Ad Tech Startup Rocket Fuel’s Revenues Take Off

Display-LUMAscape

Illustration: Luma Partners

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

There’s a gazillion little ad tech companies out there, as you can see in the well-traveled chart called the Display Lumascape on the right. Conventional (and probably correct) wisdom is that eventually many of them will get snapped up by bigger fish, whether that’s giants like Google, Oracle, and Facebook or rivals that just did a better job.

Since that process has happened a little more slowly than many people expected, though, a few of those fish are getting pretty big. One of them is Rocket Fuel, a Redwood City (Calif.)-based startup that despite its name has flown under the radar of the general public. While it started out as an ad network, it might be better seen today as a so-called demand-side platform, or DSP. It buys ad space for marketers and uses its rocket-science technology to target ads precisely in real time to the most receptive prospects, a process that goes by the industry shorthand “programmatic buying.”

Today, Rocket Fuel is announcing with unusual candor for a startup that its gross revenues rose 238% last year to $107 million. Notice I said gross revenues; a good chunk of that goes back to publishers from which it bought ad inventory. The company won’t reveal net revenues.

But the growth is real. And that includes growth in customers, nearly a doubling of new advertisers. On their behalf, Rocket Fuel’s system deals with more than 26 billion ad impressions a day. Not least, the company has more than doubled its staff, to 289 employees, including a new chief marketing officer and a couple of VPs.

CEO George John says the company isn’t profitable yet, though he says it’s close. “The playbook is to invest,” he says, so plans are not for near-term profits.

You might wonder, as I did, whether revealing revenues is an indication that the company aims to go public soon. Actually, it has been just as forthcoming previously, and John won’t say what his plans are.

But given that it had made noises back in 2011 about an IPO in 2012, instead raising a huge $50 million round last June, it’s not out of the realm of possibility this year, market gods willing. Or, to mix a metaphor, it might continue to swim around the Lumascape and try to figure out whether to eat or be eaten.

About these ads

5 Reasons Why Facebook Shares Have Soared Past $30

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO, shows off th...

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (Photo: Wikipedia)

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

After languishing ever since Facebook’s mostly botched initial public offering last May, the social network’s shares are up more than 5% today, moving past $30 a share for the first time since July. Why the sudden investor interest in what was one of last year’s biggest disappointments in the business world?

* Something new is coming: I and a crowd of other journalists have been invited to a press event on Jan. 15 to “come see what we are building.” That could be anything, from new kinds of ads (though that’s not the usual thing Facebook engineers mean when they talk about what they’re building) or a mobile phone (very unlikely, since CEO Mark Zuckerberg put the kibosh on the idea awhile ago) to a search engine, a music service, or an expanded e-commerce initiative.

Or, the most likely of all, something entirely different–possibly several things, to read probably too much into the invitation’s wording. In any case, it’s enough of an event that investors are likely intrigued and want to get in ahead of an announcement that at the least will get a lot of coverage.

* Ad revenue growth is accelerating again. In its third quarter, Facebook surprised investors with a 36% jump in ad revenues, sending its shares up 20% the next day. Although mobile ad revenues are a big part, a new ad exchange and an ad targeting program called Custom Audiences also appear to be getting traction.

* In particular, Facebook appears to have a good start on solving a key issue during the IPO: mobile advertising. …

Read the complete post at The New Persuaders.

5 Reasons Why Facebook Shares Have Soared Past $30

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO, shows off th...

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (Photo: Wikipedia)

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

After languishing ever since Facebook’s mostly botched initial public offering last May, the social network’s shares are up more than 5% today, moving past $30 a share for the first time since July. Why the sudden investor interest in what was one of last year’s biggest disappointments in the business world?

* Something new is coming: I and a crowd of other journalists have been invited to a press event on Jan. 15 to “come see what we are building.” That could be anything, from new kinds of ads (though that’s not the usual thing Facebook engineers mean when they talk about what they’re building) or a mobile phone (very unlikely, since CEO Mark Zuckerberg put the kibosh on the idea awhile ago) to a search engine, a music service, or an expanded e-commerce initiative.

Or, the most likely of all, something entirely different–possibly several things, to read probably too much into the invitation’s wording. In any case, it’s enough of an event that investors are likely intrigued and want to get in ahead of an announcement that at the least will get a lot of coverage.

