Dear Facebook: Please learn how to design Android apps that don't suck
blogs.computerworld.com
blogs.computerworld.com
Allows the app to take pictures and videos with the camera. This permission allows the app to use the camera at any time without your confirmation.
Allows the app to read data about your contacts stored on your phone, including the frequency with which you've called, emailed, or communicated in other ways with specific individuals. This permission allows apps to save your contact data, and malicious apps may share contact data without your knowledge.
Allows the app to modify the data about your contacts stored on your phone, including the frequency with which you've called, emailed, or communicated in other ways with specific contacts. This permission allows apps to delete contact data.
Allows the app to access the phone features of the device. This permission allows the app to determine the phone number and device IDs, whether a call is active, and the remote number connected by a call.
I'm not an android developer, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but usually those permissions sound like you're giving up all your data but in reality it's just used to do something simple as to prevent vibration/ringing/notifications while you're talking on the phone.
http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/security/permissio...
Apps should have their permissions in two groups:
* Must-have: the app will not work without these (e.g. camera access for a picture-taking app)
* Optional: some features of the app will not work (e.g. camera access for Facebook)
Despite how bad the Facebook app is, I find it to be much better than opening the website on a mobile browser, but I wish I, as the user, could specify what permissions to grant the app.
I was at talk trying to check for a message using the app with limited success yesterday, before I finally gave up and used the Android RealVNC app to remote connect to one of my home systems, open a web browser, and connect to Facebook that way.
I'm really unsure what the issue is here. Is it just really hard to make a decent app? Is Facebook not devoting enough resources to development? Is the development team really bad? Do they not know how terrible their app is? Are developers of the needed caliber in too short supply?
That sort of seems to be the "Facebook way" with everything, and has been as long as I can remember (since the college-only days)...
It's like they know they have to keep changing and evolving to stay relevant, but they have the faintest clue how, and so barrel ahead blindly at full-steam, constantly praying that nothing goes too wrong...
Maybe I should do that in the future.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mots.haxsy...
But around 2 years ago, it was so bad I was running 3rd party Facebook clients on Android - some of which were littered with adverts.
When being subjected to numerous intrusive adverts is less annoying than using the ad-free official app - well, then you know the in house developers clearly need a lesson in mobile development.
Moving to mobile would require a shift in thinking that might be impossible for such a large and entrenched organization.
The teenagers of today, having grown up with smartphones, will likely exit en masse when a usable alternative emerges.
But about two weeks ago everything went down hill. Sometimes it took up to a minute to actually display anything and most of the time at least 20 seconds (all over wi-fi). So I uninstalled it again.
What baffles me is that they don't notice this or that they just don't care.
They have been shoving dog food down their employees mouths because they are aware of how bad it is.
Try the Grindr app sometime. It'll kill your battery life like nothing else, and it has some sort of blocking bug that interrupts music when it is refreshing your location. --I haven't encountered any other app that does that!
Similarly, their mobile app is capable of delivering far less ads than the web page, so they'd rather people sat on that at their desk rather than browsing on their phone.
In relation to lack of decent search and other obviously lacking elements: They're always going to devote far more resources to things which directly or indirectly improve advertising (graph search, friend finding, increasing numbers of likes) rather than things that enhance user experience (since user experience is far more tied to network size rather than feature set, compared to other markets)
So basically their strategy for accelerating mobile usage is "don't support mobile"?
Facebook uses about 121M. That's even after disabling all notifications and clearing data. 121M is more than all the rest of my apps combined.
Google+ is also a relative heavyweight at 31M. Android's most used app, Google Maps, uses a svelte 8.9M.
On older phones, just running Facebook alone will make the entire OS experience slow and frustrating. Now with the latest update, it prompts me to sync my contacts every open. It is shocking how badly they have managed this.
And while we're on the subject, YouTube, GMaps and TweekDeck all need to allow the same thing (every app should). I don't care about the lose of widgets since I never use them. I forced them to SD using Titanium backup, but it's not perfect and there are some glitches.
It's a web page and I have a browser....
An app can provide notifications, integration and speed. An app can do a lot more caching than the app, and will never have to reload a version of its own code. There's places were apps are appropriate, and this is one of them.
I guess I'm just questioning the need for an app for all things, when many of the things are just as well served by a decent page in a browser.
One example - uploading photos straight from the camera. This is a html5 api but the browser support is appalling: http://caniuse.com/stream
More examples - integration with contacts? (i.e. appearing as an option next to call/text etc). Registering under the 'share' menu in Android? Registering as an Intent where appropriate? Ability to run background tasks?
I don't know if Facebook uses these but there's certainly good reasons for an service with it's wide spread of potential functionality to do so.
I really don't want it as a full integrated comms service!