Comments for Why Don't You Love Flock?

Why Don't You Love Flock?

2009-05-23T16:01:25Z

A few days ago, the social web browser Flock released version 2.5 of their software, integrating Facebook Chat, improving Twitter functionality, and adding a new broadcasting feature called "Flockcast." As we evaluated the upgrade, a thought occurred to us: this browser should be the epitome of everything we love about the social web and yet the company has seen only moderate success. Flock has been downloaded 7.5 million times but has just 1.1 million active users. (Compare that to Firefox's 270 million). Is Flock doing something wrong here? Or is the product just too niche to ever see mainstream success?

]]> New in Flock 2.5

In the latest version of the Flock browser, they've integrated Facebook Chat for instant messaging. You can also drag and drop photos, videos, links, and text right into the chat window. The ability to move media around like this is actually one of Flock's best features - no more browsing for files, everything is drag-and-drop in Flock, including posting media to MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter.

Twitter integration in the new version of Flock has also been improved, now providing access to trending topics and allowing you to save search histories.

The final improvement is the new feature called "Flockcast," which lets you broadcast messages to multiple social networks (MySpace, Bebo, Facebook, Twitter) at once. It's sort of like a scaled down version of social network updating tools like Ping.fm or hellotxt.

So, What's Wrong?

On paper, Flock seems like it should be the browser of our dreams. All our favorite social media addictions wrapped up into one shiny package. It's built on top of the Firefox code base, too, allowing our Firefox add-ons to work in Flock - a feature that should make the transition from one browser to the next that much easier.

So what's wrong with Flock? Where are all the users? Allen Stern was recently pondering this same question, suggesting that Flock release some "lite" versions that just include one feature (e.g. Flock with a Twitter panel only). In doing so, Stern says Flock could appeal to a more mainstream audience. He might be right there, but that's really not Flock's goal, it seems.

Instead, Flock reminds us more of FriendFeed in that they want to appeal to only the most addicted of the social media superstars out there. But unlike FriendFeed, which inspires web-loving folks like our own Marshall Kirkpatrick to delve in and discover valuable ways to use the service, Flock sits idly, being ignored by many those same social media lovers. Why?

Too Much of a Good Thing?

Maybe the problem with Flock is that it has tried to include too much social media goodness into its web browsing package. To see what we mean, just look at its competition. Today, the hot new browser on the scene is no longer Firefox, it's Chrome. Yes, Google Chrome, the same web browser that doesn't even support add-ons or RSS! It's simple to the point of being almost broken and yet here it sits as my new default browser. It even has web rockstars like Louis Gray admitting that the OS wars may be over and that the browser is the new OS.

Then look at the apps we turn to instead of Flock. Google Reader, for example - all it does is RSS. Or TweetDeck - all it does is Twitter (well, that and Facebook). The point is, these apps are simple, clean, and well-designed. They're the opposite of the information overload that appears in Flock with all its various panels.

Are we subconsciously rebelling against the web's info overload by turning to simplistic applications such as these (and Chrome)? Or does Flock having a winning formula on their hands but have just yet to master the UI design?

Or is the problem with Flock something else entirely? We're curious as to what you think. Do you use Flock? Do you love it? Do you hate it? Tell us why in the comments.

Comment from Rich (new !) on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:17:37Z

It could be good, but it's too cluttered for my liking.

Comment from Anika Malone on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:21:12Z

I've been using it for a year. It's the perfect browser for me as a blogger and social media user. I love that I can set up multiple accounts for email or whatever website. I like that I can send updates to Twitter from the sidebar. I wish I could reply/retweet/DM from the sidebar to Twitter and Facebook. I also wish it had FF support. But I love, love, love having all my feeds in one page instead of having to go to GR for them.

Comment from Helen Sventitsky on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:21:59Z

I stopped using flock around 1.0. It kept snogging my computer resources, and per Rich, WAY too cluttered. I may try it again, tho'.

Comment from Tristan Seligmann on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:22:14Z

Firefox does everything I need, so Flock doesn't really hold any interest for me.

Comment from Metin on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:24:17Z

information overload is the problem with flock.

Comment from Aaron Hood on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:25:21Z

I might give it a try.

Comment from Christian Adams on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:25:40Z

I think it can be information overload. I have yet to use Flock. I did download it, but haven't installed it. I do have a friend, who is a Social Media wiz, that does use it and loves it. Great GUI design and UX is vital to the success of a application or website. LinkedIn and Myspace are perfect examples of great ideas that have been bogged down with too much text or lack of a navigational flow. We are visual creatures and like the "pretty" pictures. Facebook and Twitter have the right media mix by using the KISS philosophy.

Comment from sofarsoJackBauer on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:25:49Z

The first version was awful it kept crashing on a scheduled 15min interval due to that I haven't tried the new release until I hear at least some major postives.

Comment from Ralf on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:27:18Z

The key problem might be that it's called "A Browser". For whatever reason Browsers have always been sort of an emotional topic. Why else would we speak of "The Browser Wars"?

Forcing people to "switch their browser" is not an easy thing at all. They simply love their Safari, Firefox or Chrome. Occasionally they even debate as people usually do when it comes to religion.

Test driving a new app to access social media services (TweetDeck, Tweetie, you name it) stimulates our curiosity but asking to try a new BROWSER is a total no go.

At least, I'd never quit my loving relationship with Apple's Safari, would you?

In terms of marketing I'd immediately stop speaking about Flock as yet another Browser.