* Ad revenue growth is accelerating again. In its third quarter, Facebook surprised investors with a 36% jump in ad revenues, sending its shares up 20% the next day. Although mobile ad revenues are a big part, a new ad exchange and an ad targeting program called Custom Audiences also appear to be getting traction.

* In particular, Facebook appears to have a good start on solving a key issue during the IPO: mobile advertising. The big kicker in that third quarter was mobile ad revenues, which hit $150 million, or 14% of revenues, from almost zero just six months earlier. As Zuckerberg said during the third-quarter earnings call, “I want to dispel this myth that Facebook can’t make money on mobile.” In particular, ads in mobile news feeds are working for advertisers because they look more like a natural part of what people are already looking at. …

Read the complete post at The New Persuaders.

13 Questions For 2013 In The World Of Online Advertising

questionsCross-posted at my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

For the past few years, I’ve offered predictions here and on The New Persuaders for what’s likely to come in the next year. I viewed them more as an agenda for what to watch for in the next 12 months than as firm predictions.

But it was too easy sometimes to state the obvious so they’d end up right by year-end. So this year, I’m going to shake it up and throw out a few questions instead. I think I know the answers to some of them, but if many won’t be answered definitively by year-end, they remain top of mind for me and probably for many others in online media and advertising.

So in this, the first full week of the new year, here are some questions to which I hope to start finding answers (and if you’ve got ‘em, sound off in the comments below!):

* Will image advertising finally take off online? I have to believe that as people spend more and more time online instead of reading print publications and watching TV, brand marketers will want and need to reach them there with ads that are aimed at creating consideration for later purchases, not just eliciting an immediate sale like Google’s search ads and too many banner ads. We’re already starting to see signs of such advertising with the early success of Facebook’s Sponsored StoriesTwitter’s Promoted Tweets, and YouTube’s TrueView ads–not to mention the explosion of tablets, which provide a lean-back experience more compatible with image advertising. This won’t be a sudden change, since brand marketers and agencies don’t move quickly, but you can’t tell me there aren’t going to be increasingly compelling ways for brands to influence people online.

* Will native ads reach broad scale? Well, perhaps they will on platforms such as Facebook and–well, Facebook–that already reach hundreds of millions of people. Sponsored Stories clearly have gotten some traction, even on mobile devices. But marketers and agencies won’t create multiple versions of campaigns to serve every new ad format that publishers claim work better than banner ads. Which brings up a related question:

* Will any standards emerge around the social gestures that most of these native ads embody? That’s really the only thing that will ensure that marketers can reach scale across many sites. That wouldn’t be in the interest of big companies such as Facebook and Google, which benefit from proprietary ad formats that can reach their huge audiences. But standards, whether it’s banners of a particular size or ad networks, create a more liquid market that helps hundreds of publishers survive as they provide marketers scalable opportunities to reach big audiences. So are there atomic units of social gestures that could carry brand messages across multiple native ad formats without destroying the appeal of native formats? Maybe there’s a technological fix for this, but it’s clear that a lot more needs to be done.

* Will the long-predicted shakeout in ad tech companies finally happen? It didn’t really occur last year despite a few middling-big acquisitions by Oracle, Salesforce.com, and Google. This year, perhaps new Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer will corral a few to try to recharge the company’s ad business. Google, Adobe, and IBM have built out “stacks” of ad tech, but no doubt they can each fill out their offerings. Then there’s Facebook, whose ad exchange is likely to need fleshing out. But even if they each write checks for a few three-letter acronym startups apiece, don’t call it a shakeout. Given the rapid evolution of advertising technologies, and the reality that using data to refine advertising is still in its infancy, it’s a good bet that more companies will still be created than disappear. That should keep the Lumascape as crowded as ever.

* Can advertisers and publishers make ads more personal without scaring people? That’s the $64 billion question, and it likely won’t get answered in full this year. It’s easy for headline-hungry politicians to make a big deal out of Facebook’s latest privacy gaffe or the Wall Street Journal’s or the New York Times’ latest scare story about an ad that followed somebody all over the Web. That’s especially so since Facebook really does push the privacy envelope too far at times, and too many advertisers idiotically chase one more sales conversion at the cost of scaring off hundreds of others or inviting onerous legislation. But making ads more useful to each individual person is not only crucial to online commerce, it’s potentially better for most consumers as well–seriously, I don’t need to see another ad for a fitness center or a new credit card, but that ad for Camper van Beethoven’s new CD had me in a split-second. The answer lies in these two words, everyone: transparency and choice.

