> AND they integrated live video directly into the app that many of those users already have, rather than a separate app most of them don't.

> "App constellations" may be a better user experience... if you bother to download the whole constellation... but I think a similar principle to "the best camera is one you have with you" applies.

I agree. Why does Facebook insist on Messages being a separate app then? They should re-integrate it into the main app for all the reasons you wrote.

I am often in and out of the messenger app without being interrupted by the clutter of FB itself. I look at FB when I have some time (maybe waiting in line or whatever) while I actually use messenger for, you know, messaging. The app has its own message count badge, for instance, while FB's badge includes both contact requests and updates.

It's a case where disaggregation helps the user experience.

I imagine it's because Facebook has a huge amount of existing penetration and active usage with Facebook Messenger which allows them to have a separate app. They already have the stickiness with the platform.

I imagine, once live streaming gets a sufficient enough user base, it'll have its own application experience.

> Why does Facebook insist on Messages being a separate app then?

Well for one, you can use it now without having a Facebook account at all, and it can also be used as your SMS app (at least the latest version on Android).

Messenger is the new Facebook – there won't be a re-integration, it will more and more replace today's Facebook as we know it.

I don't understand the reasoning behind your conjecture but I don't see that happening because of the different modes of interaction. Messenger is more of a 1-1 channel that focuses on the immediate. Facebook is more of a broadcast channel focusing on passive, asynchronous, entertaining items.

WeChat has been successful with the model that you talk though .... Never say never ...

I don't see where Messenger could replace the Facebook native app at all...Messenger is growing every day and with bot support and SMS handling it's also becoming way more useful but from there to "Replacement of Facebook" there's quite the jump...

Most people use Facebook to communicate with their friends and family. With the regular Facebook platform everyone can see everything and your comment on a friends obnoxious photo might be posted on your moms news feed. Not so with Messenger. It's easy to have groups for friends, groups for family, groups for your Sunday football group etc. I bet most young people already are using Messenger a lot more than regular Facebook already.

Facebook is the last thing young people use.

I am not a young person but I am a graduate student with a lot of young friends. At my university, Facebook is primarily used as a carefully curated photo album and an event planner. The genuine social interactions on Facebook have moved into Messenger. Photos and videos that are not profession/parent friendly are only shared in group chats. Most people are in 3 to 10 active group chats.

A few years ago Facebook Groups were popular at my school but now only a few of the largest ones are active. When I transferred in to finish my undergrad, the groups were essential to meeting people. Now I think it would be much harder to meet like-minded students online because all of the genuine conversation is in semi-private group chats.

According to something I read, young people (<22yo) use twitter & snapchat for on-going daily updates and reserve facebook for bigger events like a family get-together.

One argument I've heard that makes sense, specifically about uber eats, if the new app is a shit experience and gets one star reviews, it doesn't affect the primary product

That might be valid for most apps or services, but I don't think Facebook needs to worry about their app rating too much. It's almost a required app for most people. Not to mention the rating on the main app took a pretty heavy dive when they separated Messenger out anyway.

One reason, I imagine, Facebook made this choice as a company is to increase the amount of real estate their apps have on the app store and 'top 10 most popular apps' lists, similar to how companies strive for top listings and more real estate on search engine results pages.

Between Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger, I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook's apps occupy 30% of most top-10 lists.

One reason they did it was to make Facebook messages feel more important. Before Facebook messages were like eMail, you felt like you could reply whenever at a later time. Now you feel like you have to respond immediately, like SMS.

Size. The FB app is at the very limit of the iOS app size.

Live video in Facebook isn't separate: it is a different form of news item that is integrated into everything else. Messages is totally unrelated to everything else... it was a tab at the bottom that had no integration into the rest of the app, but because of that left limited ways to expand the experience of messaging itself (as the tab bar was already being used). It made absolutely no sense to have those things be crammed into the same UI.

Deray's arrest was livestreamed on Periscope. I think you might be cherrypicking, but even if I'm wrong, it's not quite that clear-cut.

Perhaps DeRay feels a bit of brand loyalty to the Jack Dorset empire.

Constellations of separate apps are better for users who only want certain parts without ceding unnecessary permissions and space.

EDIT: 'is' to 'are'