Market it as THE NEXT SOCIAL MEDIA COCKPIT and ask Arrington to test drive it. Success will be with you.

Comment from Tony Steward on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:28:22Z

For me the problem is that Flock is disruptive to Twitter. For any power user that Flock is appealing to, is going to be following way more people than their implementation of Twitter is going to be able to handle.

Being able to easily disable certain Flock services would be nice, integration like ht they have with Facebook - but with Meebo instead could be huge - and better Google Doc. So not just features for social networks but also the social web work environments.

Comment from vijay on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:28:37Z

Flock has to be as fast as Chrome to even stand a chance.

Comment from Ann O on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:30:55Z

I tried FLOCK after hearing about it at Computers in Libraries. I don't like it - it is too busy even for someone with ADD. I much prefer a cleaner look. It also seems very slow, something I hate in a browser.

Comment from Rich (new !) on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:31:22Z

There was a rumour ages ago that they were going to fork Chromium and replicate the current feature set. Don't really see that happening any time soon though.

Comment from Oleksandr on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:31:23Z

Well, I just have a personal nag against Firefox, it's just a dead-slow browser(I'd even prefer IE to FF), and a damn irritating one because of it's "extensibility" that is done in a true Japanese style which most Europeans dislike(give us so much functionality that we can get lost in it). Having Flock built on top of that sort of killed it for me from the get go.

I use Chrome as my default browser(previously I used Opera) for me it's not about the browser, but about speed, speed and more speed, the browser is just a gateway, it's the web that actually serves the content. Implementing shortcuts to one type of content or another is kind of non-sence as well. I mean say I just want to Google the next plain times, I don't need my browser connecting to Facebook, Twitter and FriendFeed for me, I'll do that when I have to do that.

Even if we are turning to the live streaming world now, we can only handle so many streams at once, I usually just stay on Twitter and visit Facebook once a week to accept and deny photos, etc. I don't need to be connected to it all the time. So yeah, I guess a level of seperation is nice, and a mashup the way flock has done it is a terrible idea.

P.S. I live on my netbook, so screenspace is very important to me as well:)

Comment from Yahya Sheikho on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:34:12Z

it's my browser numero UNO

Comment from John on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:35:15Z

I tried Flock a few years ago when it first came out. At the time I liked its integration with various social media services. The trouble is that it was hogging too much of my computer's resources. (It was far worse than Firefox in that regard.) Now, I'm sure it has improved since then, and I was working on a rather slow computer at the time, but it wouldn't surprise me if other potential users had similar problems.

Meanwhile Firefox and a few other apps take care of most of my needs, so why switch?

Comment from Richard A. on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:35:44Z

It uses too much ram, overheats the computer.

Comment from Michelle Marie Miller on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:36:52Z

Oh, I do and I really love the new update for Twitter and FB.

Comment from BCK on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:45:46Z

Chrome and Bookmarklets do everything I need, the rest is covered by desktop clients

Comment from ashish damania on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:53:08Z

I did give it a try when it came out in 2006(Not sure about the year) but it was not compelling enough to make it my regular browser. I will give it a try today.

Comment from Rishabh Mishra (p248) on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:54:13Z

Flock includes too much functionality from the start. I'm not really, really big on social media, so there were a lot of the Flock features that were just taking up space. The great thing about Firefox is that it starts out with things that nearly everybody needs, and then you can add functionality to create an awesome customized browser. If you are interested in reading more of my words on Flock, you can read my blog post "Why I Think Firefox Is Better than Flock" http://codingexperiments.com/why-i-think-firefox-is-better-than-flock/

Comment from Ozgur Poyrazoglu on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T16:57:22Z

I like it because it is so easy to upload to Flickr (i think i use flock only for uploading to flickr) (and it is really great to follow fellow flickr users via flock)

Comment from Matt Leifer on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T17:04:34Z

I was a Flock user for about a year and I really liked the way that the social features were integrated into the browser in a streamlined way. You can achieve the same functionality with extensions in Firefox, but it involves installing a lot of different extensions that all have different user interfaces and can fail randomly or conflict with one another. Having said that, I switched back to a fairly vanilla Firefox install due to slowness and too many crashes in Flock. More recently, I have been experiencing a lot of freezing and crashes in Firefox, so I have switched to the fastest, most streamlined browsers I can find, which are Camino and Safari on the Mac at the moment. When Chrome comes out on the Mac I will probably switch to that because I like the idea that the browser won't freeze if there is a problem with a script in one of the tabs.

Basically, the problem is that I have a lot of heavy web apps open most of the time, e.g. gmail, google reader, friendfeed, etc., and most browsers are not stable under the weight of so many scripts running at the same time. As I rely on these apps, speed and stability will always win out over features for me. Additionally, AJAX and other web technologies mean that the websites themselves can provide a lot of the features that you used to need Flock or Firefox extensions to achieve.

Comment from Benjamin A. Wendelboe on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T17:05:58Z

Too cluttered interface and the fact that it was built on gecko rather than webkit makes me go back to Safari everytime I've downloaded Flock..

Comment from sovereignjohn on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T17:06:51Z

Flock 2.5 is giving me so much trouble on my mac book I'm using stainless for now.

Comment from Sakina on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T17:11:36Z

The idea of a social browser doesn't excite me. Facebook works fine in Chrome, why use Flock?

