'Buggy' Facebook iPad app finally emerges Merely one year, six months and a week after the iPad was launched in April 2010, the Facebook app for iPad has finally hit the iTunes app store. Before yesterday night, fondlers of reassuringly expensive slabs either had to use a resized iPhone app or the web version of the site to stalk their way across Facebook. According …
"fondlers of reassuringly expensive slabs either had to use a resized iPhone app or the web version of the site to stalk their way across Facebook"
Or any of the several dozen third party iPad Facebook apps available for a variety of prices from free upwards on the iBazaar. The fact there wasn't an official one was something a lot of people saw as an opportunity, not a problem. I suspect there are a few coders looking at a drop in income from today onwards. Which is sad but it's not as if they didn't have warning.
As for you Reg, jeez...
Whats wrong with using a browser to access Facebook on a Tablet?
Admittedly I had to change the UserAgent string in Opera on my Hannspad to stop it defaulting to the mobile site, but if I can do this on a £150 tablet I am sure the user experience rich iPad can do this.
In fact on an iPad that should not even be necessary since Facebook could recognise the iPad User Agent string and serve a decent site.
Whats wrong with using a browser to access Facebook on a Tablet?
Why do we need an App for every website we visit?
There's nothing wrong with using a browser to access Facebook on a tablet.
You don't need to change the UserAgent string on the iPad to get the full site.
Facebook does recognise the UserAgent string and does serve up the full site (although it isn't an iPad specific version).
There's nothing wrong with using a browser to access Facebook on a tablet, we heard you the first time.
We don't need an app for every website we visit, but apps allow popular sites to take some of the load off their servers. Apps don't need any of the site furniture or formatting sending to the client machine, they only need content.
Really, if you don't want to use the app then don't, it's no skin off my nose.
Keep resisting the pressure to integrate Facebook with the OS. I wish all mobile OS manufacturers would resist. Believe it or not, not everybody wants their data allowance eaten up by people's shared 'cute' photos and rants about Obama.
If you want Facebook on your mobile device, you can download the App™
I can't say that running phone apps on a slab was a priority or even an interest for me, tho I think I just assumed that an app for XYZ phone OS would run on the corresponding slab OS (be that iOS or Android).
However, I was surprised at just how utterly sh*t my partner's iPhone apps looked on her iPad.
And at the same time I was surprised at how well Android apps on my phone scaled smoothly and seamlessly (for the most part) on my eeePad and in some cases to the extent that they were not just smoothly scaled "bigger" versions, but actually improved (e.g. Formula 1 app - standings tables etc are visible in their entirety on the slab, vs being scrollable lists on the phone).
Now, it's not all win for the 'droid. Some apps simply aren't available for the slab, period. But I suspect this is more of a "fragmentation" issue rather than device discrimination per se (my phone runs 2.3 my slab 3.2).
Of course, Apple wins with their approach since it encourages people to pay for two separate versions of the same app - one regular and one "HD".
Consumer friendly ? I should Cocoa [sic]. More like Apple balance sheet friendly.
Ever considered that developers *could* make apps that were scalable for both types of iOS device? Many do and are listed as "iPhone/iPad apps" instead of device specific. Air Video, Planets, Zombie GS, RWC2011 and Lovefilm are some of the apps I've used on both that spring to mind. It's the developers that make the choice.
If Android apps are scaling, then it's clear they were designed with this in mind. The Apple approach at least gives you the option of running phone-specific apps on the pad - "Some apps simply aren't available for the slab, period". Maybe if Apple banned iPhone apps on the iPad and removed that choice you'd be happier?
In case anyone was in any doubt - Apple is clearly not running a level playing field with respect to App Store approvals: Facebook Mobile has been updated already to 4.0.1 to address some bugs: How many other developers could manage to get an update approved through Apple in less than 24 hours!
Level playing field?
I think not. Apple will know how many linters have installed any particular App, and will be able to prioritise any updates accordingly, especially if a release is found to be particularly problematic.
So yes, Facebook and other big players will get priority approval for their app which has been downloaded 10,000,000 times over even the best home developer who's had 1,000 downloads, no matter how killer their app is.
Not saying is right or fair, just common sense.
The likihood is that the fixes were already in the pipeline (it's probably muli-team/multi-branch development), there's probably fixes for things they know are affecting people still unreleased, 4.0.2 almost certainly exists (and maybe 4.0.3/4.0.4 and possibly 4.1 being built with 4.0 retrofits), that said, they (given the importance of the Facebook app to Apple) would probably get priority.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