* Will mobile advertising work? Well, some of it already does, to hear Google and Facebook tell it. And while those already devalued digital dimes so far turn to pennies when it comes to ads on smartphones and tablets, this still feels more like growing pains than a crisis in online advertising. Sure, the screens are small and people don’t like to be interrupted in their mobile cocoons. So a different kind of advertising is probably needed–clearly, banners don’t cut it on a four-inch screen. But the value to advertisers of knowing your location and maybe the apps you’re using, coupled with knowledge of what your friends like–all with permission, of course–is huge. That permission may be really tough to earn. But if advertisers can offer tangible value, perhaps in the form of useful services related to what you’re doing or looking for or shopping for–and isn’t that the ultimate native ad?–people may loosen their hold on that information.

* Can Larry Page keep Google relevant in the social media age? So far, the no-longer-new CEO has at least kept Google’s mainstream ad business humming. Page has outlasted a year or so of missteps, missed opportunities, antitrust investigations, and bum vocal chords, and arguably emerged with a company that’s leaner, more focused, and more potent than ever. Not only does the recent antitrust victory appear to leave it free to compete unimpeded, but Android is doing better than ever even vs. a very strong Apple ecosystem and Google is about to emerge as a powerhouse in the other half of online advertising: display ads, whether on the desktop or on mobile devices. Page’s big challenge looms as big as ever, though: Can Google play in the social Web vs. Facebook/Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, and more? I don’t know, but this may be the year Page has to provide a more definitive answer.

* Will TV and Web video ads finally come together on Connected TVs, tablets, or other devices? Sure, at some point. Video is video no matter where it runs, and while personal computer users bristle at pre-roll video ads, I’m betting viewers are more amenable to various kinds of ads when they view video on Internet-connected TVs or tablets. And even on PCs, YouTube’s TrueView ads, which you can skip after a few seconds, have proven successful to the tune of several billion dollars last year. Traditional TV advertising will continue to thrive thanks to unassailable economics of the cable-content cabal. But given extensive work by Nielsen, comScore, and others to provide metrics that can extend across TV and the Web, the latter may finally get some serious coin from brand marketers–if not this year, pretty soon thereafter. Especially if Apple works its magic on the television.

* Will Facebook really tick us off with a new feature or privacy “improvement”? Is Mark Zuckerberg CEO of Facebook? Nonetheless, Facebook’s well-worn playbook of pushing beyond social comfort levels, then pulling back just a bit, means we’ll probably see privacy norms get stretched once again.

* Will Apple ever make a real splash in advertising? Don’t bet your iPad on it. I think even the post-Steve Jobs Apple still views ads the way a lot of Silicon Valley still does (mostly in error): ineffective, inelegant, and crass. Apple itself can make great ads, but selling them is an entirely different matter.

* Will Amazon make a real splash in advertising? Oh yeah. All the pieces are in place, from a huge shopping-focused audience to a nearly bulletproof technology infrastructure. Again, it won’t set the world on fire this year, but we’re likely to see the smoke.

* Will Marissa Mayer turn around Yahoo? Not this year. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised to see signs of a real turn for the first time in about five CEOs. But the real turnaround will take years–if Yahoo’s board has the patience. That’s still an iffy bet worth about as much as a share of Yahoo stock.

* Will I ever figure out the appeal of Reddit and BuzzFeed? Gosh, I hope so. I get that these guys attract massive traffic, but neither site does much for me. Reddit, in particular, seems so random that I guess it must be the channel-surfing of today’s generation, only with somewhat more worthwhile nuggets. But for pete’s sake, there’s so much noise for the signal you get, and even the most popular noise can be many hours, days, or even months old. Go ahead, call me a geezer who doesn’t get it. You wouldn’t be the first, and maybe you’re right. So I will continue to click over to them until I see the light, my brain explodes, or the next phenom looks more worth wasting my remaining years on.