Comment from carl christian on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T17:27:59Z

I agree with those who argue that the problem is information overload. (same with FriendFeed and the similars) - It just feels like going to the movies, briging some schoolbooks, The latest papers, A glossy magazine and listening to a podcast with NY-Times Backstory and talking on the phone at the same time. It might work very vell for some, but i think that will be few of us. (and with quicksilver i dont have any problem to swith between differen apps and tabs in my browser)

Comment from sofarsoJackBauer on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T17:34:58Z

Thx John, there we go, same problems I experienced with v. 1 there's much better browsers out there, and until it can compete with the big boys, pass.

Comment from LPH™ and his dog P™ on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T17:38:35Z

I cannot run flock at work - so it is of no value to me :(

Comment from Patrick Jordan on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T17:38:44Z

Agree with Rich, Helen, others above - wanted to like it and do like some of the social stuff being so integrated, but the performance / resource-hogging traits were too much to handle - much prefer Firefox ...

Comment from Nick on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T17:43:05Z

Flock has been downloaded 7.5 times but has just 1.1 million active users.

Missing word. Do you mean 7.5 million times?

Comment from David on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T17:44:05Z

I tried the new 2.5 version and liked the integration and speed so much that it's now my default browser. Was on Firefox before that. Works great on my Macbook Pro.

Comment from Eric on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T17:50:04Z

Flock is my personal favorite browser for Facebook and drag and drop Blogging. It does seem like it should be the default browser for social media. The complexity constraints that may impede mass adoption have flip side benefits. Which are only realized after investing the time to properly set-up the browser. I have learned not to add to many additional Firefox extensions to prevent freezing, etc. I use multiple browsers and optimize each based on how I primarily use them and what options are available for that particular browser. Flock does many things that are unique to the browser and are also powerful time savers. It is definitely my primary browser presently and I hope it see's further adoption. Smart developers deserve the support.

Comment from Todd on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T17:51:39Z

"Why don't you love Flock?"

Same reason I think facebook sucks - tries to do everything, does it poorly. I also do not wear a watch that has an MP3 player.

A browser needs to be really good at one thing: Rendering HTML as efficiently as possible, with the fewest errors, should not balk or crash at what it doesn't understand...

...which is a good description of both FireFox and Chrome.

Comment from Matthew Kerr on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T17:54:30Z

There is too much stuff to learn. With Twitter especially i have a kind of client ADD - I've been through all the big names, nambu's epileptic betas, and now have Tweetie sitting there. and on the iphone, i've ploughed through even more, both paid and free. Maybe when use of these tools has stabilized you will be able to start combining them, but until i know how to use twitter, i want to try different things, which calls for a lean client.

I think it's similar to Coda - until the use of all of those bits is a known (and it took a long time for that to become clear enough for coda) it makes sense to have the thin clients. going to an all in one social media client is one level of abstraction we aren't ready for yet.

Comment from Zu_ElijahBailey on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T17:55:07Z

I used it and then I stopped, but now on it and with Chrome by my side, things go pretty good, finally enjoying it again, thanks for reminding me how good it was, there you go Flock, said it. It's not that I don't want to use it, but I forgot what I wanted from it, and it's exactly that. I must've lost my installation or something, I remember successfully doing its portable version thinstalled on my thumb drive and then: BLANK. It's the feeds that are well placed, the media bar, you can really have what you care in the biggest APIs pretty rapidly through that type of UI. (Tried the first 2 betas for the record.)

Comment from Manuel Mas on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T17:57:10Z

As many have said, it's too cluttered for my taste. if they could have all the functionality with a clean design where all features were accessed by just one button on the menu bar then it could make me check it out. Also, it's actually improving in terms of resources. Yet, I am interested in their move to Webkit. Would like to know why are they leaving Gecko behind?

Comment from Anika Malone on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T18:02:19Z

What are you talking about Manuel. All the features are small icons on a tab next to the bookmarklet bar, or you can arrange them to be on your menu bar. http://www.flickr.com/photos/anikascreations/3556576531/

Comment from Manuel Mas on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T18:04:25Z

Anika: Yes, yet that area on the top left-upper quadrant of the browser is full of icons, stars, too much stuff going on. I think people appreciate clean, almost transparent design a la Chrome. If they could keep their current functionality and appear to be lighter on the eyes, they may have something going.

Comment from Anika Malone on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T18:05:29Z

All that stuff is editable. You don't have to have it. The sole star identifies your favorites; pages you've bookmarked.

Comment from Jason Huebel on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T18:06:09Z

Too much packed into one app. It's ungainly.

Comment from Patrik Johansson on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T18:06:31Z

Naah, I've moved over to Chrome.

Comment from Zu_ElijahBailey on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T18:18:49Z

Well, that being said makes me think. I never saw that application as a change of life and style. I see it as an additional tool. My favorite browser (may 23-2:25pm) is Chrome for its amazingly fast JavaScript performances. 8) But some nights, I feel like treating the information another way. The ideas or results of that work are what's missing when I'm not using it, the 'information opportunities' I would say. That's why I installed back as I read Sarah's title. And hey, got *TONS* of apps so I really just don't care having all the versions as long as I've made 'em portable. It's just my frequency of use that will change.

Comment from embee on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T18:23:00Z

cluttered + clunk IMO

Comment from MacStories on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T19:07:27Z

Flock has got such a horrible user interface.
I mean, feels like 20 sites in 1 window.

Comment from Adam Pieniazek on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T19:08:19Z

Multi-tasking is dead.

We're all slowly but surely realizing that having 50 million things going on at once makes us much less productive. Being able to focus on one task at a time leads to better and more efficient results. Even if multi-tasking was still all the rage, Flock has another big negative, it's slow.

