spaghetti

Can we please see some actual numbers! Given the advertiser's "popularity" it's possible they were over-charged something like $4 for a few hundred clicks in which case it's certainly not an enormous mistake.

Wonder if the article was auto-generated? "turnover and profits are down..." so at least turnover is down which sounds like it's actually good for the "once gargantuan beast".

We need to see some real numbers before making these kind of predictions. What was the volume of clicks that OP couldn't detect? 10, 1K, 1M? It makes a big difference.

Also given FB users' aversion to ads this whole issue could be explained by users just clicking the back button. Ad supported sites have trained users to do three things very well: install adblock, habitually ignore ads, quickly click away from any interstitial or unexpected ads like on Hulu.

Another note on the "back button": I recently discovered the awesome power of "three-finger swipe back button" on Macbook trackpad. So it's possible users can "click" back even faster than before. I can and before the swipe I was well-trained in the art of "CMD back arrow" :-)

Are you saying it's short term because advertisers would notice? Sure some advertisers would notice. However I doubt the majority are capable of performing the OP's analysis (which could use some scrutiny).

Imagine a 100 person company with 5 people dedicated to advertising. Leadership says to increase on-line presence. Some recent college grad on the advertising team buys FB ads. Next month leadership is pleased that they're advertising on Facebook. Also leadership is pleased that sales increased x%. The FB ads could be completely worthless. Some non-trivial percentage of clicks could be from bots and no one would notice.

Would be nice to see some actual numbers. If "80% of clicks" is only eight clicks then the OP's post doesn't carry much weight.

They were taking orthogonal measurements to see if the pattern would appear over and over. Also it sounds like each successive measurement technique was at a lower level than the previous technique. Sounds pretty thorough. I'd love to see some actual data though.

It would be outrageous for FB to run the bots themselves. There's two other issues that are more realistic and unfortunately not so great for FB: they're aware of the bots and ignoring them in favor of the ad revenue or they're just becoming aware of the bots and will implement some fix which could result in a substantial decrease in ad revenue. Good to keep in mind that OP's 80% is just one data point and may not be accurate.

While I doubt malicious intent on FB's part there's certainly a financial incentive to ignore this problem. How would their earnings reports change if they stopped charging at least some advertisers for 80% of clicks?

Could FB do something like this to detect click fraud/misbehavior: FB's ad system only counts a click as valid and charges the advertiser when the browser from which the click originated has js enabled.

OP says only 1-2% of users have js disabled hence FB would only miss out on a relatively small amount of ad revenue instead of massively over-charging.

I think you're right about animation not going away. Especially animations that help the user understand the app. However I think there's still some animations and especially some shadow, gradients and other small design touches that are overkill and can be removed w/o negatively impacting the user-experience.

The article's mention of beautifully designed mobile apps sparked a few thoughts for me. One property of mobile devices and especially smaller devices like phones is people use them frequently throughout the day in short bursts. Small wait times associated with bouncing, translating animations etc are magnified and the UIs start to feel laggy. Yesterday I purchased my first Android device and the snappy UI has been quite a nice change. This is a relatively low-end Android device. And I've been using an iPhone 4S for the past few months.

So I think the design of mobile apps will be simplified going forward. I could see moving towards simpler UIs like Craigslist. This is a major win in a variety of ways: faster UIs implies better user-experience, less computationally intensive UIs implies less drain on limited resources, and simpler UIs implies less design and development time. I love the idea of never stressing out about rounded corners, little shadow and shine marks etc. They're nice to have initially but just get old as one uses the same device/OS/apps for months on end.

Agreed. That's something I love about free-lancing and working on my own projects. I can fine-tune the working/relaxing balance to a value that's nearly optimal.

Takes only about 3 minutes for the experience to be ruined imo. Fries animal style will rapidly form a gelatinous cheese skin that's very unappetizing.

How did it work out? Are they still doing business in Nashville?

Ok got an Android device and tested my app. While it is a relatively simple app every feature worked perfectly on Android 2.3. Will submit to the app store tomorrow and see the results. Something that really stood out: running the app on the device was unbelievably easy compared to iOS's provising profiles, bundle IDs etc etc.

You're right that I haven't experienced the device fragmentation and other less desirable aspects of Android development. However I'm aware of them. And as an iOS developer of 3+ years I'm well aware of the ease of going between the various iOS devices. Hence my decision to pursue Android development speaks even more strongly of just how annoying Apple's review policies and wait times are.

