapchat took, and clearly it woke someone up.

From Facebook's point of view, why pay money for an app which can be developed 12 days? The only reasons they would acquire Snapchat are for the team and the users.

The users of Snapchat are likely to already have a facebook, so they likely don't care too much about the users. They will paint it as being more convenient for the users, which is true, but it's also true that the nature of capitalism is anticompetitive.

http://proletariat.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/the-myth-of-capi...

In the case of Instagram, Facebook had more reasons to acquire, but I still don't think that one was really worth 1.2 billion.

> why pay money for an app which can be developed 12 days

It sort of shows. I installed the app just to play around with the backend of it, and it's fairly easy to get stuck in a loop with no back buttons. There's also bits of the app that don't make sense, like the differentiation between the different types of received "pokes".

I'm sure an update will be released in a week. Facebook likes to "move fast and break things".

This post is relevant: http://dcurt.is/photos-for-communication

Is there any use-case besides sexting that necessitates:

1. Sending photos that automatically disappear in seconds; 2. Requires user input to view; 3. Prevent screenshots, strong efforts to prevent saving photos?

Hmm...maybe cheating on exams?

When is that site which is a collection of Poke mesaage screenshots going to show up? Can't be that long. I can also see this user reaction: "what! I thought there was no way to save a poke message. facebook you lied to me."

Typically these complaints wouldn't matter as much but because of the sensitive nature of communication this app is designed to facilitate, it could matter much more.

Is this different from FaceBook Messenger? Looks like some duplication of functionality. Are you going to pull Messenger from the market?

The main difference here is that you can set messages to expire after a certain time interval - a feature that became massively popular with SnapChat.

So happens if the user you sent the message to hasn't seen it within that timeframe? (since FB does offline message)

The timeout doesn't start until the user sees the message (at least that's how Snapchat works)

What is the purpose of that? i can't think of a single use aside from, say, sexting.

It's for fun, obviously, not everything has to have a utilitarian purpose... People take compromising photos, make ugly faces, etc., with the knowledge that the photo will only be seen for 3 seconds.

I think it's still a dumb idea for an app.

Does screenshot not work during those times? I'm confused how this would give the sender any comfort at all...

50% of the population is on the bottom half of that normal distribution.

People are dumb.

The app detects if you take a screen shot and notifies the sender. So, if someone abuses the trust you have given them in sending them a photo, you know.

I'm not sure how this app works, but Snapchat takes certain precautions to make screenshotting more difficult (the most obvious one being that you have to hold your finger on the screen or the image disappears, but I think there are also some technical safeguards as well). And as someone else pointed out, it tells the sender if the receiver screenshotted, which allows you to in formally determine whether or not you trust this person in the future.

Sexting is a pretty big use, to be painfully honest.

Like snapchat, it's not for sexting But snapchat is hugely popular.

I think it's a good move to copy snapchat, as it gives fb users a way to be "sure" they don't leave any crappy content online

These are not real facebook pokes https://www.facebook.com/pokes they are phony.

Phone-y? ;)

Just take a picture of the screen with another camera. Nothing can stop this.

I wonder how Snapchat's founder reacted to this news..

Revolutionary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com