Facebook at Work is launching next month(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Facebook at Work is launching next month
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/27/facebook-for-work/
12 comments
Would you trust Facebook with your personal communications and by extension yours and of your family innermost secrets?
Good luck to Facebook in getting traction with techy customers with the most atrocious privacy record of just about any tech passionate.
/s
Just look at any facebook thread and see how many HN readers use it.
The stasi wasn't enough of a lesson.
Good luck to Facebook in getting traction with techy customers with the most atrocious privacy record of just about any tech passionate.
/s
Just look at any facebook thread and see how many HN readers use it.
The stasi wasn't enough of a lesson.
If you work for a big company then you may already be a member of a Facebook "network" of company employees based on email addresses. (I was joined to one.) Seems to work in much the same way as college addresses.
I've also seen company employees start their own closed, private Facebook groups for work purposes because the in-house services were terrible. (I was joined to one.) It's easier than getting a group of people to sign up for a separate third-party service. (Tried that. Didn't work.)
I assume Facebook noticed this phenomenon and decided to improve on it, and exploit it.
I don't expect most users see a problem because they already trust Facebook with their personal information. And I wouldn't be surprised if users trust it more than Google, which now stands for surveillance-based advertising.
I've also seen company employees start their own closed, private Facebook groups for work purposes because the in-house services were terrible. (I was joined to one.) It's easier than getting a group of people to sign up for a separate third-party service. (Tried that. Didn't work.)
I assume Facebook noticed this phenomenon and decided to improve on it, and exploit it.
I don't expect most users see a problem because they already trust Facebook with their personal information. And I wouldn't be surprised if users trust it more than Google, which now stands for surveillance-based advertising.
> I've also seen company employees start their own closed, private Facebook groups for work purposes
This would probably get them fired in certain companies with responsible information policies.
> I don't expect most users see a problem because they already trust Facebook with their personal information.
Which is wrong as naive in the first place.
> And I wouldn't be surprised if users trust it more than Google, which now stands for surveillance-based advertising.
Facebook stands for social manipulation advertising. Pick your poison.
This would probably get them fired in certain companies with responsible information policies.
> I don't expect most users see a problem because they already trust Facebook with their personal information.
Which is wrong as naive in the first place.
> And I wouldn't be surprised if users trust it more than Google, which now stands for surveillance-based advertising.
Facebook stands for social manipulation advertising. Pick your poison.
> This would probably get them fired in certain companies with responsible information policies.
Sure, but if people followed the rules, almost no work would get done. (In the UK, "working to rule" is a form of industrial action that's only a little short of a strike.)
> Which is wrong as naive in the first place.
Yeah, more than 1.6 billion people are naive and wrong.
> Facebook stands for social manipulation advertising. Pick your poison.
How does that work, then?
Otherwise, there's an ethical difference between sharing information voluntarily, for their own benefit -- which people do on Facebook -- and Google's clandestine tracking, which is for Google's benefit.
Sure, but if people followed the rules, almost no work would get done. (In the UK, "working to rule" is a form of industrial action that's only a little short of a strike.)
> Which is wrong as naive in the first place.
Yeah, more than 1.6 billion people are naive and wrong.
> Facebook stands for social manipulation advertising. Pick your poison.
How does that work, then?
Otherwise, there's an ethical difference between sharing information voluntarily, for their own benefit -- which people do on Facebook -- and Google's clandestine tracking, which is for Google's benefit.
Twitter is superior and that anonymous app is better... FB just has too much bloat and asks for personal information too much.
There are a lot of comms that aren't really sensitive, no?
Event organization, menu updates, building maintenance updates etc.
You're right that it can't really swallow everything, but it actually helps (users) that it can't. It relegates FB to a casual thing and not a real business tool. Whether or not this is good for Facebook is a different matter, and I agree with your implication that it probably isn't.
Event organization, menu updates, building maintenance updates etc.
You're right that it can't really swallow everything, but it actually helps (users) that it can't. It relegates FB to a casual thing and not a real business tool. Whether or not this is good for Facebook is a different matter, and I agree with your implication that it probably isn't.
With enough of this insensitive data a well tuned ai could easily determine a lot of info about the company. Less events organised than previous years, or organised at cheaper venues, coupled with cheaper meals and less building maintenance could very well imply the company is facing hardship and are cutting costs.
