There's certainly that, it just doesn't apply to the whole Facebook Messenger "situation".
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Facebook and YouTube Apps Updated With iPhone 6 and 6 Plus Support
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Facebook and YouTube Apps Updated With iPhone 6 and 6 Plus Support
Well I rather have two separate apps than 1 bloated 100-400MB app. And the FB app is prone to crashing. So I'm glad this happened.
I do hate change when it is ridiculous and makes life harder. One would be a masochist to appreciate changes of that sort.
Well I rather have two separate apps than 1 bloated 100-400MB app. And the FB app is prone to crashing. So I'm glad this happened.
Last edited:
With new resolutions or just iOS 8 compatibility? Not quite sure how many apps would have resolution updates without being able to test them on devices (unless they don't even test, which isn't exactly the way to go). Or without at least knowing the actual dimensions which wrren't revealed until the announcement.
Even that aside, some companies already have planned releases in the pipeline with things lined up for them some time ahead, like at least a few weeks ahead of not more, and throwing things in the middle of that can be detrimental in more ways than beneficial, so something new would be fit into it all rather than just jammed in over everything else already finished and ready to go or being wrapped up or worked on already.
There were many many apps and games by the developers mentioned above (and more) that were updated with the new, native resolutions of the iphone 6 and 6 by launch day. That's how it should be and is supposed to be. Apps that are fully compatible on launch day. I presume they were able to test them on these devices since they probably got them early, before the general population.
My point is simple: Others had their apps ready to go for iphone 6 and 6+ on launch day. Why didn't facebook and google? It's a rhetorical question since these companies should have had their apps ready to go, but obviously dropped the ball somewhere/somehow.
Again, I would love to know how those companies would be able to do that. It doesn't seem that Apple shares their secret hardware with all that many companies at all.There were many many apps and games by the developers mentioned above (and more) that were updated with the new, native resolutions of the iphone 6 and 6 by launch day. That's how it should be and is supposed to be. Apps that are fully compatible on launch day. I presume they were able to test them on these devices since they probably got them early, before the general population.
My point is simple: Others had their apps ready to go for iphone 6 and 6+ on launch day. Why didn't facebook and google? It's a rhetorical question since these companies should have had their apps ready to go, but obviously dropped the ball somewhere/somehow.
As for should have had things ready to go at the moment of launch just because someone else might have, is a nice sentiment, but it's not reality. Many things in life should be better and different, but that's not really reality in many instances (even if it is in some and/or for some).
Well I rather have two separate apps than 1 bloated 100-400MB app. And the FB app is prone to crashing. So I'm glad this happened.
So instead of making the app usable, they leave it in its current state and introduce a separate entity to the equation. Ingenuity at it finest.
So instead of making the app usable, they leave it in its current state and introduce a separate entity to the equation. Ingenuity at it finest.
Whether you like it or not, Messenger now has its own team with different goals and tasks. The main FB app will drag Messenger back from features to updates if it remained there.
So the alternative (the actual realistic alternative rather than a utopian one) of just leaving it part of that single more bloated app that is apparently not "usable" would be better then?So instead of making the app usable, they leave it in its current state and introduce a separate entity to the equation. Ingenuity at it finest.
So the alternative (the actual realistic alternative rather than a utopian one) of just leaving it part of that single more bloated app that is apparently not "usable" would be better then?
Yes, because splitting the app into two does not improve usability.
Yes, because splitting the app into two does not improve usability.
(this is for everybody having problems) Im having trouble understanding this Facebook app situation. i opened the Facebook app then tapped messages, then tapped the back button in the upper left hand corner. Now, i repeated this process a few times (i suggest everybody does) and have a hard time understanding how having two separate apps is destroying usability and disrupting everybodys ability to send and receive messages in the Facebook app?
It improves functionality, performance, and stability of at least the Messenger part of the service, which is certainly a good thing, especially for those who use Messenger more often than Facebook itself.Yes, because splitting the app into two does not improve usability.
----------
It doesn't really affect usability much, it's more perception and principle of it all that people are seemingly upset about (many who don't even care much about it anyway but just feel they should be upset about it still).(this is for everybody having problems) Im having trouble understanding this Facebook app situation. i opened the Facebook app then tapped messages, then tapped the back button in the upper left hand corner. Now, i repeated this process a few times (i suggest everybody does) and have a hard time understanding how having two separate apps is destroying usability and disrupting everybodys ability to send and receive messages in the Facebook app?
On my iPad 2, the new YT update ruined it, making the white tab with the videos take up 1/3 of the screen, so now there's a blank space between that and the left tab. Almost looks like the white tab is now the width of a 6/5+ screen :3
Like this (not my pic)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fdqyvjnmqfvvvxs/IMG_0028.JPG?dl=0
Like this (not my pic)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fdqyvjnmqfvvvxs/IMG_0028.JPG?dl=0
Again, I would love to know how those companies would be able to do that. It doesn't seem that Apple shares their secret hardware with all that many companies at all.
As for should have had things ready to go at the moment of launch just because someone else might have, is a nice sentiment, but it's not reality. Many things in life should be better and different, but that's not really reality in many instances (even if it is in some and/or for some).
