Facebook Home suffering from poor Google Play reviews: 48% of users award 1 star | Hacker News Reader

Facebook Home suffering from poor Google Play reviews: 48% of users award 1 star

thenextweb.com

62 pointsscholia68 comments

Open articleView on HN

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.

>Hides notification bar

WHAT?! Why on earth would they do that? Knowing my battery and cell tower status is important!

You can have it show you it, but by default it hides it. Stupid default. It's in the settings though.

I sense a pattern here...

It is a configurable option that defaults to hidden.

They did that so that it's a fullscreen experience.

But I think this is also the reason that they chose to start with the Samsung platform, because they (my NoteII at least) allow you to swipe from the top edge to display the notification bar (yes, even with Home).

The "facebook phone" is an HTC.

That's true, and I don't know what they are doing to keep app notifications, time, and device status on the HTC phone if it remains fullscreen. I think we're all mainly talking about the feedback which the app is getting for people who have installed it on other devices which had their own launchers before installing.

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.

>> an application that more-or-less tucks away all of these smartphone features

That describes like 1,000+ apps with the word "launcher" in their title, and yet a lot of them are 4+ stars https://play.google.com/store/search?q=launcher&c=apps

Except none of those launchers remove functionality like the Facebook launcher is doing by hiding your status bar and removing widgets.

The 4+ star rated launchers add functionality to android.

I haven't looked through those 1k+ apps; I looked at the first few and would say you're completely wrong -- the apps don't hide the features we've come to expect of a homescreen of a smartphone. As I wrote elsewhere...

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. Being resizable and able to coexist with other widgets (eg. 1x4 Search, 4x4 FB, 1x4 App tray) would appear to be a lot more welcoming.

What are you talking about? Launchers are just alternate home screens, the degree to which they alter functionality varies greatly.

For example, I use Nova Launcher, and when you first install it, it's entirely identical to the default launcher. Most people using my phone don't even know that it's not the default.

It also

* 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

Not supporting folders for apps seems reasonable. They probably want to simplify things and folders, while handy, aren't really necessary and can be confusing for the lowest-common-denominator. I'm surprised they haven't completely eliminated the desktop/drawer separation altogether like in iOS.

Presumably the final Facebook phone will have a very short list, so app sorting/scrolling features would be simplified for convenience and intuitiveness... I mean, what apps do hardcore Facebook fanboys need besides Facebook?

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.

FB doesn't deserve to only be told how "FREAKING AWSOME" they are. The criticisms are very valid, outside the FB vacuum, and I expect FB will be making changes based on the feedback. How exactly are these users supposed to echo that they'd enjoy more FB integration their smartphone without hiding or neutering common features of a smartphone (or non-smartphone for that matter)?

Most know of the choices made within the product. Yes, they are "going out of their way", in the same way that most of the inane complaints that Black Ops 2 is a tight quarters shooter are inane. Facebook Home expressly declares that it is about making your device a Facebook experience. Any complaint that argues something not of the Facebook experience is not the target market.

That supposes that the people consuming the product were informed prior to their 'purchase' that the products are not 'intended for them'; both are seemingly marketed as products that all who exist would derive benefit and enjoyment from (edit. not that I am trying to point fingers here - imperfect market and all).

Let the seller beware - though, it's not like poor ratings from the get go from a proportion of the users would really hit these giants much.

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.

But yeah, that other stuff is pretty damning.

For many young people, Facebook Messages have mostly replaced the functionality that Email is typically used for. It has also tied in the Chat/IM/IRC functionality with the integration with Groups, as well as getting people to sign up to send their SMS through Facebook Messenger. You can share files and photos. They have replaced a massive chunk of communication for a lot of people.

Yes. You can send emails to people's usename @facebook.com, and they can send them out too.

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.

Those features are some of the flagship features of Home.

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.

I'd guess it needs to know what apps are running so it can draw over them.