Time to start showing recruitment agency ads to the staff members personal facebook accounts.
Time to start showing recruitment agency ads to the staff members personal facebook accounts.
Far richer and far more actionable data would be accessible from employees' personal accounts anyways.
Sidenote: We trust slack and they have had multiple breaches.
People (non-techs) don't seem to give a crap.
People (non-techs) don't seem to give a crap.
> People (non-techs) don't seem to give a crap.
I think a lot of HN readers don't give a crap too.
Just see any thread about firefox/facebook/google/apple/whatever and HN readers will prefer X because Y.
Where X is a proprietary software or service and Y is a stupid reason.
I don't have the link but a commenter said that they value their privacy very much, but use safari over firefox because it takes 10 ms less to open. Yep!
I think a lot of HN readers don't give a crap too.
Just see any thread about firefox/facebook/google/apple/whatever and HN readers will prefer X because Y.
Where X is a proprietary software or service and Y is a stupid reason.
I don't have the link but a commenter said that they value their privacy very much, but use safari over firefox because it takes 10 ms less to open. Yep!
> Where X is a proprietary software or service and Y is a stupid reason.
What's your definition of a stupid reason? "I don't agree"?
What's your definition of a stupid reason? "I don't agree"?
If someone wants to use X I have no problem with that. But don't say you value your privacy and understand the implications if you can't sacrifice a bit of convenience for it.
That's all. Stupid was the wrong word.
That's all. Stupid was the wrong word.
Actually, the company I work for is already using it. The data is kept entirely seperate to Facebook and from what I've read, Facebook doesn't own the data - the company does.
It's much better than Yammer, seems to work as well if slightly better than Google+ and yet remains a huge pain in the arse. But no more so than other company communication tool.
I give it 6 months to a year before it falls into disuse.
It's much better than Yammer, seems to work as well if slightly better than Google+ and yet remains a huge pain in the arse. But no more so than other company communication tool.
I give it 6 months to a year before it falls into disuse.
They do. My company does, unfortunately. (We're one of the beta testers of FB@Work.)
It's the same as using Gmail for business mail, but hey, it's trendy.
It will probably fail but definitely not due to any privacy reasons. The majority does not share your view of Facebook's privacy problem.
Probably more secure than Slack
> Would you trust Facebook with your internal corporate communications and by extension the company's innermost secrets?
Depends on the contract. If they break the contract their wallet's big enough to recompense.
Depends on the contract. If they break the contract their wallet's big enough to recompense.
There's no shortage of companies that use Gmail for Work or Google Docs, Hangouts and Google Apps for work. Is it that much of stretch to use FB for similar?
Trusting Facebook doesn't feel categorically different than trusting Google.
[deleted]
Most companies don't have a code repository or file bug reports, yet almost every comment seems to talk about this.
Most companies need a platform where employees are registered, can communicate and can be looked up, and preferably a platform that employees also use.
Facebook has shown itself to be a platform people like to use, a platform that works well on desktop and mobile, can do users, groups, schedules etc.
I can see why it might be good for a lot of companies that have an unused custom Intranet with an empty bulletin board.
Most companies need a platform where employees are registered, can communicate and can be looked up, and preferably a platform that employees also use.
Facebook has shown itself to be a platform people like to use, a platform that works well on desktop and mobile, can do users, groups, schedules etc.
I can see why it might be good for a lot of companies that have an unused custom Intranet with an empty bulletin board.
This seems particularly well suited to non-IT-development workflows, like those in marketing and sales agencies, various organizations that already intensively utilize FB for their businesses by further providing a seamless integration between workplace activities and public/customer related ones.
What about webhooks, e.g. for CI and Github related processes, or about bot support?
What about webhooks, e.g. for CI and Github related processes, or about bot support?
> like those in marketing and sales agencies, various organizations that already intensively utilize FB for their businesses
So basically same bullshit selling industry related to ads as Facebook.
So basically same bullshit selling industry related to ads as Facebook.
"Facebook will just have to conquer the stigma that it’s for fooling around, not getting work done."
This. After offering people, at work, trillions of hours of entertainment, now its going to help make people more productive.