I have a lot more questions, but I’ve got to stop before too much of 2013 is gone.

How Did I Do On My 2012 Predictions?

2012: The Year Ahead

Photo: Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

It’s that time of year: time to reflect on the past year, time to get wasted and watch a glass ball smash into the ground, time for people like me who foolishly offered predictions for the past year to face the music. So here’s how I did on my 2012 predictions:

* Facebook goes public, but won’t start an IPO landslide: Bingo! Indeed, Facebook’s ill-received IPO led to a months-long drought in IPOs as investors realized they were not a sure route to riches. The situation may be improving, but mostly for enterprise more than consumer companies.

* Facebook’s ad business booms–but not at Google’s expense: Bingo! While Facebook’s revenues slowed even before its IPO as it continued to experiment with new ad formats and scrambled to provide mobile ad units, ad revenues have since accelerated, up 36% in the third quarter over last year. At the same time, while Google’s revenue growth disappointed investors in the third quarter, it was mostly thanks to the impact of its Motorola acquisition, not a shortfall in its core ad business.

* Image ads finally find a home on the Web: Half-right. YouTube proved there’s a real market for TV-like video ads if you give viewers the choice to view them or not, as its revenues were expected to hit $3.6 billion in 2012, according to Citibank. But Facebook’s struggles to attract brand advertising despite a TV-scale audience, while partially successful, show that no one has yet come up with brand ad formats that work consistently and at large scale online. Or at least brands, which still spend most of their money on TV ads, don’t believe it yet. And they write the checks.

Continue reading

LIVE: Facebook Shares Soar As Q3 Ad Revenue Growth Accelerates

DAVOS-KLOSTERS/SWITZERLAND, 30JAN09 - Mark Zuc...

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (Photo: Wikipedia)

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

After a rocky several months following its May IPO, Facebook finally provided some good news today as it reported third-quarter financial results that outpaced Wall Street expectations.

The key number: 36%. That’s the rate at which advertising revenues grew. And it’s noticeably higher than ad sales growth in the second quarter, which had flagged at 28%. Excluding the impact of foreign currency changes, ad sales would have risen 43% in the third quarter.

Mobile revenues, a key metric for a company that until recently had zero mobile ad revenues and offered little of note to its mobile users, were 14% of the total $1.09 billion in ad sales.

The other key number: 9%. That’s how much shares are rising in after-hours trading. Shares of FB rose a little less than 1%, to $19.50, in trading today. That’s still only a little over half of the IPO price.

* Update: Make that 20%+. After sleeping on it, investors like the results even better the next morning.

Facebook still faces many challenges, such as the need to provide a better mobile experience for users and advertisers. And thanks to rising expenses, including stock compensation and related costs–up 64% from a year ago–it’s actually losing money on a GAAP basis. But if advertising is returning, whether it’s from more interest in its social and mobile ads, in the Facebook ad exchange that’s getting a lot of attention, or even in the new Gifts e-commerce service, that’s good news.

We’ll hear more from CEO Mark Zuckerberg shortly when Facebook conducts its analyst earnings call at 2 p.m. Pacific. I’ll blog the highlights here, but you can also listen to the livestream.

The call begins. Zuckerberg will talk about the vision and strategy of the company–make the world more connected, etc. Three pillars to the strategy:

1) Build the best mobile product. This is the most misunderstood pillar. Mobile allows us to reach way more people, people spend more time on mobile devices, and monetization should be even better than on the desktop.

2) Improve the Facebook platform.

3) Strong monetization engine. On mobile, ads will be more like TV–more integrated into the core product experience, rather than on the side. We’re starting to see better ad products for people and better results for advertisers.

I want to dispose of this notion that we can’t make money on mobile. Until recently, Facebook didn’t even try. …

Read the rest of Zuckerberg’s comments and his Q&A with analysts at The New Persuaders.

Exec Survey: Obama Will Win, Tech Economy Will Lose

US President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney following their first debate. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)

A new survey shows a large majority of technology leaders thinks President Obama will win re-election. But by a somewhat smaller but still large margin, they think Republican challenger Mitt Romney would be better for the technology economy.

