Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks Businesses Facebook Technology

Facebook Owns Four Out of the Five Most Downloaded Apps Worldwide (thenextweb.com) 54

An anonymous reader shares a report: Facebook continues to storm the numbers as the company has claimed four out of the five spots for the most downloaded apps across the globe during the last quarter. Interestingly, Netflix still lords over everyone as far as revenue goes. New research by app analytics firm Sensor Tower reveals that WhatsApp, Facebook, Messenger, Instagram and Snapchat were the most downloaded apps for the first three months of this year. While the numbers differed across the App Store and Google Play, one thing both platforms shared is that Facebook owned four out of the top five spots for the most downloaded apps worldwide. While Messenger topped the App Store download charts, Facebook headed the race on Google Play.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Owns Four Out of the Five Most Downloaded Apps Worldwide

Comments Filter:
  • by TimothyHollins ( 4720957 ) on Wednesday April 19, 2017 @09:07AM (#54262767)

    This seems like the kind of problem that could potentially give a certain Zucker the power to decide who wins what election and so forth.

    If the government should not have the power to censor or direct the flow of information, shouldn't a similar rule be applied to corporations with equal or greater (non-military) power?

    I have always assumed the censorship law reflected the balance of power at the time (i.e. there was no other entity that came close to matching the civil power of the government, hence the government had to be "kind" to other opinions), and had Facebook or social media been around then, similar clauses would have been made for them.

    • Actually the most downloaded is a booby prize the real winner is the most pre-installed...

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Note the calls to control "fake news".

      Who decides what's "fake news"? The same people who say no black-on-white violence is racist but whites are inherently racist just for being white?

    • This seems like the kind of problem that could potentially give a certain Zucker the power to decide who wins what election and so forth.

      Being that we live in a time of Hollywood remakes now, it's just about time for . . . wait for it . . .

      . . . "Citizen Zucker" . . . !

    • Funny that, Pop media had suggested along with rumblings in the tech blogs that Zuckerface was considering a run for office. Why not, he's rich and he has the backing of the alphabet mafia since Fazebook has filled their board with ex 3 letter folks.
      • Zuckerberg simply looked at Trump and said "He's rich, evil, and a stupid fuck, and he won the presidency! I'm rich, evil and not a stupid fuck! I'd be a shoe-in!"

        • Zuckerberg is better than smart, he is extremely lucky (and evil).
          Fakebook was stolen property, but he got rich enough and in bed with government enough to survive that.
    • by guises ( 2423402 )

      I have always assumed the censorship law reflected the balance of power at the time

      It kind of does, sometimes, this was the idea behind the Fairness Doctrine. Before that though, there were few limits on what the media could say and there's been at least one American war fought essentially purely for the sake of selling newspapers (the Spanish American War).

      I think you were going somewhere else with that comment, but I don't see it. The Fairness Doctrine is the only thing I can think of which fits that description.

  • Monopoly really (Score:4, Informative)

    by parallel_prankster ( 1455313 ) on Wednesday April 19, 2017 @09:09AM (#54262781)

    FB and messenger are pretty much one and the same. The other two are companies that Facebook bought to continue its dominance. If this does not show monopolization due to corp then I dont know what does!

    • Re:Monopoly really (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Colin Castro ( 2881349 ) on Wednesday April 19, 2017 @09:43AM (#54262969)
      You have to have messenger to send and read messages on a phone. It's annoying as hell. I deleted my Facebook app though, so much more battery life.
      • by unrtst ( 777550 )

        THIS. This is all I was planning on saying, more or less.
        You can't even view facebook messages on a phone via the browser. I'm pretty sure I would have installed the app if I wasn't so stubbornly opposed to forcing stuff on people.

        I don't think it's a monopoly practice (as the GP stated). Separating messenger off to its own app is actually a good design, and we should probably give them credit for that. However, comparing its download stats to other stand alone apps is disingenuous, and forcing it on people

        • by bondsbw ( 888959 )

          Even if it were a monopoly, I wouldn't say it's necessarily the worst kind of a monopoly (yet). Messenger is free and cross-platform. It is quite feature rich and most people I know already have access to it. And it has helped to replace SMS and its per-message charges for most of my phone text conversations.

          I still personally prefer open software with encrypted communications though.

        • by Kkloe ( 2751395 )
          yes you can actually, you either tell the browser to use desktop mode or use mbasic.facebook.com
      • by hackel ( 10452 )

        Messenger Lite is your friend. I would never install the full-blown, privacy-invading Messenger.

        http://www.apkmirror.com/apk/f... [apkmirror.com]

      • You can switch to desktop mode on your phone and the messages will work again.
      • +1 on Messenger being annoying as hell. Can't be said enough.
    • The number is artificially high. Two are from acquisitions (instagram and whatsapp) and one is because they split one app into two separate apps (Facebook and Facebook Messenger)
  • I know, nobody on /. RTFA, most don't even RTFS, but once in a blue moon someone might, and then it would be REALLY awesome if the links didn't just point back at the summary...

    • According to Sturgeon's Law, half of one of those apps should not be crap. From the list, I can't figure out which one...
  • I use Instagram to keep up with the hotties on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and other TV series I watch on Hulu.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    and get your life back again.

    Facebook wants you to become addicted to their apps. They want your life and for you to be totally dependant upon them for your instantaneous fix of gratification that they dish out like any drug dealer. Don't get addicted. Say No.

  • Netflix still lords over everyone as far as revenue goes.

    Yeah, paying massive license fees to media companies all over the world will require you to do that. It doesn't mean it's particularly impressive or profitable - most of it is not their money.

    Contrast that to Facebook, their costs are mostly internal. While not all their revenue is profit either, a much larger portion is spread around their own operation.

  • ... the apps own you!
  • I always have been of the opinion that Facebook is only so successful, because all other Services and protocols are so bad. Usenet and E-Mail ancient don't fit in todays Messaging needs. I would argue that even fidonet was a better solution for that.

    conclusion: We, the FOSS and Internet community finally need to come up with a distributed Service and protocol that does what Facebook does and get rid of this proprietary data-hog abomination. And we need to build reference Implementations for all Major Plattf

    • by Anonymous Coward

      WebRTC?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebRTC

    • by hackel ( 10452 )

      "We" have done this. Over and over and over. XMPP, Diaspora, GNU social, etc. etc. The fact is, apps these days are all about marketing. Getting the plebs to use anything that isn't advertised and made to seem trendy and popular will never happen. The only hope we have is getting these larger corporations on board with standards-compliance, and sadly that seems to have disappeared as well.

      Usenet and e-mail may have been lacking in certain regards, but they at least adhered to an interoperable standard

  • I have it on good authority from /. posters that no one uses 3 of those 5 apps.

  • I don't have any of them installed! I must be awesome. Or something. I do have Messenger Lite installed, though, just because so many people insist on using it to communicate. It's very frustrating. I wish Facebook would find a way to add RCS compatibility for Messenger and WhatsApp. Standards are a good thing. *sigh*

  • Welcome to the "Top 10" list, where only giant, billion dollar companies roam.
  • If I ever find myself with too many apps on my phone, the fastest, least disruptive and most effective way to save space is to delete Facebook and Facebook messenger. Large apps with large cache, no substantial improvement over website.

    So many large updates, but if you check the Google play store, the perennial "what's new" blurb is simply "improvements for reliability and speed".

    If you're a top engineer with no respect for for your customers go work there. Facebook, how do you sleep?

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

Working...