Speed is crucial in my browser. I use Safari 90% of the time an FF the other 10% because I find Safari to be much zippier than FF. As for Flock, tried it a few years back and it kept crashing repeatedly, customer service was nearly non-existent, the FF plugins didn't work/install most of the time and on top of all those negatives, all the service integration made it slow as molasses.

Comment from sofarsoJackBauer on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T19:13:23Z

dysfunctional, it cites that most mozilla add-ons work but doesn't list which one's so your guess is as good as mine the result it crashes on a regular scheduled program 2 minutes after start up #FAIL ~ there's enough add ons to "social" facebook into your browser that you don't need a browser dedicated to it in and of itself: which I regard as Flock's sole identity/purpose

Comment from Zu_ElijahBailey on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T19:18:35Z

There's a list of the addons listed on their homepage working with Flock. Try the rest and see.

Comment from Yino on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T19:19:07Z

I met Flock when it was on the 2.0 version, and I really liked it, but eventually it started using too many resources, it took too long to load and it had frequent crashes and I had to ditch it. I tried the 2.5 version and the resources consumption has improved quite well. But I find it slower and it has problems with some Firefox extensions.
Plus I already use FF with Seesmic Desktop, so I'm not switching.

Comment from Anika Malone on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T19:21:38Z

Add-ons I use with Flock: Foxytunes, Shareaholic, Blank Canvas Gmail Sigs, Zemanta & Stumble Upon. Those are all I need as all the other add-ons I used with Firefox are already built into Flock.

Comment from sofarsoJackBauer on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T19:27:12Z

That's another thing I find problematic; it builds in add-ons that I'll never use which bloats it's memory usage. Like Embee said "Cluttered and Clunk."

Comment from Michael Rowe on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T19:35:17Z

I love the idea of integrating all my social media tools in the browser, but the interface is too cluttered for my liking. I want the tools available, but hidden until I need them. I find it hard to simply browse without being distracted to the point of not actually being able to work.

I always try Flock when an updated version is released, only to go back to Firefox within a day or so. It's a pity because in theory, this should be my default browser.

Comment from Anika Malone on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T19:36:36Z

See, Sean, I think if you don't blog a lot, nor access/upload lot of photos/videos or use multiple social media or email accounts, then Flock is pretty much useless to you. Stick with FF or Chrome for the simplicity. I would never tell my husband to use Flock because he doesn't blog, he, doesn't need to search for images or video and he's not a social media user nor does he read a lot of feeds like I do. I only switched to Flock last may because of Firefox's memory suckage (which was way worse for me than Flock) and it's constant crashing every 10 min. Even disabling all the add-ons in Firefox didn't stop it from sucking and I lost functionality which made blogging way harder for me.

Comment from Zu_ElijahBailey on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T19:38:18Z

Good point Anika, I was using ScribeFire before in FFox but finally lost touch, when I installed the latest Firefox build, I kept it with minimal addons, I forgot Firefox was running that fast, got used to my constant discoveries of millions of addons to play with. ;p

Comment from Zu_ElijahBailey on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T19:40:01Z

With Flock, I was actually really blogging often during a certain timeframe. That, I witnessed. The interface it was having at the time (since I haven't seen its features now) was pretty easy going, saving pretty much anything you want by drag n drop/text selection for the easy sharing, or drafting at ease.

Comment from Anika Malone on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T19:42:16Z

Yeah, I have 7 blogs and guest post to 5 others. The blog editor in the browser makes it easy for me to jot down notes, get photos from flickr and save stuff. I like that I can post to those blogs straight from the browser's blog editor. Saves me from having to log in to all of them and dealing with WP directly.

Comment from Rich (new !) on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T19:42:40Z

Scribefire offers the same functionality in firefox btw.

Comment from Mike on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T19:45:30Z

Flock is great on the surface. However it's too cumbersome for most computers. I tried it on a macbook pro and it was too sluggish. FireFox can be customized to include all the extras and you can pick and choose what social media features you want to integrate. Having them all pre-packaged may be overkill. Although the idea of posting to multiple networks is great having too many sidebars is invasive to the browser experience. I've found the best browser sharing tool is the feedly bar. It sits inconspicuously at the bottom of the browser so you hardly even notice it. It doesn't require any keyboard shortcuts or extra buttons to call up its interface. If I want to tweet a link I push the tweet button. If I want to email or share a link to google reader I just push a button. But it doesn't interfere with the rest of my browser experience. I don't think the average user posts on multiple platforms on a regular basis. They have one favorite and that's what they use. But that's just my opinion. I will have to try out the new version of Flock and see.

Comment from MarkCarras on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T19:47:01Z

Maybe if social media was a paying gig instead of a dream of mine I could use something like this. For what I do now it is way too cluttered.

Comment from Zu_ElijahBailey on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T19:47:40Z

@Rich> I meant ScribeFire in Firefox, unless you haven't read it and was answering to Anika. ;p

Comment from MS on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T19:49:46Z

A browser should just be a browser and should be the best at that function. Other things can be added as extensions but should NOT define the product.

I would like my browser to be fast, support javascript well, support extensions, make browsing, tab usage easier etc. That is the most important part. After that, if I so choose, I can add extensions to augment my usage. But I wouldn't choose a browser that is not half as good as the best ones but adds other unrelated functionality that I may or may not use.