Getting help is goal number one. However leading a more balanced life helps tremendously with preventing and maintaining some mental issues associated with thousands of hours of intellectually intense work. I feel strongly the above suggestions of spending more time outdoors, meeting new people etc are much more than "just cheer up" advice.

Just want to reiterate number three. The Apple app review process is seriously dropping the ball for me right now. So much so that I've learned the basics of Android development and ported my core app while waiting for the iOS equivalent to be reviewed. Only thing remaining is to acquire an Android test device, test and submit to Google Play.

I'm starting to wonder if FB has discovered/created the world's lowest value entertainment. If there's nothing better to do then sure I'll consume my "friends" food photos and drinking stories. But it doesn't take much to steer my attention away. Simple things like boiling water for coffee evaporate my fixation on some friend's inane status message.

If FB's content is really that valuable then put it behind a paywall and cha-ching! Just like Netflix or Hulu+. However I think it's the first massive-scale "default because I have nothing better to do" entertainment. Which may not lend itself to monetization as well as search traffic.

Good point. This approach probably wouldn't work for some apps. However if the app lent itself to a very modular design it could work. Certainly would take some creativity on the developer's part. For example premium features that are troublesome if only some people have them could be included in a free bug-fix update to make things easier.

I'm not sure if the developer necessarily takes a hit. Say I have $15 to spend on a video editing app. $10 for the initial app and $5 for the only premium feature I want results in me giving $15 to the developer (less Apple's cut etc). However if the developer adds 5 new features to the app and I have to choose between buying features that I mostly don't want and can't afford or not spending the money I'll most likey give $0 to the developer.

Similar situation with luxury features on cars: it makes business sense to sell them individually.

Why lower the price of the initial purchase? Just keep it simple: basic app is $10 forever. The basic version of the app comes with some basic useful features. Premium features become available via in-app-purchase as the developer makes them. Users can choose to use the premium features or not. Bug-fix updates are just free as they should be IMO.

Using a theoretical video editor as an example: $10 gets you basic clip cropping, placing clips next to each other, background music, importing, exporting and titles. So a basically useful app. Later the developer updates the app with a few bug-fixes and a premium "transitions" feature that's available via IAP. This update is of course free to download. So existing users get the bug-fixes for free. Anyone who want the premium feature just unlocks it and uses it indefinitely.

Is that necessary? For some reason I can't think of any problems with the freemium-like approach. Basic app has a fixed price and basic features. It's what everyone gets initially. "Versions" are really just premium features available via in-app-purchase. Bug-fix updates just affect the basic version of the app. And they're available for free to anyone who has the app just like the iOS store.

I think the following set-up avoids that problem: app is always the same price to download and has a few basic features unlocked. App has an upgrade view or screen where users can unlock additional features via in-app-purchase.

It works like this: developer releases the app for, say, $10. People buy it and use the basic features for a while. So far there's no upgrades available. Developer codes up a premium feature and updates the app in the store. Existing users can use the app as-is with the basic features that came with the $10 price tag. Existing users can also make an in-app-purchase for, say, $5 that unlocks the premium feature. When new users download the app for $10 they just get the basic features. Since another "version" of the app is available the new users can just buy the premium features if they so choose.

Fast forward to version 5 of the app. Now there's 4 upgrades available via in-app-purchase. However users are only prompted to purchase the next version based on their in-app-purchase history.

I don't think there's a problem for new users who purchase the updated app.

Why can't you update the app and hide most of the new features behind an in-app-purchase paywall?

I'd like to understand the implications of sandboxing too. It must have some large negative impact on Instapaper for Marco to care this much. What is it?

What happens when a large company that Google deems a competitor tries to buy bulk use of the fiber? I could see Facebook lobbying for government regulation of Google's fiber in an attempt to secure competitive pricing.

Physical Tchotchkes have done well for 1000s of years. Do you think people will get tired of virtual Tchotchkes and go back to physical?

I know it seems odd that people pay money for essentially tiny bits of entertainment. But the fact is that's what lots of people want. If you want to do something positive try combining the virtual Tchotchkes with something partially educational.

Anyone spent a winter in Berlin? It's incredibly cold. Traveling around the city on bicycle, train etc is great during the pleasant summer months but it's literally painful during the winter.

Not everyone speaks English. This might be true in the most touristy areas or in international corporations but it's definitely not the case in cafes, grocery stores etc. So if you move there be prepared to learn a bit of German,

For the most part everything else you mentioned is true. I'm not sure about the work permissions. Berlin is an awesome city overall.