Those are the chief results of a survey conducted recently and released today by the law firm DLA Piper at its technology summit today in Menlo Park, Calif. They may not be particularly surprising, but the margin by which the tech executives assume another four years of Obama is likely seems striking–especially with Romney possibly gaining support in Silicon Valley.

Even as they believe Romney would be better for their businesses, their widespread assumption of an Obama victory suggests they’re opting not to engage in wishful thinking. (To be clear, however, there could be some selection bias, since only 220 executives out of 5,000 who were sent the survey responded.)

But the clear majority do wish Romney would pull off a come-from-behind victory. Some 60% said they’re skeptical that a second Obama administration would be positive for the technology business. That’s a complete reverse of their feelings four years ago, when 60% thought Obama would be better for tech than Republican John McCain. However, a separate question about whether executives agreed with the statement that Obama would be positive for the tech industry revealed that 42% did, while 21% were neutral. …

Read the complete survey results at The New Persuaders.

Facebook’s New Gift Service: Nice, But Not Yet An E-Commerce Game Changer

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

Just in time for prime gift-giving holidays like Friday’s World Rabies Day (or if you prefer, Ask A Stupid Question Day), Facebook today launched a social gift service. It’s rolling out to only a select few for now.

I must be one of them, because I was able to send something to my wife to try it out. But in its current form, I doubt I’m going to use it much.

This isn’t the 2.0 version of the Facebook Gifts virtual-gift service that the company shut down two years ago, by the way. In fact, the new Gifts is built upon, and run by, the folks at Karma, the gift-giving service Facebook acquired in May.

It actually looks pretty good. And while I have ordered precisely one gift that obviously has not yet been delivered, so I can’t judge the entire gift-giving process, it worked quite smoothly. I clicked on my wife’s Timeline, clicked the gift button, and off I went to order her some caramels. She can even pick her own flavor–that’s pretty cool.

In this case, I obviously know her address, so one advantage of Facebook Gifts–not having to know or ask for someone’s address–is moot in my case. What’s more, I didn’t get an automatic reminder I might get if it were her birthday, so that bit of friction elimination wasn’t a factor for me either. But it’s fast and easy to send gifts to friends, and that’s great–not just for consumers, but for Facebook, which can use a service that brings in revenues not dependent upon its brand of advertising that many large marketers are still doubtful about.

So what isn’t great, at least for me?

* A lot of the most prominent gifts are pretty vanilla–teddy bears, spa appointments, flowers, cupcakes. Maybe they’re fine products. Maybe they’re the sort of thing most people give their friends. But for a service with a tagline “real friends, real gifts,” too many of these products seem just too impersonal. Products, especially gifts, are not necessarily fungible, and all the less so for close friends for whom you’re supposed to be getting something special. And if they’re not close friends–and let’s be honest, most people don’t have several hundred close friends–I probably won’t be sending them many gifts, from Facebook or anywhere else. …

Read the complete post at The New Persuaders.

Facebook To Start Charging Businesses To Run Offers

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

After launching Offers several months ago, Facebook now is switching the retail and local merchant deals service into money-making mode.

The No. 1 social network, under pressure to prove that it can juice revenue growth to justify its $50 billion-plus valuation, said today that it will require merchants to buy at least $5 worth of ads in order for their offers to appear in  the newsfeeds of their target audiences and their friends. The amount businesses are required to pay for these ads, specifically Page Post ads, will vary depending on the size of their Facebook pages.

Facebook also has added several new features to Offers. For one, they’re available worldwide to all Pages with more than 400 fans. Also, merchants can add a bar code to an Offer so they can track results more easily, as well as potentially run Offers on their e-commerce sites.

Facebook says the changes, in particular the requirement that merchants spend money, should produce Offers that consumers view as higher-quality and more relevant because businesses will be incented to make those offers better if they’re paying for them. The changes also position Offers more squarely against incumbents Groupon and LivingSocial.

Facebook isn’t providing much in the way of numbers on how Offers are doing except for one example: It says the ARIA resort in Las Vegas booked more than 1,500 nights, producing a return of five times its investment from running Offers.

Although many of the new ad and commerce initiatives Facebook has been rolling out no doubt were planned well before its May initial public offering, the company has introduced a flurry of new ad formats lately. Facebook’s share price had fallen by half from the IPO, thanks to concerns by investors about whether its ads are catching on fast enough, especially on mobile devices.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg: We Burned Two Years Betting On Mobile Web Vs. Apps

English: Mark Zuckerberg, Founder & CEO of Fac...