Comment from Bertil on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T20:13:25Z

It's cluttered, but many buttons would be useful to me, so I gacve it a try. Only the last message appears from Twitter, preventing any conversation ; Facebook feed is somewhat filtered, but I can't tell what's the logic. That wouldn't be so bad if I didn't complained about that — only to receive an answer from Flock wondering how come I was expecting to have *conversations* with Twitter. Isn't that the point of both Twitter and Flock? So too bad for them.

Comment from Asa on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T20:31:48Z

Firefox doesn't have 175 million users. That data is a full year old. Firefox's current user base is just above 270 million users. You can read more about that at my blog post on the subject.

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2009/05/firefox_at_270.html

Comment from William S Wilkinson, P.A. on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T20:34:27Z

Flock does not allow me to get things done, ie: click on a link to update a website. Usually hits a dead end. I tried to contact Flock, they never answer.
They need to grow up and realize that there are problems and that if they want to have a following they need to help people that are having problems...

Comment from Rob Record on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T20:39:11Z

I used Flock for AGES and loved it, but ditched it when Safari 4 beta came out. I immediately sighed in relief - it was so much faster. Flock is too heavyweight for an all-purpose browser. Although I use many, many social applications, they certainly aren't the only pages I visit. I need a browser that can handle ANYTHING I throw at it. I need to be able to open a window or tab quickly and with no fuss or UI in the way.

Plus I don't like the Firefox UI or XPI framework.

I might go back to Flock for occasional gorging on social media, but I've almost forgotten about it since I switched back.

Flock light might be nice, but it wouldn't make me switch.

Comment from Drew on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T20:47:28Z

I think the # of people who use web browsers for more than just looking at an internet portal page, prefer Firefox...who was on the scene first. They download extensions that do everything that Flock does. Flock has to hit that mainstream group that isn't fanatical and isn't a novice. It's not easy.

Comment from IdeaTagger on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T20:48:35Z

Never tried it. Flock has two problems in my opinion
a) It is ahead of its time
b) It is a browser. The trouble is I (and I suspect most people) do not change my browser lightly. It took me ages to switch to Firefox from I.E. and I still haven't tried Chrome.

I reckon Flock has three options:
1. Build a mobile browser - on mobile, at least for now, there are no clear browser kings so switching isn't that big a deal.
2. Switch to building plug-ins for Firefox and later Chrome.
3. Get bought by one of the established browsers.

Comment from Jigar Shah on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T20:55:59Z

Yes...Information overload. I would love each feature of flock as separate addon. hey will be most powerful ones though. But then where to get revenues from..?? Hmmm...Good question...:)

Comment from Sebastian on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T20:56:24Z

The problem in my opinion is clearly the UI, in two ways:

1. The overall theme (colors, buttons, etc.) is too overwhelming. It's kind of like the MySpace of browsers. Ok, it's not *that* bad, but it's close. They seriously need to simplify the design, either to a native look (like Firefox, Opera and Safari on Mac) or to a clean non-native look (like Chrome).

2. Flock should hide its features. Even social media whiz kids don't need all that stuff. It should try to be a Firefox that detects which additional stuff you need.

I'm not a designer, so I can't explain that in the correct terms, but you can design a feature to look light-weight or heavy. Chrome is totally light-weight. It not only is fast, it also looks fast.
Flock needs to do that.

Comment from Howard Shippin on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T22:26:03Z

I've been using Flock as my home browser for years, from its very early days. From version to version, it keeps getting better.

But it's a home browser: I keep separate social network profiles for official and private use, so the best way to handle that is to use different browsers. I use Firefox at the office and Flock at home, especially if I'm planning to spend a lot of time on the web.

Things I like about it: The RSS reader is faster and easier on the eye than Google Reader and other online feed readers - it seems sensible to have a feed reader built into the browser, so that feeds can load in the background. The integration with Delicious is great - it shows me when a page has already been bookmarked. I can keep an eye on and respond to Twitter and Facebook without being on those sites or leaving my regular browsing. The blog editor is useful. It's easy to copy links or web pages to broadcast elsewhere. It has a built-in notifier for new email. And there are still Flock features I don't use, like the Flickr uploader (I use Picasaweb).

There are things I don't like about Flock, too. The problem with a browser that tries to do too much is that it inevitably leaves a lot out. It supports some social networks, but not others, some picture services, but not others, etc. And in Flock under Linux, sound for Flash movies is broken.

Information overload is a problem of the internet, rather than the browser that delivers the information. Flock may be more complicated to learn than say, Chrome, but when you become comfortable with it, you can get a lot more done. In addition, Flock recognizes more than other browsers that information is a two-way stream, and gives us tools to be creative.

Comment from DMI Wench on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T22:41:01Z

Flock has many of the features I use already built in, whereas Firefox requires extensions for most of them. However, I found Flock to be very slow on loading and updating, especially when logged into all the services it has options for. I used it for a while, then went back to Firefox. It's just easier and faster to use, and I actually enjoy the modularity of extensions.

Comment from Wayne Sutton on 2009-05-23

2009-05-23T23:59:02Z

The last time I tried flock which was at least a year ago, it was using a lot of my cpu memory and was crashing. I'm going to give Flock another try and see if it's better.

Comment from John Arrowsmith on 2009-05-23

2009-05-24T00:00:23Z

I like the concept of Flock, but there is often a significant time lag between the time you see posts on Twitter or Facebook and the time they show up in Flock. On the other hand the Friend Feed notifications of new posts from Facebook and Twitter and Twine appear in a more timely manner they float an alert on your desktop for a few seconds to let you know. I actually post most of my bookmarks and Tweets using Twine, but I use Friend Feed for the alerts.