So what you're saying is that on launch day, no 3rd party apps would be compatible with the new iPhone? That makes no sense. Even the app store had a dedicated section for apps for iPhone 6 on 9/19 (launch day) with many of those apps coming from 3rd party developers and being natively supported by the iphone 6 and 6+.
Apple has always had a way for developers to write apps for their new devices prior to launch. There were hundreds (or more) apps ready to go on 9/19 by other developers and my only point was that it seems odd that Facebook and Google were not among those developers that had their apps ready to go.
So how did they do it and test it? So many random developers had brand new phones available to them? And perhaps even before things were announced, as much as Apple likes to keep it all a secret?So what you're saying is that on launch day, no 3rd party apps would be compatible with the new iPhone? That makes no sense. Even the app store had a dedicated section for apps for iPhone 6 on 9/19 (launch day) with many of those apps coming from 3rd party developers and being natively supported by the iphone 6 and 6+.
Apple has always had a way for developers to write apps for their new devices prior to launch. There were hundreds (or more) apps ready to go on 9/19 by other developers and my only point was that it seems odd that Facebook and Google were not among those developers that had their apps ready to go.
So how did they do it and test it? So many random developers had brand new phones available to them? And perhaps even before things were announced, as much as Apple likes to keep it all a secret?
I'm not privy to the exact arrangement Apple had with developers, but evidently, there was an arrangement. Of course there would have to be otherwise the appeal of getting a device of launch day would be greatly diminished if there were no compatible 3rd party apps.
It's not uncommon for hardware manufacturers to implement a way for 3rd parties to write software for their hardware to be ready to go on launch day. Think of game console manufacturers. When a new Xbox or playstation is released, there's thousands of games ready to be bought and played on the day of launch. Same goes for a device like the iPhone.
Facebook has started loading with the black screen at first again now, it's been fine since the update until the last couple of days, very strange.
----------
I've sussed this problem out now, I switched to zoom in settings a couple of days ago and just switched back to standard and no black screen!
----------
Facebook has started loading with the black screen at first again now, it's been fine since the update until the last couple of days, very strange.
I've sussed this problem out now, I switched to zoom in settings a couple of days ago and just switched back to standard and no black screen!
I have a new iPhone 6, have installed latest version of YouTube, and have a problem. Every time I try to upload a 60 FPS video to YouTube, it only allows a "Standard Version" not the HD version I want. And yes, I'm connected to a strong wifi signal. Please help.
Full disclosure: I'm Facebook employee on the Release Engineering team.
Release notes are a contentious topic. While some people would very much like us to describe every one of the thousands of changes that go into our mobile applications each and every release, the plain fact is that is just impossible.
Many changes are under the hood for performance and bug fixes. Many changes are trivial (moved button X over Y pixels). I know you're probably not looking for that level of detail (some are though). You're probably most concerned with "what are the new features in the app that I may want to check out?". That is equally hard to spell out into release notes.
Why is that? For one thing, features typically don't release broadly to everyone at once. There's no point in putting in a release note for a feature that you can't yet use. We do this for scaling and quality reasons, it's a fundamental part of Facebook. If small scale tests of something new go smoothly, we release a feature more widely in a controlled way. Releasing new things to the many hundreds of millions of people that use our mobile apps is a methodic process.
Beyond that, there are logistical hurdles too. Release notes need to be approved and translated into *dozens* of languages. But before you can even get to that step, you need to write what the actual release notes are. This takes a lot of time away from a release manager that should be more concerned with what bugs are blocking the release than with collecting bullet points for notes that a vast majority of people don't care about anyway. And with dozens of new features (some large, but mostly small) each release and a limited number of characters to express what has changed, which features should make the cut? How should they be described in a flat text space? Do you really want a simple text description to be your first impression of a feature?
Ultimately, we can express new features far better with walkthroughs also known as NUXs. These dialogs can allow you to control whether you want to enable a new feature, explain what value the feature aims to give you, show you how to use it. None of these things can be accomplished by putting a blurb in the App Store release notes.
Also think about this, do you look for release notes when you go to a website? How do you know what's changed there? Are you bothered by that? Many major websites do frequent pushes of a large number of changes. Facebook pushes dozens to hundreds of changes to the main website twice a day, every weekday. Releasing a version of an application on a mobile platform should be the same non-event that it is on the web and ever slowly, inch by inch, we are making progress to that goal.
Release notes are useful for small applications with a few changes each release but are useless for large, complex applications with hundreds of developers. We're not trying to keep secrets from you. There are just simply better ways of telling you what's interesting when those features are ready for you.
Hi, I've some concerns
- About writing every change you make, (I'm one who'd be interested and thankful for every small mentioned change, mostly people like this are expert/technical users who can get their way in English language, you can add a link in the App Store description to list the changes, at least the major ones, Google Chrome App comes to my mind (Although it also lists major changes in the Update description)
- Many, many, many, open source project add a changelog file which describe details and they range from small to huge projects
- Since this 2 weeks cycle I've never seen NUXs or any informative way to know there's a bew feature
- Marketing-wise, if you add description like "Loads photos faster", people will be more encouraged to download the app and notice the change even if it's very tiny (Placebo effect) the current description is just plain noise to end-users
- On my side, I can't recall the last time I noticed a new feature in Facebook app
- About your point on websites, I don't download full websites into my device, I don't care how huge they're, they don't take space in my device
Thanks
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.