If you’re not familiar with Facebook Lite, it’s a more simple, faster loading version of Facebook created in response to criticism about Facebook’s occasionally slow performance. You can see it at http://lite.facebook.com. Any Facebook member can use Lite by logging in as before.  You’ll find all your information and friends are still there.  No changes there and no need to sign up again.

While the reviews I’ve seen have been positive, and I agree it does load faster, I’m wondering if this is a smart move. Not from a user perspective, but from a business perspective.

I keep thinking about a book I read years ago that took a position that the Miller Brewing Company essentially split its own market when they added Miller Lite to their product line. The authors  thought Miller had to do twice the work for half the market for each product.  Of course this is arguable. Some would agree while others would just as passionately insist that the competition would have taken the “Lite” market completely away had they not responded.

But is there anything that will take Facebook’s dominant position? Not really. Despite Twitter’s spectacular growth, the number of Twitter users is still a fraction of Facebook’s. And, for many people, Facebook friends and Twitter followers are two distinct groups of people.

Has Facebook created a two-headed monster by creating the Lite version? I have thoughts on both sides:

The Downside

Facebook may have split its audience. One group liking the function and features, while another wanting speed and no clutter. Does Facebook now need to develop and maintain two different sites? Will that put a strain on the company? I’m sure they’ll look at the traffic to see which is more popular and adjust resources accordingly.

I think people will go back and forth. On a slower machine? Use the Lite version. On a new quad-core desktop? Go for the full-featured version. But once again this means Facebook has to keep two versions running at top speed all the time since users will want each to perform.

And what of the developers? Will Facebook Lite limit applications to speed up load times? Has Facebook alienated a sizable percentage of the developer’s market?

The Upside

On the other side, we now have a Facebook for anywhere, anytime. I imagine Facebook Lite will be much more enjoyable on your new Netbook or mobile phone (if you’re accessing via the Web, not a specific Facebook application), for example. Or any machine with a slower processor or old graphics card.

Facebook has a great track record for making changes in the name of increased usage. Some are not instantly popular, but the numbers prove them right. This could happen here, if even though the audience is split, both sites see increased usage.

Finally, I’m sure Facebook is trying to maximize the use of modular code so the same code is running on both sites. Management would be more simple if they only had to update once for both sites.

My Verdict

Wow, I’m torn on this one. I’ve only seen Lite for one day. I don’t like the audience-splitting at all. I think the management of two sites will be a pain for Facebook.

But…

Given their track record on changes positively affecting usage, I have to think they know something I don’t. Something like their research is saying many people complain about the load, the page clutter, and maybe the applications. If they indeed keep making changes with an eye on the user’s experience, I think the “Facebook anywhere, anytime” strategy will be the correct one.

Do you have other thoughts? Did I miss anything? Let me know about it in the comments.