Why Don't You Love Flock?
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.
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
It could be good, but it's too cluttered for my liking.
Posted by: Rich (new !)
|
May 23, 2009 9:17 AM
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.
Posted by: Anika Malone
|
May 23, 2009 9:21 AM
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'.
Posted by: Helen Sventitsky
|
May 23, 2009 9:21 AM
Firefox does everything I need, so Flock doesn't really hold any interest for me.
Posted by: Tristan Seligmann
|
May 23, 2009 9:22 AM
information overload is the problem with flock.
I might give it a try.
Posted by: Aaron Hood
|
May 23, 2009 9:25 AM
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.
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.
Posted by: sofarsoJackBauer
|
May 23, 2009 9:25 AM
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.
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.
Flock has to be as fast as Chrome to even stand a chance.
Posted by: vijay
|
May 23, 2009 9:28 AM
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.
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.
Posted by: Rich (new !)
|
May 23, 2009 9:31 AM
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:)
it's my browser numero UNO
Posted by: Yahya Sheikho
|
May 23, 2009 9:34 AM
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?
It uses too much ram, overheats the computer.
Posted by: Richard A.
|
May 23, 2009 9:35 AM
Oh, I do and I really love the new update for Twitter and FB.
Posted by: Michelle Marie Miller
|
May 23, 2009 9:36 AM
Chrome and Bookmarklets do everything I need, the rest is covered by desktop clients
Posted by: BCK
|
May 23, 2009 9:45 AM
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.
Posted by: ashish damania
|
May 23, 2009 9:53 AM
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/
Posted by: Rishabh Mishra (p248)
|
May 23, 2009 9:54 AM
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)
Posted by: Ozgur Poyrazoglu
|
May 23, 2009 9:57 AM
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.
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..
Flock 2.5 is giving me so much trouble on my mac book I'm using stainless for now.
Posted by: sovereignjohn
|
May 23, 2009 10:06 AM
The idea of a social browser doesn't excite me. Facebook works fine in Chrome, why use Flock?
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)
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.
Posted by: sofarsoJackBauer
|
May 23, 2009 10:34 AM
I cannot run flock at work - so it is of no value to me :(
Posted by: LPH™ and his dog P™
|
May 23, 2009 10:38 AM
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 ...
Posted by: Patrick Jordan
|
May 23, 2009 10:38 AM
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.)
Posted by: Zu_ElijahBailey
|
May 23, 2009 10:55 AM
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?
Posted by: Manuel Mas
|
May 23, 2009 10:57 AM
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/
Posted by: Anika Malone
|
May 23, 2009 11:02 AM
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.
Posted by: Manuel Mas
|
May 23, 2009 11:04 AM
All that stuff is editable. You don't have to have it. The sole star identifies your favorites; pages you've bookmarked.
Posted by: Anika Malone
|
May 23, 2009 11:05 AM
Too much packed into one app. It's ungainly.
Posted by: Jason Huebel
|
May 23, 2009 11:06 AM
Naah, I've moved over to Chrome.
Posted by: Patrik Johansson
|
May 23, 2009 11:06 AM
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.
Posted by: Zu_ElijahBailey
|
May 23, 2009 11:18 AM
cluttered + clunk IMO
Posted by: embee
|
May 23, 2009 11:23 AM
Flock has got such a horrible user interface.
I mean, feels like 20 sites in 1 window.
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.
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
Posted by: sofarsoJackBauer
|
May 23, 2009 12:13 PM
There's a list of the addons listed on their homepage working with Flock. Try the rest and see.
Posted by: Zu_ElijahBailey
|
May 23, 2009 12:18 PM
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.
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.
Posted by: Anika Malone
|
May 23, 2009 12:21 PM
1 2 3 Next