[Nextgrid]

I guess they could release a Facebook phone and an entire new mobile platform? I think they have both the hardware/software engineering capability to do it (see Oculus), plenty of scummy companies that are happy to jump on the bandwagon and release their apps for it as well as a userbase which will swallow it right away (they could be sold very cheaply and subsidized by the collected data)?

[mig39]

Did they try that already?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_First

https://www.cnet.com/news/heres-why-the-facebook-phone-flopp...

[bdcravens]

Worth noting that Apple partnered on a phone before the iPhone, and it also flopped.

https://www.gsmarena.com/flashback_the_motorola_rokr_e1_was_...

[chihuahua]

At best, this would take some market share from the low-end of Android phones. Apple's market is at the high end, so I doubt Apple would even notice it.

[Nextgrid]

A significant chunk of iOS's marketshare is people buying iPhones because they are "cool" as opposed to any technical reasons. If Facebook makes their phone seem more "cool" through marketing, that chunk of customers will happily switch.

[topranks]

Facebook is seriously “uncool”.

They’ve very little chance to make their phone cool. Maybe if they use the Instagram brand.

[Nextgrid]

Instagram is cool and all the "cool" kids still flock to it (though TikTok is significantly gaining popularity). Whatsapp is a Facebook brand and yet doesn't raise any red flags with most people so that's another brand they could use.

[actuator]

I don't think FB should do hardware honestly. Hardware requires a lot of patience and integration as Microsoft and Google discovered with their phones. Adding to this, FB's image is such at this point that most people won't touch their hardware.

FB has a lot of engineering talent and experience on distributed operations and services side, so if they really want to diversify, perhaps should leverage that.

[quickthrowman]

They aren’t going to compete with Apple or harm them by selling a phone subsidized by selling data, they’ll take market share from low tier Android phone makers. Microsoft didn’t have any luck, why would Facebook?

[adambyrtek]

I think Microsoft has already demonstrated that launching a successful new mobile platform is extremely difficult (if not impossible) at this point regardless of resources and hardware capabilities.

[Nextgrid]

Microsoft had no leverage and developers weren't onboard because they had no incentives to do so.

Facebook has leverage - if their future on iOS (and maybe even Android at some point) is at risk, they could very well release a Facebook phone and offer incentives to their users to move.

Developers would also be onboard if Facebook offers incentives to them. Despite all the bad reputation Facebook gets on the surface, most tech companies happily use and depend on Facebook for their marketing & advertising efforts, so they'd be more likely to embrace the Facebook ecosystem if iOS is interfering with their marketing ability.

[tomjen3]

Add one or two interesting hardware twists, be compatible 100% with Android and aggressively get apps on the platform (pay developers to upload). Oh and be the hero by charging very little for the appstore (5% maybe).

[rndgermandude]

Facebook would have to sell a lot of units, in a field with which they are mostly unfamiliar, and where they'd have very strong competitors in Apple and Facebook (and all the companies who invested in and sell Android, like Samsung).

I do not see Facebook playing catch up with Google, Samsung, the Chinese and Apple in OS, services (like maps) and hardware development, as it is too expensive to get FB into a competitive state in regards to tech, even if they forked AOSP instead of starting from scratch. A mere Facebook branded AOSP will not cut it (and then they'd still need to develop services on top, because people want more than just a facebook App, and app developers want more than just a generic AOSP + FB API)...

Then they'd have to solve the supply chain to get production rolling.

And then they would have to convince people to use their product, which is the toughest problem they'd have to overcome. Their reputation simply isn't great.

Any subsidies can only be limited. How much money could they reasonably offer a FB phone user (in exchange for their data) after having burned through billions in development, production development and marketing? Something like 50 bucks at most I'd think, if they want to still stay profitable. That's not yet a "convincer". Apple users do not mind paying a premium already, and in the Android world you already have lots of products at all prices. And let's not forget that phones (other than Apple phones) are relatively low margin.

Microsoft tried and failed to enter that market, already. And MS reputation with consumers compared to FB was a LOT better.

It's not impossible, but it would be a moonshot, and a moonshot that would be betting the company's well-being.

Entering the smartphone market is a lot harder than creating a new market like they try with Oculus, or Tesla did with electric cars[1]. And Zuckerberg isn't exactly an Elon Musk either[1] when it comes to public perception, or a Cook or Jobs or Brin or Page or even Bezos or still-at-MS Gates.

[1] The market was essentially non-existent and the few products that you could get were all rather subpar. Tesla essentially still had a first mover advantage, and supported their R&D with a limited premium car production with high margins, convincing investors to throw money at them and massive debt.

[2] Tho I have heard Zuckerberg described as a Martian, something that Musk aspired to be :P

[emilsedgh]

If Facebook was in a position to do it, they would've already done it for more profit.

[Nextgrid]

Up until now, Facebook made more money with the status quo rather than risking a huge amount of money on a hardware bet.

However, the tables have turned to the point where Facebook's future on iOS appears to be in jeopardy, so a hardware bet might make more sense - as in they might not have a choice if they want to keep growing and maintain/increase their valuation.

[why_Mr_Anderson]

Google pretty much destroyed any possibility of anothe competitor entering the mobile OS market (I always thought that dumping was illegal and you can't go much lower than 0).