All the user needs that the article lists and that a Facebook browser would answer to (instant notification, always on chat, etc.) could be just as easily be answered by a simple toolbar, on top of another browser.
As for the adoption of a FB browser, I would be curious to see how it would fare. I'm pretty convinced that most early adopters which sustained the initial adoption of Firefox and Chrome would never use a FB browser, because they would be worried about Facebook becoming the sole owner of the internet - and because they're perfectly able to be always on on FB, should they want to.
Could the typical Facebook user become an early adopter? Everything's possible, but it wouldn't be very easy.
If Facebook wastes their time and resources building and supporting a full-fledged BROWSER, they would be out of their mind. A Toolbar makes perfect sense.
The same way there's a new phone out there with a Facebook button right on the front. They are an add-on.
Building a browser is not just about adding neat social features. People use their browser to do everything - Facebook related or not, and when things happen OFF of Facebook, Facebook doesn't care - not in the same capacity as Google anyway. But if they build a browser, then they open a whole new can of worms.
The adoption rate for Facebook Browser or even toolbar will be very insignificant. Why?
Majority of Facebook users (35 - 45 yr old females and older) are not the crowd who like to install or capable of installing a new browser or even a new Firefox or Chrome toolbar without the help of GeekSquad or their nerdy nephew.
The other majority are tech users who are already on Firefox or Chrome and the last thing they want is another browser or let Facebook monitor all the websites they are visiting (although this is already happening in some levels)
Facebook probably doesn't need "early adopters" per se. A big banner across the top of Facebook would drive tens of millions of downloads within days and this would generate tons of ambient discussion on Facebook feeds. Assuming normal people don't turn against it (possible if the right frantic all caps messages start being spread around), it would definitely make a dent in IE usage.
That would be the easiest route probably. There's a big difference between "Facebook's Browser" and "A Facebook Toolbar for Firefox". You can't really do a toolbar for Chrome (just one icon per plugin).
Google has a nerd-friendly message, and produces things that are building dependence and are genuinely useful (like, say, gMail). So, people are less scared of it, and after some time denial kicks in.
Also, I'm bitter because Google is the one software company that I'm scared of more than of Facebook :-D
Of course you can. But then you'd be also abandoning the workflow, and I meant dependance on that. Only relatively recently mail clients supporting a workflow similar to Gmail show up.
Speaking for myself, it is because I see google as something that brings you traffic (and revenue if you use adsense), not as something that tries to bring away your traffic: You go to google to leave it as soon as you find your destination, while you go to facebook to stay there... and facebook is trying to cajole everyone into closing themselves inside their walls, with their pages, their apps, and so on.
Of course, with Google betting so much on G+, this could change. But I can still hope that google will try to differentiate itself from FB, at least in the eyes of developers, by being more outwardly than facebook. If they can make an offer that is more compelling for third parties, not driving them to completely relocate themselves inside the G+ environment, they could benefit from that in the long term.
The title of this submission is quite misleading. This article is speculating that Facebook will make a web browser, not that Facebook is making a web browser.
It is also not clear that a Facebook web browser would be an overnight success, as this article presumes. I'd say the opposite in fact. There has been enough big, old fashioned media interest in Facebook's privacy slip ups, that any Facebook browser would be negatively talked about in the press.
"As Facebook becomes the social platform of the internet, a custom browser is the next logical step."
You'll need to explain that, because I don't think it's a logical step at all. The remainder of the article presents some benefits, but mentioning those does not make for a clear argument for why facebook should attempt to compete with their own browser.
What a bullshit article. Complete with photoshop mockups. Might as well be another rumor about the "next" iPad killer or how it would be cool if Vimeo built refrigerators with built-in video screens. I would certainly not even consider using or downloading a FB browser. Last thing I need is to be constantly Zuckerberged.
While the envisioned scenario would be a blow to Google, it would require so many outlandish developments that this is basically impossible. For one, Facebook would have to create a search engine, something that they have shown no interest in (they seem happy to farm that out to Bing for now), much less any capability. More importantly, people would have to use the Facebook browser. The author really overestimating how much people like Facebook. The example of iPhone and iPad apps' popularity aren't proof people love Facebook products (not to mention there is no iPad app), they like accessing Facebook. They like talking to their friends. If you pay attention to most people, they hate new Facebook products. I hear constant bitching about the apps, the interface, etc. The value proposition of a Facebook browser would be basically annoying the user at all times while all other browsers could do the same exact thing in a separate tab. Chrome didn't become popular because of tight Google integration, it became popular because it was faster. I don't see why a browser that just gives me Facebook updates would be any more popular than Rockmelt or Flock.
And, of course, Google isn't stupid. Google+ is a fairly competent attempt to head off even this out there future.
Isn't that what RockMelt is trying to be? I know it isn't developed by Facebook, but with integrations like notifications, friends, chat, etc, it basically is the Facebook browser.
"Imagine that, within a year, a modest 25% of Facebook users use their browser. That would equate to about 200M users; all of which are using their search."
I'd be willing to bet that a significant percentage of Facebook's users don't know what a browser is. They fire up Internet Explorer and are blissfully unaware that there are alternatives. This has been my experience with non-techies.
Those who do know what a browser is are likely to have Chrome, Firefox or Opera installed and probably see no personal benefit in downloading yet another browser. They are also unlikely to want to have Facebook invading their privacy even more.
I love that 10 years after Microsoft rolled out IE in an attempt to use the browser to disintermediate and control the user's experience, we now have Chrome and Silk and advertisting and everyone is racing to own the browser again.
Facebook can make a web browser - or just acquire RockMelt, with which it has worked in the past. Rockmelt is based on Chromium, so FB won't have to take care of the browser basics, similar to how Amazon has forked Android for Kindle Fire. But, a Facebook ad network available off-site will be more interesting. I don't have experience with FB ads but social ads as imagined by OP seem interesting.
Imagine that, within a year, a modest 25% of Facebook users use their browser. That would equate to about 200M users
The reasoning is backwards. Converting 200 million users to a new browser is not a trivial task. In what way would a facebook browser allow people to better access facebook?
Yeah.. maybe they could team up not only with Bing, but they could revive IE 6. Perhaps even get Active X back in circulation. In just a few short years we can pull the web back into the dark ages. I would likely code all of my pages specifically to display a blue screen if the visitor were using an FB browser. If enough people did that, any Facebook spyware-laced browser would die on the vine.
As for the adoption of a FB browser, I would be curious to see how it would fare. I'm pretty convinced that most early adopters which sustained the initial adoption of Firefox and Chrome would never use a FB browser, because they would be worried about Facebook becoming the sole owner of the internet - and because they're perfectly able to be always on on FB, should they want to.
Could the typical Facebook user become an early adopter? Everything's possible, but it wouldn't be very easy.