But it will have a huge brand problem. Facebook has become an adjective for people slacking it out. Example, an irritated spouse "you spent the entire day on Facebook". Many IT companies' firewalls has Facebook at the top of the banned sites, during office hours.
All said, it surely can do it. But if it succeeds, it will be a bit like a porn site also deciding to become a MOOC and succeeding at it.
This. After offering people, at work, trillions of hours of entertainment, now its going to help make people more productive.
But it will have a huge brand problem. Facebook has become an adjective for people slacking it out. Example, an irritated spouse "you spent the entire day on Facebook". Many IT companies' firewalls has Facebook at the top of the banned sites, during office hours.
All said, it surely can do it. But if it succeeds, it will be a bit like a porn site also deciding to become a MOOC and succeeding at it.
Facebook might be eyeing the same crowd which is using Yammer or saleforce's chatter offering.I think if they start with a free tier like yammer and then go from there,lot of people might start using it as people are already familiar with Facebook.In my company i don't see people using yammer although it is heavily publicized. I think facebook has a better chance of becoming social network for work than yammer or chatter!
Is Facebook trying to be slack now?
Facebook has been working on this since before June 2014. It has been in a private beta for 2 years. https://techcrunch.com/2014/06/25/facebook-at-work/
Slack is for teams. Facebook at work is intended as a company-wide tool for bigger organizations, especially for everything non-development related.
Facebook feels a bit lost, rushing from one opportunity to the next. Remember the Facebook Messenger with bot api beginning of the year? Zuck created a big buzz and promised a soon to come bot marketplace, which haven't launched yet.
And now FB for work? FB's DNA is about anything but work.
And now FB for work? FB's DNA is about anything but work.
Most organizations would rather keep staff away from Facebook as long as they're not in the social media marketing enclave. The temptation of drifting unto your personal Facebook account instead of Facebook for work makes this a laughable proposition but there's always a customer for every product no matter how shitty it is.
As true as that might be, the lead up to FB@Work has been a lot longer than for other services from them, they've had a fairly robust alpha/beta test period with a number of organisations.
Best idea ever. Lets use Facebook for our business conversations and pay them for that service as a bonus. If you bring this up as an option in a business conversation, i don't want to work with you.
Because you... don't like Facebook? Ok. But I don't get your hostility.
They will have access to your business conversations. You have literally someone from facebook taking notes.
"It should find onboarding users easier than many SaaS tools since people will already have a login, password, and know how to use it. "
Does that mean employees sign into Facebook at Work with their personal Facebook credentials?
That doesn't seem to make sense, but then why/how is the Facebook registration process better?
Does that mean employees sign into Facebook at Work with their personal Facebook credentials?
That doesn't seem to make sense, but then why/how is the Facebook registration process better?
No, it uses your work credentials and your account is created for you.
We have it at work and I was skeptical at first but it's not that bad. There is no concept of friends but you can follow specific people. Mainly it's based on groups so in the end it's like a stripped down Facebook that acts as a glorified front-end for mailing-lists.
I don't know how much they (will?) charge by user though.
We have it at work and I was skeptical at first but it's not that bad. There is no concept of friends but you can follow specific people. Mainly it's based on groups so in the end it's like a stripped down Facebook that acts as a glorified front-end for mailing-lists.
I don't know how much they (will?) charge by user though.
If "corporate" or someone in the company sets accounts up ahead of time, how does Facebook have any advantage in this space? That same process would be possible with any software...
I thought there is already a 'facebook at work' named Yammer. Not that I found it useful in small start-ups but it makes sense in large organisations.
Not just Yammer but Sharepoint, Sway and Delve. For companies that are bought into the whole Office 365 thing, there's actually a pretty comprehensive 'company social network' offering.
I don't really see a point, partly because social and work don't mix in my dictionary, partly because I consider Enterprise Communication a solved problem. What is the incentive to move away from e.g. an already integrated Atlassian stack?
Maybe it can be an option for new companies? It is hard to tell without the pricing information.
Maybe it can be an option for new companies? It is hard to tell without the pricing information.
Can't really tell if you are serious if you are claiming "enterprise communication is a solved problem" (it isn't) and in the next sentence mention an Atlassian stack. Funny you should mention Altassian though, because while everyone is going to compare this to Slack, IMHO it is second-tier services with shitty UX like Atlassian who are going to get hosed by FB@work.