This is getting off-topic but no, that's not how it works. Android handles those chat heads as system-level windows, you don't need to know what's underneath them. The running apps list is for that "Last app" functionality (though I've no idea why reordering is needed).

> The Facebook and Facebook Messenger apps just updated with new permissions

Not Home.

I'm vehemently against apps drawing on top of other apps and will not update either. I do not want obnoxious popups to become the new paradigm.

I think it can be hugely advantageous if it's an optional functionality. Switching to another app is slow, whereas responding to a popup is fast. On phones, it seems like a much better way of multitasking than having apps side-by side (I have a NoteII).

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.

I'd also think that HN users would understand what these permissions mean and be careful when giving away that much power.

But isn't that an "interesting" choice? They could have just kept the extra permissions tied to the Home app.

The current way, even non-Home users are giving a lot more unnecessary permissions to the FB app. And FB isn't the most trustworthy company to give unnecessary extra permissions.

> The Facebook and Facebook Messenger apps just updated with new permissions

Not Home.

"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.

That's exactly how it comes across.

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?

Or a UX designer that didn't want to sit down and study the platform's idioms.

Can't even try the app out. Who releases a big application that doesn't run on flagship Google devices like the Nexus 4 [1]? It's absurd.

[1] Google Play insists the app is not compatible with my Nexus 4 phone, so I can't even try to install it.

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 a rehash of the aftermath of pretty much any new UI design. People dislike change itself far more than they dislike the actual change.

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.

But how many of the 1-star reviewers actually understand that?

How many reviewers understand that this is a tool that they have never used before? All of them, I would imagine.

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).

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.

"I'd say there isn't grouching about the 'redesign' so much as 'Where the eff is my Android?'."

People shouldn't be asking that; they're installing a launcher. Do people ask that when they install LauncherPro? I thought people generally understood that Facebook Home adds new Android-level UI features rather than just being a normal app that is launched from the app drawer?

How about this... try installing it and then come back and we'll have a discussion about it. I'm a 'power user' by far, far far, but I am pretty good about picking up on barriers to even normal users. They went too far with their 'integration'. This isn't a launcher so much as Facebook deeming to allow you to access your phone applications.

lol trying to pull rank on HN on a Friday afternoon... too aggressive.

I've installed both the pre-release leak and the one released today on my Nexus 7. Try being less of a condescending "power user" and then we could have a discussion.

Wasn't pushing the power user part to say 'Oh ho ho, I'm qualified to talk here'. I was simply adding it as a caveat that I'm not a 'normal' consumer of these kinds of things.

Given that you have installed it you then saw how much it differs from the traditional android idea of a 'launcher'. It genuinely is hiding it all away. You can see the pathway that Facebook wants to push the users, essentially fully hiding the idea of having on phone contacts and messaging. That's why it's not really a launcher so much as Facebook allowing you access to your phone (IMHO).

First of all, many cellphone users don't change launchers.

The ones that do understand that launcher and lockscreen are different.

Facebook Home replaces both, and remove some major aspects of the Android UI that most launcher/lockscreen replacements DON'T change: things like getting rid of the notifications bar, changing the lock screen slider, changing the way that you get to apps

It's a very different imagination of how to use your phone. I'm not at all surprised that many people don't understand it and/or don't like it.

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.

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.

Unlikely that it will help facebook's monetization problem http://truvoipbuzz.com/2013/04/facebook-home-mobile-monetiza...

Indeed.

This item cannot be installed on your device's country.

Can someone recommend a similar app that shows nice pictures on lock screens and backgrounds, but fetches them from sources such as Flickr?

Sounds like a "new cola" case... Facebook might be "mobile first" but mobile users are not always "Facebook first"

So is anyone actually gonna by the phone now?

the application had received 398 one-star reviews out of 834, or 47.7%, on Google Play, giving it an average rating of 2.3 stars.

1 Billion total users and less than 1000 reviews, of which 400 are really bad ones. But those reviews might set the trend

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com