Facebook plans to introduce "lite" version
A large number of Facebook users received a message yesterday, telling them they'd been invited to test something called Facebook Lite. The messages turned out to be an accident, and the users who received them couldn't sign up. Because nobody's seen it yet, there's still a lot of speculation about what Facebook Lite actually is.
Facebook's recent acquisition of FriendFeed has led some people to believe that Facebook Lite is a bare-bones, status-updates-only version of Facebook, designed to compete with Twitter. Although this would make some sense, TechCrunch says it's the wrong answer. Based on information that Facebook Lite is already being tested in India, they're reporting that Facebook Lite is just a slimmer, low-bandwidth version of the site, targeted for users whose Internet connections are too slow to properly use the current version.
Facebook's recent acquisition of FriendFeed has led some people to believe that Facebook Lite is a bare-bones, status-updates-only version of Facebook, designed to compete with Twitter. Although this would make some sense, TechCrunch says it's the wrong answer. Based on information that Facebook Lite is already being tested in India, they're reporting that Facebook Lite is just a slimmer, low-bandwidth version of the site, targeted for users whose Internet connections are too slow to properly use the current version.













Comments
5
Subscribe to commentsMinjin and NedAug 12th 2009 9:04AM
The Twitter like idea would be the smarter way to go...
mkoAug 12th 2009 10:13AM
I'd love a facebook WITHOUT the publisher. I absolutely hate those funny videos my contacts share.
MiguelAug 12th 2009 10:48AM
To me, the word "lite" usually invokes the idea of a free version vs. a paid version. Could Facebook be getting ready to charge for "premium" features?
Saint SeminoleAug 12th 2009 10:52AM
How about "Facebook: Original"? Since most of the people on Facebook joined under a previous incarnation (and some have already left because of the interface changes), it would make sense to roll out a "retro" version of the site.
Heck, even I might be persuaded to rejoin if they re-introduced the Facebook of two years ago, which worked better, was easier to use, easier to find settings, easier to contact my friends, etc.
seriousam7Aug 12th 2009 1:01PM
There's a 'settings' button right there in plain sight at the top of the page. How much easier could it possibly have been to find the settings?