So I was very interested when Facebook laid out a strategy for mobile last week that is not just adequate, but actually sounds quite smart, and could potentially make a big difference in the mobile industry. Of course the success of any strategy depends on how well it�s implemented; the history of the Valley is littered with cool-sounding strategies that failed or were never seriously tried (link). But if Facebook�s actions match its words I think it could change the competitive dynamic in the mobile industry, and in the process make life a lot better for independent app developers.
Facebook�s problem
The mobile tech world is dominated by proprietary platforms. Apple and Google both run controlled ecosystems in which they decide the key features and reserve the right to remove other companies from the field of play. Apple is a bit more controlling than Google, but they both manipulate their platforms to maximize their profits and prevent other companies from becoming too powerful.
This is nothing new in computing history. On personal computers, Windows and Macintosh are both proprietary platforms. In fact, one of the few recent examples of a huge open platform in tech is the web. No single entity controls the features of the web or who can play on it. This helped produce a host of big web companies, like Google and Facebook and Amazon, and a wide array of customer choice. The downside has been poorly coordinated user experiences, and platform innovation that moves at a glacial pace because it has to go through standards committees.
The proprietary mobile platforms have been great for users and developers in many ways. Apple and Google push each other to add new features and device categories, and the app stores on both platforms have led to an explosion of third party software. However, there�s a downside, especially for developers. They have to spend heavily to adapt their products to iOS and Android. Their apps are commoditized by the structure of the app stores. Apple and Google both take an excessive cut of the revenue the apps do get. And if an app category starts to become too popular, there�s a very good chance that Apple or Google will build it into the platform and crush the third parties.
As a result, the app economy in mobile is far smaller and weaker than the web economy on the desktop. To a big web company like Facebook, that�s very threatening. Facebook�s business on the web depends on it being the hub of your social interaction, which it analyzes to target advertising customized for your interests. On mobile, Google is working hard to build its own social features into Android, and the whole idea of a single social hub is threatened as social features are built into a wide range of mobile apps. Although Facebook�s latest apps on mobile have been far more successful than its first efforts, it�s still at risk of being walled off by the platform vendors on one side while it is nibbled to death by a hoard of developers on the other side.
So the question for Facebook is what its fundamental role will be in mobile. Can it find new ways to capture social information for use in ads? Can it create standards that give it a stable power base against the platform companies? And can it find a way to leverage the swarming strength of the little app companies?
The Facebook Platform
At the F8 developer conference last week, the company announced a series of new services and APIs for mobile developers that could give it a much deeper role in the mobile app ecosystem. The announcements included:
�The Audience Network, an ad network that�s supposed to let developers tap into Facebook�s mobile advertising revenue stream. App developers are hungry for revenue, so this could be very important if it works. I�ll come back to this below.
�An API called AppLinks that makes it easy for mobile apps to pass commands and data between each other, and to and from web servers. I�m still learning all the API can do, but I think it has the potential to let mobile apps work together in a variety of creative ways. As some others have pointed out, it also lets Facebook�s mobile apps integrate more seamlessly with other social sharing apps, potentially positioning Facebook as a hub for mobile social activity (link).
�A mobile Like button that developers can easily integrate into their apps. This will help developers publicize their apps, but it also gives Facebook data on what sort of apps you use. That can be mined to target advertising (are you seeing a pattern here?).
�Hosted developer services, under the brand name Parse, that help developers store data, compute, and process notifications in the cloud. Parse offered those services before, but the free tier has been expanded, in some cases by as much as 70x. It would be great for developers if Facebook set off a wave of price competition among back-end service companies.
�A promise of API stability, which would make developers more willing to invest in Facebook technologies.
�Expanded user controls over the information that is shared when someone uses Facebook Login. This may reduce the number one fear that users have of Facebook Login: fear that the app will post unwanted messages on your behalf.
�A big, no-obligations offer of free services for small developers, with free ad credits and other services from Facebook plus other services from several third party companies. (Full disclosure: one of those free offers is from UserTesting, where I am the mobile strategy guy.) If you�re a small developer I think you�d be foolish not to take advantage of it. To learn more, go here.
The overall message was developer love from Facebook. As Mark Zuckerberg put it, �my goal for our culture over the next ten years is to build a culture of loving the people we serve....We want to build a platform that's reliable for you.� (link)
Will it work?