Comment from Carlton Hackett on 2009-05-23

2009-05-24T00:02:27Z

I do like Flock, I'm mostly waiting for them to fix their Twitter and Facebook feeds, and then they might win in my personal browser war. lol

Comment from Kol Tregaskes on 2009-05-23

2009-05-24T00:09:50Z

When it gets powered by Chrome I might like it again. ;-)

Comment from Alistair on 2009-05-23

2009-05-24T00:39:32Z

I have gone back to flock. I really like it. Tend to find Firefox a bit bland now. I honestly don't remember it crashing, even after throwing on quite a few add-ons. And i've been running it on a couple of old slow PC's. It's great for 'checking in' on social networks or finding things quickly.

Comment from Amy H. on 2009-05-23

2009-05-24T00:54:07Z

I love flock. Perfect for blogging, pic uploads to picasa, twitter (though I use gwibber mostly), email and delicious. I love the browser. I disable the stuff I don't need and add the functionality I do need through firefox addons. It's the best of both worlds.

Comment from virginian9000 on 2009-05-23

2009-05-24T01:05:08Z

I used Flock for a while, but it always had way too many options that I never used. I went back to Firefox.

Comment from Nate on 2009-05-23

2009-05-24T01:59:30Z

Wyzo is so much better...I use STREAMY as my start page to handle facebook, digg, and RSS. It has a ton more to add but those are the only ones I use. I keep twitter seperate by using tweetie for mac. I also use adium for facebook chat and AIM. Wyzo is firefox with BT built in among other cool things. Check out both STREAMY and WYZO!!!!!!!

Comment from Evan McDaniel on 2009-05-23

2009-05-24T04:33:36Z

I used it regularly for awhile, but like many others I eventually got tired of of it's overall lack of speed. I've been using Safari 4 Beta and loving how fast it is.

I still use Firefox when doing web dev (Web Developer add-on is a must have), but would use Chrome if it had add-ons.

I'm gonna try the new Flock though - I think it has a TON of potential if they can figure out how to make it more speedy.

Comment from aviflax.com on 2009-05-23

2009-05-24T05:10:25Z

I use Safari and Camino, for one reason: speed. Looking forward to Chrome for the same reason, plus better stability.

Comment from Adam on 2009-05-23

2009-05-24T05:19:54Z

My issue with flock is just an issue of: "Does it add enough value, convenience, or functionality above other browsers that I would alter my behavior long-term to use and recommend it?"

Honestly. No.

The Browser doesn't have functionality I do want (things that would make me as a pseudo-web worker more productive) and contains all of the functionality that is designed to, basically, waste my time or distract me.

The fact that Flock, technologically, is usually at least a version behind the latest Firefox beta/release technologically makes me also feel like I'm using antiquated software.

Design wise I find that it makes my browsing experience less pleasurable by taking away valuable screen real-estate. It also feels very "plastic". I love the design concepts, but the implementation reminds me of something that Playskool would produce.

Ultimately, it boils down to: It doesn't add enough value that I would switch.. everything it does I have an app or an extension for that does it better.

Comment from Mike Riversdale on 2009-05-24

2009-05-24T07:57:10Z

I'd agree - I love the dream but it's not worth the brain power to use.

Comment from Dinesh on 2009-05-24

2009-05-24T08:29:15Z

I had used Flock for quite a long period during the v1.x days and really liked its social integration. I had switched back to Firefox however, mainly because it became a memory hog (yes more than Firefox). For example a no tab startup of the browser used to take close to 60-70 MB and with multiple tabs it would easily go to 400+ MB. My recent browser usage has been more on Chrome (even this takes up lots of memory), mostly for two reasons, quick startup and its individual process model will ensure that the memory is released, and with flock the only way is a restart of the browser.

Comment from kukukuan on 2009-05-24

2009-05-24T08:34:19Z

Too many things packed into one appliaction.
Flock needs a genius to figure out the logic structure of different web apps.

Comment from Maxim Grinev on 2009-05-24

2009-05-24T09:48:49Z

Flock supports functionality (such as sharing or reading real-time updates from Twitter) that does not require tight integration with a browser. You can easily do these via bookmarklets and in a new tab of your favorite browser. On the other hand Flock does not support important feature: it does not provide the (personalized) context for what you are browsing at the moment - I want to see all comments, likes, etc from my friends/followees from all services (e.g. Twitter, FF, etc) about the Web page/site I am currently reading. I have described this idea at length in my post "Social Browsers: Only Half Way There"

Comment from moon_shadow70 on 2009-05-24

2009-05-24T11:04:42Z

I used to use it, but switched to Chrome. Flock seemed to use what ever RAM I a had available. (Granted I use computers that are over 5 years old with maxed out RAM). What I did like was the updates in the friends statuses- especially since FB changed its layout.

Comment from Rick Cogley on 2009-05-24

2009-05-24T13:16:26Z

I use Flock, but, I gradually migrated away from the various social aspects of it, to other programs. I now use NetNewsWire for RSS and Mars Edit for blogging. I think it's a pretty good tool, but none of the tools in it struck me as superior.

Comment from Sebastian on 2009-05-24

2009-05-24T13:49:55Z

I think people don't like a package of preset functions like Flock is. Internet is open and generative and the people know it intuitivaly. Flock is open since you can add apps from Firefox, but it is already a preset package when you download it and I think that is the problem.

