Facebook mobile End development blocked analysis suggestions follow the feeling.

&http://www.aliyun.com/zixun/aggregation/37954.html ">nbsp; The U.S. Atlantic Monthly Network edition recently published the Arixis Maggerrigel (Alexis C. Madrigal) Analysis article.  The article argues that Facebook is not developing well on the mobile side because its research team is struggling to get enough data to make the right judgments.


     The following is an overview of the article:     The success of the mobile end determines the future of Facebook, which has been made clear again recently at the company's general meeting of shareholders. But even if Facebook tries harder, its mobile products may be hard to do as well as desktop products. Because there is a simple technical problem, its mobile end lacks enough product feedback information.      in desktop products, Facebook itself is designed to make it perfect. Facebook can collect information about each service and a A/b (or a/x) test for each step of the user experience. After receiving the relevant feedback, Facebook makes a gradual fine-tuning. Facebook can then organize all the information and launch the service again. In other words, some of the new product disputes can be validated by selective testing of a small number of users. Facebook's program can get a quick effect on the web, because it can change the code at any time.      However, in the Mobile world, Apple and Google control the publishing platform. Developers will submit their apps to Apple and Google and need their approval. It is not possible for a developer to send an application to 0.1% of users and send another version of the same app to the remaining 99.9%. In short, Facebook gets less feedback and has limited adjustments to make.      In summary, Facebook's network development model does not work on the mobile end. Some of the key factors behind Facebook's success are the lack or difficulty of moving in the mobile world due to current corporate and technical constraints. The following data can easily reflect the situation: Google Play in Google's App Store, mobile image sharing tool Instagram rating of 4.6,twitter 4.0, while the standard version of Facebook and home ratings were 3.6 and 3.0. This is not because Facebook's apps are bad, but their apps are not as dominant on the internet as they are on the web.      The development of mobile-end products in Facebook can only be followed by feelings now. Before home was released, their testing of the product depended more on the company's employees. There is a problem. Facebook employees are required to use their products over the long term, and their use is often limited to Facebook services, while ordinary users like to use Pinterest, Tumblr, Twitter, LinkedIn, and other services such as Google + to highlight their presence. So, Facebook employees are developing FWhen Acebook home, it's natural to think of highlighting Facebook services to make it easier for them to use.      I doubt whether Facebook employees have carried out a lot of internal tests (dogfooding), because the home they developed clearly did not reflect the needs of ordinary users.      On the web, the intuition of developing products can be easily validated by testing. But in the mobile world, the right feeling is especially important for Facebook's designers and engineers because they don't have enough data to justify their views.      For me, the Instagram that Facebook buys is the best example of a product that follows a feeling. Instagram founder Kevin Histrom (Kevin Systrom) and his team have very good instincts about what users want to do with their phones. Can they impart such practical wisdom to Facebook colleagues? If they did, would they be able to maintain Instagram independence?