Taken as a whole, the announcements are a coordinated effort to make mobile developers more successful, and at the same time give Facebook a much more central role in mobile computing. But that�s just a story at this point. I�ve seen many great tech strategies fail utterly in implementation. What matters is the details of how Facebook will pursue its plans, and how hard it will try to make them work. Here are four key issues to watch:
How well will the Audience Network work? Facebook claims that its mobile advertising is double the effectiveness of other mobile advertising. Basically, Facebook knows you better than anyone else, so it can target ads more precisely, making advertisers pay more money for them. The new Audience Network will let third party developers place those targeted ads in their own applications. So if a Facebook member uses an app that�s in the Audience Network, he or she will see Facebook-selected ads in that app. Developers can also customize the look of ads to match their applications, making the ads less jarring for their users.
In the desktop world, many websites and web apps succeeded because there was enough advertising money available to support software and content companies. That hasn�t generally been the case for mobile, because the payments per mobile ad are low and because overall spending on mobile advertising has been depressed. If Facebook can change that dynamic � a huge if � it might change the economics of mobile apps fundamentally.
I cannot overstate how important that would be for mobile developers. Today they struggle with commoditization in the app store, and freemium pricing policies that too often feel like bait-and-switch schemes. A stable, substantial advertising revenue base could change everything. But it depends on many unknowns: Can Facebook convince advertisers to pour more of their ad budgets into mobile? Will the targeting work? And most importantly, how much of that ad revenue will Facebook share with developers? Facebook wouldn�t answer that question at F8, so I can�t tell if the Audience Network is a potential breakthrough or a tease.
Will Facebook stay committed? Facebook�s execs said all the right things about supporting developers � we�ll maintain our APIs, help you grow your business, meet with you regularly, and so on. It�s everything a developer could wish for: a big powerful company that�s agnostic about OS and wants third party developers to thrive.
It all sounds great, but hearing Facebook talk about developer commitment is a bit like hearing a French president swear loyalty to his wife. Facebook embraced developers once before, when it encouraged them to build games and other apps on top of its desktop platform. The resulting surge in Facebook apps helped to crush MySpace. But once that battle was over, Facebook gradually lost interest in developers. The company didn�t even hold developer conferences in 2012 and 2013.
So it�s reasonable to ask: Is Facebook committed to the long term this time, or is this a tactical maneuver that�ll end as soon as Facebook is more established in mobile? I think in this case Facebook�s long-term interests are more closely aligned with developers. But does Facebook itself understand that?
Will Facebook become a predator in apps? Microsoft once had an incredibly vibrant third party app economy on Windows. But in its drive for revenue growth, the company eventually turned predator, trying to take over almost every major app category: graphics, antivirus, accounting, etc. That strangled application investment on Windows, and drove developers into the web. In many ways, you can trace the decline of Windows to the time when Microsoft turned against its own developers.
Here�s Mark Zuckerberg on his attitude toward developers, in a conversation with Wired:
�We�ve always believed that there were going be a lot of different ways to share content, and that we were never going to build all of them ourselves. We try to build the most important ones. But on top of that, you�re going to see dozens of other apps that developers build that each use the Facebook login, Facebook to share, the mobile �like� button, push notification from Parse, app installs through Facebook, and Facebook monetization tools in order to turn their apps into businesses.�
I would feel so much better if he�d said �hundreds of thousands� of developers instead of �dozens.� But maybe he doesn�t want to sound threatening to Apple. Which brings me to the fourth issue:
Can Facebook walk the tightrope with Apple? Google and Facebook are mortal enemies. The Facebook Audience Network reinforces that; both companies want to be the dominant ad supplier on mobile, and only one can win. But Facebook�s position relative to Apple is much more ambiguous. Today Apple is willing to cooperate with Facebook, allowing it to operate more or less freely on iOS, and partnering with it when appropriate. Mostly the two companies stay out of each-others� way. With Facebook now advocating cross-platform APIs and positioning itself as a powerful hub for mobile advertising, will Apple continue to take a benign view of the company, or will it start to systematically restrain Facebook on iOS? If that happens, it�ll be much harder for Facebook to establish standards. To use a military analogy, Facebook really shouldn�t get itself into a two-front war. It needs Apple as an ally, or at least a neutral.
I think there�s a good case for Facebook and Apple to work together against Google, but that would require both companies to restrain their egos. That�s not easy to do in Silicon Valley. Mark Zuckerberg�s next big test may be his diplomatic skills.
The bottom line: Will Facebook be a facilitator or a predator in mobile?
What is Facebook�s vision for its long-term role in mobile? Does it want to be like Amazon Web Services, facilitating a robust ecosystem with lots of apps, and taking a small revenue cut from many of them; or does it favor the Windows model, in which it treats developers like a field of vegetables, to be harvested as soon as they start to ripen? We can�t tell today, and Facebook itself may not know yet. So it�s too early to judge what Facebook�s new strategy will mean for the industry. But I think one thing is clear: what Facebook�s doing in mobile is important, and it could change the rules. The company can�t be ignored.
Emoticon