Comment from ville on 2009-05-24

2009-05-24T14:33:27Z

I see the words social networking and I avoid.

Comment from factoryjoe.com on 2009-05-24

2009-05-24T15:20:45Z

It's funny that the focus on criticism here seems to be on the complexity of Flock. I definitely think that a successful "social browser" will need to achieve simplicity while also making it possible to interact with one's friends.

When I was doing the original design for Flock, I was very much inspired by QuickSilver (which also inspired Ubiquity in Firefox). You can see how utterly simplistic (perhaps TOO simple) I was trying to make interaction in the early versions of Flock (first called Round Two):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/3529664/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/3529663/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/3442808/

The idea was that you'd have this "action button" that you'd drag anything on to, and you'd get a bunch of social context around the object. The idea never went anywhere, and I definitely admit that it was unlikely to go anywhere, but the tension between complete (and undiscoverable) simplicity and the complexity of providing access to all your services has been there from the beginning.

Comment from Jomar on 2009-05-24

2009-05-24T15:29:03Z

Been using it since it came out. Too bad it keeps giving me a "NOT RESPONDING" or crashes everytime I'm ready to quit it.

Comment from kgyst.myopenid.com on 2009-05-24

2009-05-24T15:36:19Z

I think the main problem with Flock and similar programs (including FriendFeed) is the inability to be an 'abstract' client for some kinds of web services.

For example, Flock has a Twitter support, but it doesn't woks with Plurk. I it also worked with Plurk, it wouldn't work with ten more similar services.

Here, in Hungary, Facebook isn't too popular, but more then 40% of the country's population uses wiw.hu. Flock doesn't support this, and I'm afraid that it won't do it. anytime.

I want to emphasize two typical Web2.0 problems:
a) Alhtough Flock supports most Web2.0 services, there is a "long tail" of services used by less people, but most of Web2.0 addict uses quite many of these services, and misses their integration.
b) There sholud be aother long tail, that of the amateur programmers'. If there was a simple API for working with microblogging services, with a pre-written example of Twitter, the folks should make plugins for Plurk and other similar services. So the user would be able to pick his/her favorite services, and this would give Flock its real advance against Firefox, for example. But now only some selected apps are supported.

I think very the same problem exists with the FriendFeed: its partner-sites' plugins are maintained by FriendFeed's own crew, so there isn't capacity to integrate much more (ten or a hundred times more) services. It should be done by amateurs.

And one more thought: in general the simpler an API is, the more people start using it. The plugins for the Flock should be five row-length regular expressions.

Comment from DJ on 2009-05-24

2009-05-24T15:49:21Z

Think I'll give Flock a try.

Comment from Bradley on 2009-05-24

2009-05-24T18:25:32Z

I don't care for the interface design of Flock, it seems to clunky and rigid. Firefox works perfectly when I want to use plug-ins and suck up tons of memory. I'd have to say Chrome is currently my favorite browser.

Comment from Marie Casas on 2009-05-24

2009-05-24T19:16:05Z

Flock has been my default browser since 2007, I believe. Suitable to online marketers and social media addicts. But it does take a long time to open so if I'm in a hurry or just want to quickly google or check web-based email, I'll just use Chrome or Safari instead.
All my Firefox add-ons work just fine on Flock, which Flock should really emphasize on their site.
Of the Flock extra functions, I like to use the Media Bar, accounts, and quick access to email. I also like the implementation of Favorites.
Not Blog editor, I still just login to the web admin or use Live Writer. Not Feeds, I still use GReader.

Comment from Aaron Sokol on 2009-05-24

2009-05-24T23:14:50Z

The most surprising thing about Flock is that in spite of all its features which should make it very clunky, it has been the most consistently reliable browser I have tested on multiple platforms. Even though it is build on Firefox code, it seems to almost always perform faster and more accurately than Firefox! It may not be as fast as Chrome, but Chrome is buggy and has its share of issues that need to be worked out. As far as an all around solid browser, only Safari comes close to Flock in my opinion.

Comment from Neil on 2009-05-24

2009-05-24T23:46:45Z

I've tried Flock a couple of times. I don't use it because (1) I've found it buggy (e.g. it starts eating 100% of my CPU) and (2) it does nothing that Firefox + extensions can't do as well, if not better.

Comment from Stuart Forsyth on 2009-05-25

2009-05-25T07:25:30Z

Flock is a browser that needs to go on diet.

Comment from Alan Forsyth on 2009-05-25

2009-05-25T08:25:50Z

I've used Flock for several years (since 0.9x), both on PC and now Mac.
At first I was really excited about having everything 'on automatically' in one place, but as many others have said, over time the performance issues and it being a big resource hog (sometimes > 500MB after a few hours of use) lessen the excitement. I do still prefer the 'blue' Flock UI to Firefox, though.

These days I am using Safari 3 / 4 more and more on the Mac for general web browsing (and like the look of Google Chrome). As Chrome / Safari add more development tools and extensions, I will probably make a final definitive switch from Flock/Firefox, unless Flock becomes 'lean and mean', perhaps through the use of WebKit and extension profiles?

It's perhaps a sign of the times ... I used to expect to use behemoths like Microsoft Office Outlook, Dreamweaver and Visual Studio for daily tasks and heavy 'frameworks' such as Yahoo desktop widgets for extra functionality. Now most of my daily work has moved to lightweight, smart web pages or small, refined, single-purpose desktop apps.

