Some beautiful design and thoughtful UI in the app here, and this is also a lovely microsite - I love the use of the video full screen. It'd be great to see some of this sort of thoughtful design go into the UI of web browsers on mobile platforms (which are also platforms for reading and sharing stories).
Happened to me as well. Can't understand why huge companies with a wide variety of visitors use techniques that deliver sub-par experiences so often. I'm running the latest version of Firefox with a $2k Macbook Pro.
I tried three different browsers. Opera was very laggy, Chrome just showed one frame and Firefox was moderately laggy. Resizing the tab helped a bit. Audio was choppy as well. My HW specs are far from low (though it is not a gaming machine either).
I couldn't pause the video, fast forward it or even see any indicator of progress. I didn't even expect volume settings.
Considering all this, the page is simply horrible. It might look nice (on paper perhaps), but the UX is the worst. Visuals alone don't make good sites.
Although I'm not particularly familiar with the latest in US trademark laws, in most European trademark cases it can be argued that the name "Paper" is too descriptive to be defended.
At the same time the fact that both are in the general category of "apps for the curation and creation of content", the confusion in the market is definitely going to be there.
That seems overly broad too and I suspect courts would distinguish between creation vs curation. The 53 app is about the former whereas FB's is the latter.
Also think about someone searching for an app to draw and paint. It's unlikely the FB's Paper would show up in the results. Even if it did, would most people confuse it for a drawing/painting app?
Not a lawyer, but I think you're more or less right about North American trademark law as well. Trademarking a common word is fine (so long as it's not inherently descriptive of the actual product – i.e. trademarking "Paper" with respect to reams of paper would never fly), but FiftyThree would still have to show that "Paper" is sufficiently distinctive in the software market that anyone discussing "Paper" in terms of mobile apps instantly thinks of their product, the same as "Apple" being distinctive in the computers / electronics industry. As big as their app is already, as others have noted other apps have that name too, so 53 would have difficulty claiming exclusivity on "Paper".
Just did a quick USPTO search and it looks like 53 hasn't attempted to register a trademark for "Paper" itself – but they have registered "Paper by FiftyThree", which would more easily pass the bar of distinctiveness: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85622666&caseType=SERIAL_N...
Having said that – I do wish Facebook had picked a name that wasn't already associated with such a well-known app.
Disclaimer: I have a dev friend who works at FiftyThree but their IP strategy is not something we've discussed.
I can't see that being confusing at all. A little bit sloppy from Facebook to be honest, it seems like they've gotten around it as Paper (by 53) is iPad only and Paper (by Facebook) is iPhone only.
If anyone from Facebook is reading, Paperbook. Problem solved.
EDIT: There's a Universal app called Paper as well.
5 letter common words can be used freely by anyone, in my opinion. If you want your brand to be distinctive and searchable, pick a distinctive and searchable name.
There was an article a few weeks ago about an internal struggle going on inside Facebook about what their product should be. Some executives are worried that it's primarily shallow (in their minds) content. They want to get rid of the memes and have people sharing more "quality" content. This is a step in that direction. They want Facebook to become the replacement to the daily newspaper. Hence Paper.
I agree that common words should be used pretty freely, but if you're Facebook you can do a bit better than the name of an App that's garnered a reasonably large amount of press.
Do you mind linking that original article? I'm interested in reading that.
I wonder what sort of quality content Facebook execs are looking for. If most people are like me, I work a day at the office, go home, have dinner with the family, take the dog out for a poop, futz with the computer for an hour or two, then off to bed. Rinse and repeat M-F. Weekends are more interesting with family activities, but it's not a constant barrage of me skydiving, taking pictures at the beach and all that week-in, week-out. Nor do I wax philosophical because it just feels so pretentious.
At first, I thought Facebook had acquired 53's Paper and revamped it for its own purposes. So yeah, definitely confusing. I would think that "Paper" is too generic a word for 53 to claim exclusive use of it, but look at the Apple vs. Apple dispute.
I don't think anyone will ever refer to this app as simply "Paper"..that already exists with 53's app. My guess is that people will refer to it as "Facebook Paper" as they have with "Facebook Messenger".
On the first time, I wondered how the Paper creators manage to create a Facebook page without the Facebook branding, then realized it is Facebook's thing :-)
this looks like an idea that was tried so many times and people just don't care. I think about smart tags in GMail here, or circles. Most people simply don't micromanage their data flows according to topics. Maybe I simply don't get the difference here, but if I am right, then I am deeply disappointed and frustrated to see people spend money and smart developers' time into ideas that already failed years ago.
I think the difference here is that Facebook will categorise all the content. in effect they will manage what goes into the Tech or news or Creativity buckets. You just say which you want to see by default.
I understood that part as if there will be content especially for Paper, categorised (by creator) and readable for everyone. If they actually think they can categorise the stuff that is now my Facebook experience and get anything close to what is seen in the video, I'd be pleasantly surprised.
The mobile version is unusable. The sideways scroll nav gets stuck between slides. The videos are corrupted or over compressed. The transitions lag and are so janky they only get about 3 frames rendered in time. The page doesn't even contain very much useful information about what Paper does.
