Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by gkoberger | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

gkoberger

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.

View on HN

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

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.

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.

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.

>Hides notification bar

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com