Comment from Amit on 2009-05-25

2009-05-25T08:56:22Z

I found Flock too slow and always hogged up my PC memory. Its too much cluttered with too many bars. I would prefer opening the specific apps, aka facebook, twitter etc, in different tabs than see them irritating me in a top/side bar.

Moreover the notifying job is far better done by Digsby and its a desktop simple app too.

Comment from technogran on 2009-05-25

2009-05-25T15:43:02Z

The problem is simply this. Flock has always relied on 'word of mouth' to spread right from its inception so the plain truth is users don't know about it! Or when they try it, they just don't know its potential. Its more than twitter, facebook and my space, its a RSS feed reader, a blog editor, a photo uploader, where else can you see ALL your friends photos when they update them whether they be on Facebook, flickr, picasa, etc? Flock is all about keeping up with ALL updates from everywhere you have an account, not just Facebook et al.
I don't find it too busy, I use the My World page which updates live, and everything is just 1 click away.Once people realised just how useful Flock is, then they wouldn't use anything else.

Comment from John on 2009-05-25

2009-05-26T02:14:10Z

I just started using Flock again with its new release. I'm giving it another try. I really like a lot of its features but find the media stream to be a bit too much at times. Also, with respect to twitter, I think it's important for them to add user groups and url shorteners. I never look at all of my followers, only certain thought leaders in social media. This is flock's downfall to me. But for blogging on wordpress and sending quick updates to facebook, I like flock a lot. It seems like the memory hogging issue is a bit better with this release but we'll see. I'd like to give the ever-so-fast Chrome a try but they haven't released the mac version yet.

Comment from watches on 2009-05-25

2009-05-26T02:53:15Z

perhaps there are many different opionions,but to me ,i think it rather good.although sometimes too slow.

Comment from Moksh on 2009-05-26

2009-05-26T13:06:58Z

Used for Flock , loved the whole idea having facebook, twitter, flickr, youtube, gmail - all-in-one.

But then that leads to a lot of fatigue, bacause of very high multi-tasking mode and at the same time, this keeps us distracted from the important things that we want to focues on!!

Comment from Jay on 2009-05-26

2009-05-26T13:07:12Z

I don't think we are subconsciously rebelling against the web's info overload, but I do think that the beauty of the web is that we can tailor the level, and method, of our involvement.

For me Flock misses the mark. It's trying to help me interact in a smarter way, but to do so I have to bend or change the way I already use social networks. It's trying to be the glue that holds the social networks together, and that just doesn't work for me.

I use maybe 7 or 8 social networks and I have a way to make them work together. To an extent this is browser independent - I can access Twitter through Twidroid or TweetDeck for example.

Comment from Jack Repenning on 2009-05-26

2009-05-26T17:18:35Z

The fact that you reached out for a convenient short description of Flock's uniqueness and came up with "information overload" pretty much answers your question. People with complex needs of any description want tools that make them simpler. Any kind of "overload" is anathema.

But that's more than UI-design mastery: you probably have to have some fundamental work-flow inspiration.

Comment from michel webdesigner on 2009-05-28

2009-05-28T08:18:56Z

I kind of agree that the browser will become the new OS. Everybody knows that feeling, sitting behind a computer without internet connection....

Comment from Rahsheen on 2009-05-28

2009-05-29T00:29:52Z

So wait, you took Firefox and built in a bunch of social services that I couldn't care less about like Digg and StumbleUpon. Nope, I think I'll stick with Chrome.

It's like ordering a pizza with the works when you hate onions and green peppers.

Comment from jtop on 2009-07-10

2009-07-10T07:42:34Z

There are so many ways, but I just like to use Firefox, and I will try flock now. Thanks your post.

Comment from bundle on 2009-07-16

2009-07-17T03:37:47Z

I love Flock. I've moved away from Firefox because it kept acting buggy and frustratingly slow. I rely on the add-ons as a Web Developer, so I was happy to find that Flock accepts all the same bells and whistles but runs faster and smoother by far.

I don't think Flock is overwhelmed with social options. In one way or another we all want to stay in touch, even if it's just email. Flock rocks because it integrates all the options. The other browsers don't provide that integration if someone wants it. Up until now I relied on several different applications to do what Flock does. Finally, I don't have to keep bouncing around opening and closing apps. It's all right there when I choose it.

Comment from replica breitling on 2009-08-12

2009-08-13T01:31:25Z

Thank you for sharing, I thought.

Replica">http://www.replicas-watchhome.com/">Replica Watches
Replica">http://www.replicas-watchhome.com/">Replica breitling

Comment from replica breitling on 2009-08-13

2009-08-13T14:22:41Z

I thought, thank you for sharing, refueling！！！

Replica">http://www.replicas-watchhome.com/">Replica Watches
Replica">http://www.replicas-watchhome.com/">Replica breitling
Replica">http://www.replicas-watchhome.com/">Replica Rolex
Replica">http://www.replicas-watchhome.com/">Replica Watch
Replica">http://www.replicas-watchhome.com/">Replica Omega

Comment from huangqin on 2009-08-17

2009-08-18T02:07:24Z

cardy ugg boots
cardy ugg
cardy uggs

classic short ugg
classic short uggs
ugg classic short

ugg bailey button
women's bailey button
bailey button ugg

Comment from Emily on 2009-08-26

2009-08-26T23:22:53Z

i really like the persona's add on with fire fox,, but for some reason Firefox will only run in safe mode so i downloaded flock,, i don't mind it,, it is really cluttered looking,,, but i can't get the add on to run,,, is it non compatible?? any one know??