I would agree that it's not "solved", but I do think that there are many non-paid solutions that will satisfy the majority of small to medium businesses. Slack-likes seemed to be pretty popular for awhile, and most are feature competitive as far as the internal communication aspect that Work at Facebook, sans the video chat.
I'm a little torn on this as the product itself does seem like a natural use for Facebook's platform, and I'm mildly surprised they didn't do this soon. On the same note, that they didn't do this sooner makes it feel a bit more "me too", and I'm not confident the adoption rate will be strong enough to justify it going forward. Since the UI is just a mildly tweaked version of vanilla Facebook, I wonder if they had internal numbers showing that people were already doing this to justify the commitment, or if they're just hoping it will stick. I honestly feel the Facebook UI is just way too cramped and smooshed for being all that productive with, but I am also not an avid facebook user, so my opinion may be worthless. (I think VK's layout is a lot cleaner, for example...)
Right now I'm not convinced Facebook is offering enough to convince any existing users to migrate. I'm not sure it offers anything enticing over other Slack-likes to really convince users to pick it over other services. Though I appreciate them separating the two types of accounts, I think this just raises the barrier of entry, which was already pretty high compared to others.
I'm a little torn on this as the product itself does seem like a natural use for Facebook's platform, and I'm mildly surprised they didn't do this soon. On the same note, that they didn't do this sooner makes it feel a bit more "me too", and I'm not confident the adoption rate will be strong enough to justify it going forward. Since the UI is just a mildly tweaked version of vanilla Facebook, I wonder if they had internal numbers showing that people were already doing this to justify the commitment, or if they're just hoping it will stick. I honestly feel the Facebook UI is just way too cramped and smooshed for being all that productive with, but I am also not an avid facebook user, so my opinion may be worthless. (I think VK's layout is a lot cleaner, for example...)
Right now I'm not convinced Facebook is offering enough to convince any existing users to migrate. I'm not sure it offers anything enticing over other Slack-likes to really convince users to pick it over other services. Though I appreciate them separating the two types of accounts, I think this just raises the barrier of entry, which was already pretty high compared to others.
Most companies I worked at used Atlassian products, but feel free to use any other services as examples. Personally I think the FB UX is one of the worst out there, but each to their own I guess.
Well, ymmv of course, but for me the technical aspects were solved by email long ago and imo dysfunctional communication mostly a human problem. It is very hard / impossible to fix pebkac with technology and from what I reading FB@W does not bring anything new to the table in that regard.
Well, ymmv of course, but for me the technical aspects were solved by email long ago and imo dysfunctional communication mostly a human problem. It is very hard / impossible to fix pebkac with technology and from what I reading FB@W does not bring anything new to the table in that regard.
Exactly, social and work don't mix. Most want them kept well apart. No way I'm letting FB link my work with my social lives and no way I'd trust them not to.
There is always the risk of them buying LinkedIn but people aren't going to make it easy.
There is always the risk of them buying LinkedIn but people aren't going to make it easy.
"You just create a new Facebook at Work account to connect with coworkers. This account is separate from your personal Facebook but works in similar ways." (https://work.fb.com)
Riiiiight.
They absolutely will not mix personal and work Facebooks.
Plenty of companies have blocked [www|m].facebook.com at the firewall, for reasons of productivity and data protection. Facebook-the-company will not jeopardise the chances of adoption of this product by doing anything that will make work.facebook.com fall foul of a similar fate.
Pity they didn't just call it Workbook, then we wouldn't have had all this confusion. Or Workface :)
Plenty of companies have blocked [www|m].facebook.com at the firewall, for reasons of productivity and data protection. Facebook-the-company will not jeopardise the chances of adoption of this product by doing anything that will make work.facebook.com fall foul of a similar fate.
Pity they didn't just call it Workbook, then we wouldn't have had all this confusion. Or Workface :)
Mix? No.
Share? Of course they will.
When you work at a company you don't really have a word after a HiPPO decision.
You haven't looked at it at all have you ?
They are going to fail terrible.
Good luck to Facebook in getting traction with corporate customers with the most atrocious privacy record of just about any company.