And yet, pages / applications like this using a lot of CPU should be plenty of incentive and test cases for both web developers and browser developers to optimize their respective applications. Like how 3DMark and high-end video games like (at the time) Crysis push the GPU manufacturers and driver programmers to achieve more performance in those respective applications for its PR value.
'50% less CPU usage on the Facebook Paper page' is a nice line in a browser's changelog.
Well it's a 2011 Model. But calling a 1.8Ghz Dual Core 'top of the line' is a stretch, especially compared to the previous commenters 100% used octo-core.
Then there's something wrong with either Firefox or your drivers; latest Chrome on a 4 year old machine (Windows 7 x64, Core i7, 12GB RAM) with a newer graphics card (GTX670) needs barely 10% CPU on a single core.
Wandering on the site, CPU goes back to normal after some time, but I couldn't find what the problem is with simple inspection (JS profiling says 99% idle).
Bug reproduced on Chrome.
Safari, which uses mp4 instead of webm, works fine :-)
On Firefox/Ubuntu it pegged all cores on my Sandybridge i5 and the video never makes it past the envelope while the audio keeps going. Its hovering at about 40% CPU usage before the video even starts.
This is why WebM failed: on my (old) 2010 MacBook Air Firefox uses 100% CPU on two cores and it's still barely hitting 1fps with stuttering audio. Safari uses the native hardware-accelerated H.264 so it plays back perfectly at 15% of one core. Chrome's sandbox implementation appears to be less efficient so it's 80% but again, still perfect.
The vp8 developers clearly made some attempts at optimization – profilers show a lot of time being spent in an SSE3-optimized decode path – but that's a long, slow game trying to catch up with years of significant software and, later, hardware optimization.
I'm excited to give this a spin, and that's saying a lot considering I haven't touched FB in a few years now. It's nice to see them innovating with new ideas and products, instead of iterating on their existing main platform.
What's interesting is that their mobile strategy involves grabbing as much of your screen real estate as possible, with the FB app, FB Messenger, Instagram, and now Paper. I guess that was obvious when they tried the whole Facebook phone thing.
I see this as more an iteration than true innovation. It looks as though they're taking your existing Facebook content and putting it in a different wrapper. A pretty wrapper, to be sure, but in the end I think it will still be filled with things like "pg said If I get 50 million likes I can be on the front page of HN."
I think the direction Facebook is going with splitting the services in to apps that solve different use cases is a good thing. Let the user use their social graph in the specific ways they want/need to.
Personally, I mostly use FB for private messages from family members, some private groups, and their group event planning. I don't use it for the feed consumption.
I agree, it seems that new facebook strategy is to spread the use of their platform using mobile apps. This will increase their mobile ad presence. But, I'm curious if this is an indication of the weakness in their mobile ad exchange because other mobile apps which use facebook platform doesn't seem to satisfy them.
It looks like a different interface on the concept that Flipboard is built around, using Facebook content instead of select news sources.
It's a neat interface, and I hope it's light enough on the hardware that it'll be as fluid as in the video (on my iPhone 4 and One S the standard Facebook app has become slow and laggy).
But, it looks like an interface that distances the user from the content, enforcing a more consumption-focused model of interaction than producer, which seems a little antithetical.
This looks like a direct clone of Flipboard! Flipboard supports fetching from your personal facebook feed, and this new facebook thing seems to support fetching from various public "interests" feeds too.
It's exciting to see them developing the platform but I feel like they are moving in the wrong direction. The success of recent startups (eg snapchat) has shown that we're moving to a more ephemeral and brief form of communication among our peers rather than sharing entire stories.
It's funny they choose to tease it, instead of aving an 'get it now' call to action from day one [edit: I would have tried it now as I see it for the first time, I'm not sure I'll care for another content feed app in 3 days, especially as it will have discussed to death in meantime]. And I don't get the link between the name and the app. Is it paper as in newspaper ?
Pretty. I like the UI innovative touches for flipping through content, panning pictures, etc. The video does a good job of selling it. Alas, not for me.
It seems to me a type of app better suited perhaps to the tablet format. Personally I'm over consuming content like this on my phone. In most cases I may skim something quickly and if it really catches my attention then I'll wait until I'm on a bigger screen to explore it further.
The Share section tries to make the point of "the most important stories… your own" and it's a good one, well presented. From my own personal experience though I believe that most of the people I follow online, whether prolific or not, will not dedicate a lot of time to "production" work as in selecting headlines, backgrounds for those headers, more than a couple of beautiful pictures (they never really come out as good as presented), etc. to create a flip-book like these. This will be a good medium for… commercial producers? as shown, the CNNs, Time magazines, of course the Verge, Engadgenet, etc, and that's what I'd end up consuming only to finally uninstall.
Anybody know how they kept the phone so still in those videos? The hand holding it doesn't move. Is there a pole underneath attaching it to a surface we can't see?
I might have used that if it was made by a company like Twitter.... which advertises, but doesn't meddle with the content.