Photo: Wikipedia

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg hasn’t said much, if anything, publicly since the No. 1 social network went public in May. But oh, how much has changed since that day. Not only did the IPO fall flat, but Facebook is now dogged by slower growth perhaps partly due to its late start on mobile advertising.

Today, Zuckerberg went public himself at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference in San Francisco. Clearly the big “get” for the conference, Zuckerberg was in his element at the conference, which is aimed at tech startups and the software developers creating them. In a wide-ranging and surprisingly revealing interview with TechCrunch founder Mike Arrington, who has since become a venture capitalist, Zuckerberg said Facebook lost two years betting on mobile Web technology instead of native iPhone apps but said he thinks mobile will be even bigger than the Web for Facebook in terms of advertising.

Investors liked what they heard. Facebook shares rose 3.6% in after-hours trading, breaking $20 a share, on top of a 3.3% rise on Tuesday before his talk.

Here’s the interview, edited slightly for clarity and my inability to catch every single word the fast-talking Zuckerberg utters:

Q: You went public on May 18 and the stock has lost roughly half its value.

A: Just get right into it!

Q: Would you have done anything differently on the IPO?

A: The performance of the stock has obviously been disappointing. But the commitment we made was to fulfill this mission to make the world more open and connected.

The key will be how we do with mobile. A lot of stuff has changed in six months since we’ve been in the quiet period.

Literally six months ago, we didn’t run a single ad on mobile. So people can underestimate how good mobile can be for us. It’s the main thing that’s fundamentally misunderstood. For one, there’s just more mobile users–5 billion people have cellphones in the world. Second, they’re spending more time on it. We’re already seeing people more likely to be daily active users on mobile. And those stats are before the new iOS app. And third, we can have better advertising on mobile, make more money.

Q: You make money to build great services rather than build services to make money. Do you really mean that?

A: We are a mission-driven company. In order to do this, we have to build a great team. And in order to do that, you need people to know they can make a bunch of money. So we need a business model to make a lot of money.

Building a mission and building a business go hand in hand. The primary thing that excites me is the mission. But we have always had a healthy understanding that we need to do both.

Q: What about the stock causing morale problems?

A: Well, it doesn’t help. But first, Facebook has not been an uncontroversial company in the past. So people are fairly used to the press saying good things about us and bad things about us.

What really motivates people at Facebook is building something that’s worthwhile, that they’re going to be proud to show to friends and family.

We also haven’t done much on equity to incentivize people. The way we do compensation is we translate the amount of compensation we give you into shares. [So employees get more shares if the stock price is down, thus similar compensation, thus the stock price doesn't mean as much as it might appear.]

Q: I’ve been rough on the company on mobile products.

A: We were very self-critical too.

Q: Is mobile a strength or weakness for Facebook?

A: There are more users, they spend more time on Facebook, and we’re going to make more money on mobile ads. There are huge things we can do to move the needle. Mobile is a lot closer to TV than [to] the desktop. We’ve had right-hand-column ads and it’s been great, a multi-billion-dollar business.

But on mobile, we can’t do that. It’s clearly going to have to be different. We’re seeing some great mobile ad products being developed. There’s a huge opportunity. The question is getting there.

Clearly we’ve had a bunch of missteps there. The biggest mistake we made as a company was betting too much on HTML5, because it’s just not there yet. We went for this approach, an internal framework called Faceweb. We just couldn’t translate it to mobile with the quality we wanted.

We had to start over and rewrite everything to be native. We burned two years. It may turn out it was one of the biggest if not the biggest strategic mistake we made.

Two years ago, we decided to bet completely on HTML5. We believed that because it used the same technology as the desktop, we thought it could improve. But it wasn’t good enough. We realized the only way we could get there was to go native.

Q: Did you realize the previous Facebook mobile app sucked?

A: Yeah, it was not where we wanted it to be. We just decided to ship the same features as before, but faster. But in parallel, other teams have been building new features. Over the coming weeks and months, we can expect to see a lot of the cool stuff. …

Read the complete post at The New Persuaders.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers