Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Because Android is open, nobody needs Google's permission to release an app in the Play Store unless it's malicious or/and supports piracy.

or blocks ads... the open discussion is tired. Google has more control than they let on. if only certain devices can run this new service, there's a reason. no telling what framework has been baked in the vanilla OS to support this. I'm sure FB didn't just wake up and devise this in a vacuum without android/google's help. But please keep us informed of all the inner works of FB and Google. it is entertaining.
 
Then don't use it, it's that simple

Yeah kinda hard when I use FB to keep in touch with old friends and everytime I turn around something is asking me to let FB have rights to a particular service or App.

I just wish it was a downloadable app again and not integrated :(
 
Google and Apple's privacy policy is pretty much the same. Enough with the FUD.

Google does not SELL personal information to advertisers. Enough with the FUD.

People really need to start researching things themselves instead of relying on MacRumors folklore if they want to engage in intelligent debate.

And of course Zuckerberg is going to praise Android's openness - it allows him to do what he wants without any concern for Google.

He would never get that opportunity with Apple.

What would anyone expect him to say at this press conference/launch event.

The posts in this thread can easily be swapped out with a million other threads on this forum. It's pretty tedious.
 
Honestly i dont know why i bother to reply to him :eek: its obvious he have never used the vpn option so dunno why he "complaints".

It was an example - ok a bad example. To change commonly used settings ( ie private browsing ) you have to go through levels of menus. Another example is wifi sync. It is cumbersome.
 
or blocks ads... the open discussion is tired. Google has more control than they let on. if only certain devices can run this new service, there's a reason. no telling what framework has been baked in the vanilla OS to support this. I'm sure FB didn't just wake up and devise this in a vacuum without android/google's help. But please keep us informed of all the inner works of FB and Google. it is entertaining.

Yes they do but the initial statement saying Google gave up on Google + is just non sense.

The APIs are already out there, Facebook does not need Google's help to create Facebook Home. Anybody can have access to those API, they are available for anyone interested in making some on Android.

Even if they decide to block Facebook Home (Which they won't), people can sideload it very easily anyways.
 
I see Facebook suicide in my future

I hate the way these services rape my identity for profit

Android, omg what a heap
 
This is nothing more than a desperate attempt by Facebook to stay relevant. Most consumers hate using Facebook, but they do so begrudgingly because of peer pressure or desire to stay in touch with friends/family. It has nothing to do with the fact that Facebook offers a quality product or good user experience.

Facebook's only motivation here is to prominently place advertising on your mobile screen. Those of you who are free thinking consumers should instantly see the problem with this and should be grateful to companies like Microsoft and Apple who have resisted doing the same thing with their products and operating systems.

The sheep get what they deserve.
 
Course not, they just give it away... like to the FBI, for instance. :rolleyes:

You are so misinformed, must be hard being so blind to the reality of the world.

Google collects private info and keep it to themselves. Using that info, they deliver what they think is the ideal ad for you. The info never leaves Google's servers.
 
Define old... I'm 26 and still use Facebook, my niece is 15 and still uses Facebook.

You may still use it, but do you use it as much as 5 years ago? Most ppl I know start spending less and less time on FB as soon as they graduate from college. And I've heard that the much younger group (pre-high school) are not adopting FB at the same rate as in the past.
 
Yes they do but the initial statement saying Google gave up on Google + is just non sense.

The APIs are already out there, Facebook does not need Google's help to create Facebook Home. Anybody can have access to those API, they are available for anyone interested in making some on Android.

Even if they decide to block Facebook Home (Which they won't), people can sideload it very easily anyways.

again so sure of the inner workings and programming involved in this venture. I must assume you're a developer or do you just know the lingo? anyway have a good time in your thread here. is this an open forum as well?
 
From what I've seen from my friends that use facebook, the majority of them have for the most part stopped using it or just don't update, browse as much as they use to.

I doubt FB remains relevant over the next 5 years. Twitter seems to have replaced it for a lot of individuals.

The majority of my friends in their mid to late-twenties use Twitter far more than Facebook at this point, though even their Twitter usage seems to have waned a bit lately. As more and more sites are starting to crop up that have a more focused social element, it takes away from Facebook's or Twitter's or anyone's ability to dominate the sphere. A lot of people used to spend their social networking time entirely on Facebook, than it seemed to split off with Twitter, and lately a lot of people spend more time on Pinterest than Facebook and Twitter combined. This continual splitting-off and interest-focused evolution isn't going to slow down, it's only going to accelerate. Even if Facebook fixes some of their core problems, it won't change the rollout of other options that are more appealing to specific groups of people.

Ultimately, we're moving away from being a mainstream-oriented world and moving towards a niche-oriented world. Perhaps much of Facebook's success is that they rose to prominence in the social networking world before the concept of mainstream was killed off by the internet, and before texting was ubiquitous. They were ahead of the curve when people still seemed to function as if "bigger was better," whereas now, whatever we as individuals are most interested in is better, and the sampling of people interested in that is much smaller. But the internet allows us to connect and revel in our little niche markets. We don't need mainstream, because mainstream was overpopulated and unfocused and resolved to lowest common denominator content far more often than not. We don't need Facebook to feel connected, and if anything, it just makes us feel all the more disconnected when we have so many "Facebook friends" that we simply do not care about at all.

If I want to talk about Apple products, I can come here. If I want to talk about hockey, I can go to any one of the message boards focused on my favorite team. If I want to talk about guitars, or Thai food, or New York City, or wherever, I'm not going to go to Facebook. Why would I? Facebook boils down to vanity at this point, not true communication. If people want to communicate, and I mean really communicate, they're not doing it on Facebook. Most people are posting useless drivel on Facebook; sharing whatever moment they deem worthy to essentially announce, "look at me!" There's a market for that, to be sure, and those are the people that still use Facebook a lot. Coincidently, they're also the people that get tend to get trashed the most in real life. And what cracks me up is how many times I've heard something like, "It's not like they are so annoying in real life, but all the crap they post on Facebook ALL THE TIME just makes me think they may be the most horrible person ever!"

This is all Facebook's real problem, and so far they've addressed it by turning every "like" into a page or category and lumping you together on a page you'll never look at with people who also "liked" something. That's not going to inspire communication or foster community. You can't just invent it with pages spawned from metadata in a spreadsheet. It's just too easy anymore to find real communities online, started by people passionate about a topic, and driven by people passionate about a topic.

Eh, I'll admit fully that I've become more cynical about Facebook, but the more I think about it and try to be objective, the harder I find it to believe that Facebook will continue to be relevant in the future. Five years might be generous. After all, look how fast Myspace died.
 
You may still use it, but do you use it as much as 5 years ago? Most ppl I know start spending less and less time on FB as soon as they graduate from college. And I've heard that the much younger group (pre-high school) are not adopting FB at the same rate as in the past.

Of course, I use more than 5 years ago, none of my friends had it 5 years ago :p.

And yes people do use it less after college but as people leave college, more people come in. And ask any student, Facebook is one amazing procastinating tool.
 
You are so misinformed, must be hard being so blind to the reality of the world.

Google collects private info and keep it to themselves. Using that info, they deliver what they think is the ideal ad for you. The info never leaves Google's servers.

seriously. you don't really believe that do you? i am not kidding. i can't imagine anyone being so naive.

Google (and AT&T and Facebook and every other company with electronic data on people) routinely "shares" their info with the government (NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.) without requiring a warrant. They can do what they want, and corporations have an incentive to be in bed with the government. On the other hand, they have NO incentive to protect your privacy.
 
He's really going to go there? Good luck with that, Zucki.

I'm a Facebook member, I use it to keep in touch with friends and family around the world because I don't live near most of them, but I do *not* wish any further integration with my phone than the current Facebook iOS app I have but never open on my iOS devices, so imply all you want about a better experience, but if that's how you define an experience that is "way better," you've just said that Android suits *you* and *you alone* (not you personally, but your company in a creepy, approaching or surpassing Google sort of creepy, way) better than iOS suits *me*. Thanks, but no thanks. What a great advert for never, ever, ever buying an Android phone.
 
