Facebook forces some workers to switch from iPhone to Android to reflect majority of users & new mar
Facebook's chief product officer is reportedly requiring a number of team members to switch from iPhones to Android phones so they can experience how most people interact with the social network.
"I am mandating a switch of a whole bunch of my team over to Android, just because people, when left up to their own devices, will often prefer an iPhone," Chris Cox revealed at a recent Facebook press event, according to Wired.
Facebook workers need to be "reporting bugs and living in the same experience that most Facebook users experience today," Cox explained.
The iPhone is extremely popular in some countries like the U.S., U.K., and Japan, but some 82.8 percent of the world's smartphones are based on Android. Most people can't afford an iPhone -- which starts at $649 for an unlocked 16-gigabyte iPhone 6s -- whereas the low cost of Android development allows for a mix of low- and high-end devices. To keep growing, Facebook is looking to expand deeper into poorer countries like India.
Much of the company's mobile development has been iPhone-centric. When it rolls out new features, the iPhone is often the first device to get them.
In October Facebook launched an optional "2G Tuesdays" program, encouraging its staff to try a simulated 2G-level connection, since many people in developing countries don't have access to 3G or 4G and can't make use of media-rich content.
"I am mandating a switch of a whole bunch of my team over to Android, just because people, when left up to their own devices, will often prefer an iPhone," Chris Cox revealed at a recent Facebook press event, according to Wired.
Facebook workers need to be "reporting bugs and living in the same experience that most Facebook users experience today," Cox explained.
The iPhone is extremely popular in some countries like the U.S., U.K., and Japan, but some 82.8 percent of the world's smartphones are based on Android. Most people can't afford an iPhone -- which starts at $649 for an unlocked 16-gigabyte iPhone 6s -- whereas the low cost of Android development allows for a mix of low- and high-end devices. To keep growing, Facebook is looking to expand deeper into poorer countries like India.
Much of the company's mobile development has been iPhone-centric. When it rolls out new features, the iPhone is often the first device to get them.
In October Facebook launched an optional "2G Tuesdays" program, encouraging its staff to try a simulated 2G-level connection, since many people in developing countries don't have access to 3G or 4G and can't make use of media-rich content.
Comments
I wonder which group would their advertisers want to insure get the best experience. Considering that if they can't afford an iPhone the prospect of having lots of disposable cash is remote.
That is a valid point!
I wonder which group would their advertisers want to insure get the best experience. Considering that if they can't afford an iPhone the prospect of having lots of disposable cash is remote.
It is simple, ~500 million iPhone users are sold by Facebook to advertisers. This income in turn is used to develop Android version for the remaining ~2 billion.
On the surface, it seems like a reasonable course of action however there is a major flaw in his logic. I am guessing those moving from an iPhone to Android will get a high end, well supported Android phone. The problem being that most Android users don't have such phones. They buy bottom tier phones, often running older Android (4.x).
Given that reality, I think the switch will be rather pointless.
I agree that it's a smart move to put certain employees into the shoes of an Android user, if the Android user happens to own a pair of shoes to their name, and not all do I would presume.
Using a first rate smartphone like the iPhone can definitely give an experience that is not representative of what the majority experiences and Facebook needs to intentionally lower the bar so that their employees can be more in sync with the majority of their users with their cheap or BOGOF Android phones.
I presume that he also has staff testing and developing in the different computer environments that Facebook targets — iPad, Surface, Android tablets, PC, Mac, Chrome and *nix. Desktop and portables included when and where there a possible distinct user experiences to be had.
If not, then his approach, while valid is inconsistent.
In Europe we have to pay €750 (that's $830) for the entry 6s, and that's a lot of money you can spend on other things possibly a lot better balanced in price and performance (it's also demotivating that Apple throws away most of its huge profits, you are paying for).
But on topic: Cox seems like an ahole, but then again that's a good fit for Facebook, so I say LIKE (or can you speak in binary now and enter DISLIKE?, maybe they have to test that ...).
Good idea but still seems like a race to the bottom. Maybe this is a good thing considering the subpar quality of Facebook's software - meaning they will clean up bugs in the Android release. Let's hope they turn off the audio
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
The impression is wrong that everyone wants an iPhone, and as a consequence, if they don't have one, they cannot afford it.
In Europe we have to pay €750 (that's $830) for the entry 6s, and that's a lot of money you can spend on other things possibly a lot better balanced in price and performance (it's also demotivating that Apple throws away most of its huge profits, you are paying for).
But on topic: Cox seems like an ahole, but then again that's a good fit for Facebook, so I say LIKE (or can you speak in binary now and enter DISLIKE?, maybe they have to test that ...).
But aren't you saying the price of iPhone is too high for you? If you are thinking about spending money on other things, that's fine but that also means you cannot afford it which is the perception you are arguing against.
Indeed.
I've been a mobile developer for 10 years now, starting with feature phones. And yes, prior to the iPhone, the worst phone imaginable is usually the one you have to target. Back in the day it was Samsung A660. Terrible, but it was the cheapest. So it was the priority.
The experience will be misleading unless they make them use the awful Android phones.
Price is just one consideration, it was just an example.
The point is that you can afford it (possibly easily) but don't want to, because it's hugely overpriced (this is maybe better to understand considering a $10000 AWatch while the real price (including nice profits) is $2000 or so).
But again that's an example.
This move totally makes sense. Chris Cox's team needs to have the bug ridden experience Android users have on their devices.
C'mon, Google. Don't you want to brag about this? Here's your ad slogan: "Android. The best phone OS for a third world experience."