But seeing that it's Facebook, most of the stories we see will be targeted towards our 'Likes' and the rest will be targeted ads.
Is this a native app or a web app running in a browser? I watched the video (at work, so without sound) and I can't tell. If its browser based then I'm extremely impressed.
The underlying assumption at FB seems to be that people are interested in (something like a) magazine but one curated not by professional journalists, designers and advertisers but rather curated by uncle joe, grandma bessie, etc. I know which magazine I'd rather read.
290 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 293 ms ] threadShame it's from Facebook.
http://flip.it/5pPct
Hmm, would you give an example of the "awesome design in mobile" from facebook? I hope you're not referring to their "facebook" mobile app.
I couldn't pause the video, fast forward it or even see any indicator of progress. I didn't even expect volume settings.
Considering all this, the page is simply horrible. It might look nice (on paper perhaps), but the UX is the worst. Visuals alone don't make good sites.
http://www.fiftythree.com/paper
At the same time the fact that both are in the general category of "apps for the curation and creation of content", the confusion in the market is definitely going to be there.
Curious to see how this is going to turn out...
That seems overly broad too and I suspect courts would distinguish between creation vs curation. The 53 app is about the former whereas FB's is the latter.
Also think about someone searching for an app to draw and paint. It's unlikely the FB's Paper would show up in the results. Even if it did, would most people confuse it for a drawing/painting app?
Just did a quick USPTO search and it looks like 53 hasn't attempted to register a trademark for "Paper" itself – but they have registered "Paper by FiftyThree", which would more easily pass the bar of distinctiveness: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85622666&caseType=SERIAL_N...
Having said that – I do wish Facebook had picked a name that wasn't already associated with such a well-known app.
Disclaimer: I have a dev friend who works at FiftyThree but their IP strategy is not something we've discussed.
edit: spelling / grammar
If anyone from Facebook is reading, Paperbook. Problem solved.
EDIT: There's a Universal app called Paper as well.
There was an article a few weeks ago about an internal struggle going on inside Facebook about what their product should be. Some executives are worried that it's primarily shallow (in their minds) content. They want to get rid of the memes and have people sharing more "quality" content. This is a step in that direction. They want Facebook to become the replacement to the daily newspaper. Hence Paper.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7090913
I wonder what sort of quality content Facebook execs are looking for. If most people are like me, I work a day at the office, go home, have dinner with the family, take the dog out for a poop, futz with the computer for an hour or two, then off to bed. Rinse and repeat M-F. Weekends are more interesting with family activities, but it's not a constant barrage of me skydiving, taking pictures at the beach and all that week-in, week-out. Nor do I wax philosophical because it just feels so pretentious.
I literally thought this was what that was linking to before clicking.
BSkyB (trading name: Sky) are gigantic (over £7bn yearly revenue) and have fingers in many pies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSkyB
[1] http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4804%3Arpp3...
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/register.jsp
Hopefully if it does pan out as well as the video shows, other apps like flipboard will start incorporating its flow.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.facebook.h...
I think that's fair.
'50% less CPU usage on the Facebook Paper page' is a nice line in a browser's changelog.
Wandering on the site, CPU goes back to normal after some time, but I couldn't find what the problem is with simple inspection (JS profiling says 99% idle).
Bug reproduced on Chrome.
Safari, which uses mp4 instead of webm, works fine :-)
The vp8 developers clearly made some attempts at optimization – profilers show a lot of time being spent in an SSE3-optimized decode path – but that's a long, slow game trying to catch up with years of significant software and, later, hardware optimization.
What's interesting is that their mobile strategy involves grabbing as much of your screen real estate as possible, with the FB app, FB Messenger, Instagram, and now Paper. I guess that was obvious when they tried the whole Facebook phone thing.
Personally, I mostly use FB for private messages from family members, some private groups, and their group event planning. I don't use it for the feed consumption.
It's a neat interface, and I hope it's light enough on the hardware that it'll be as fluid as in the video (on my iPhone 4 and One S the standard Facebook app has become slow and laggy).
But, it looks like an interface that distances the user from the content, enforcing a more consumption-focused model of interaction than producer, which seems a little antithetical.
It seems to me a type of app better suited perhaps to the tablet format. Personally I'm over consuming content like this on my phone. In most cases I may skim something quickly and if it really catches my attention then I'll wait until I'm on a bigger screen to explore it further.
The Share section tries to make the point of "the most important stories… your own" and it's a good one, well presented. From my own personal experience though I believe that most of the people I follow online, whether prolific or not, will not dedicate a lot of time to "production" work as in selecting headlines, backgrounds for those headers, more than a couple of beautiful pictures (they never really come out as good as presented), etc. to create a flip-book like these. This will be a good medium for… commercial producers? as shown, the CNNs, Time magazines, of course the Verge, Engadgenet, etc, and that's what I'd end up consuming only to finally uninstall.
But I know, that's just me, and my 2 cents.
https://posts.app.net/21220141
An app? a model of phone? a website? a new facebook feature?