This is nothing more than a desperate attempt by Facebook to stay relevant. Most consumers hate using Facebook, but they do so begrudgingly because of peer pressure or desire to stay in touch with friends/family. It has nothing to do with the fact that Facebook offers a quality product or good user experience.

Facebook's only motivation here is to prominently place advertising on your mobile screen. Those of you who are free thinking consumers should instantly see the problem with this and should be grateful to companies like Microsoft and Apple who have resisted doing the same thing with their products and operating systems.

The sheep get what they deserve.

Unfortunate for Android - is that if FB *does* start serving ads that are integrated with the OS overlay - those who already slam Android for being ad riddled (which it isn't - there are NO ads in the OS) will point to FB's fork/overlay.
 
again so sure of the inner workings and programming involved in this venture. I must assume you're a developer or do you just know the lingo? anyway have a good time in your thread here. is this an open forum as well?

I am not a developper but one does not need to be one to know that the tools are available, you're just upset that you're plain wrong and you have no clue how app development works, for Android or iOS.

Here, go learn a bit before making statements that make no sense at all
http://developer.android.com/guide/components/index.html
 
I am not a developper but one does not need to be one to know that the tools are available, you're just upset that you're plain wrong and you have no clue how app development works, for Android or iOS.

Here, go learn a bit before making statements that make no sense at all
http://developer.android.com/guide/components/index.html

not angry at all. I know a lil about it. I'm just not gonna hijack this thread like you have in your tantrums about how Goolge really works. its rude.
 
so.. android is better just because it the only one that lets us do this. I am not a fanboy but the logic.!
 
seriously. you don't really believe that do you? i am not kidding. i can't imagine anyone being so naive.

Google (and AT&T and Facebook and every other company with electronic data on people) routinely "shares" their info with the government (NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.) without requiring a warrant. They can do what they want, and corporations have an incentive to be in bed with the government. On the other hand, they have NO incentive to protect your privacy.

They have no incentive to protect privacy. Oh. That's rich. How about the fact that the majority of Google's business relies on maintaining the privacy of its users. Without it - they would have no business.

But more importantly - if you're going to assert that Google (for example) shares their info with government agencies freely and without a warrant - I'd like to see some links - at least one - that verifies your claim. Otherwise - it's just more FUD.
 
seriously. you don't really believe that do you? i am not kidding. i can't imagine anyone being so naive.

Google (and AT&T and Facebook and every other company with electronic data on people) routinely "shares" their info with the government (NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.) without requiring a warrant. They can do what they want, and corporations have an incentive to be in bed with the government. On the other hand, they have NO incentive to protect your privacy.

Naive? You're just changing arguments now, I said Google does not sell the data and now you say they share data with government organisations.

I cannot argue against that because I did not look into it but one thing I can say is that I personally don't give a poop if my info is given to the government.

----------

They have no incentive to protect privacy. Oh. That's rich. How about the fact that the majority of Google's business relies on maintaining the privacy of its users. Without it - they would have no business.

But more importantly - if you're going to assert that Google (for example) shares their info with government agencies freely and without a warrant - I'd like to see some links - at least one - that verifies your claim. Otherwise - it's just more FUD.

Well said.
 
What Mark really meant to say is.... The openness of Android provides them with a much better experience in completely hijacking the OS and releasing their own version just like Amazon did. I don't want a facebookified iPhone.... nor do the majority would be my guess.
 
not angry at all. I know a lil about it. I'm just not gonna hijack this thread like you have in your tantrums about how Goolge really works. its rude.

You made a statement that made no sense. Next time, I'll know to ignore your hijack bait of a post.

Consider yourself educated.
 
in my opinion which I am entitled to have by the way, Google missed an opportunity to push this experience with Google+. Nothing wrong about it. But please continue to patrol the threads here and call everyone out as plain wrong if it makes you feel more accomplished in life.

----------



dude you have three or four other tantrum rants going on besides mine. get a grip or some sort of personality disorder medicine. it may make the lives of your loved ones around you more comfortable.

LOL you still don't get it, do you? Google has nothing to do with Facebook Home. Get it through your head!

Get a grip? LOL, perhaps you should start looking yourself at the mirror first.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.