3 ms·

Currently this is just a rumor but it seems to be well-founded. If they do this, it would be the one of the stupidest things that Google has done: (i) Facebook

by Jun8 16y ago

Currently this is just a rumor but it seems to be well-founded. If they do this, it would be the one of the stupidest things that Google has done: (i) Facebook has grown too large for just another contender, even from Google, to kill it easily, people (including me) will show great resistance since they have so much time invested in FB; (ii) People do have trust issues with Google, I want to hedge my information among different big companies. Google already has my checkout, voice and mail, I don't want them to also have all my social network. Social is the buzz but I can't understand why the big G is wasting time on such things while not updating their Android Market strategy or trying to better their very weak TV offering. The social battle is won by FB, accept this and gear up for a different one.

vog 16y ago
> I want to hedge my information among different big companies I prefer different small companies. However, sometimes big companies are unavoidable (search engines, insurances, etc).
- Jun8 16y ago
  A definite no. I would never trust important information with small companies, they have a much smaller threshold to abuse it or forgo proper security since they have much less to lose.
  - generalk 16y ago
    But you'd trust important information with companies like AT&T? I mean, I don't know, maybe you don't. It just seems to me that a smaller company can instantly lose if a security breach is exploited, but larger companies with gigantic market share can/will continue to operate after such an event due to massive PR machines and consumer inertia. (Edited for clarity.)
stcredzero 16y ago
people (including me) will show great resistance since they have so much time invested in FB The solution is to make something that can coexist with Facebook which solves the problems with using FB. The truth is that you don't have to absorb someone's entire social graph. You only really want the approximate 20% they talk to about 80% of the time. That's the part with most of the value anyhow. In fact, knowing what that 20% is might be even more valuable than having the entire graph. What this means is that a genuinely useful Facebook adjunct can easily map out the most valuable part of the Facebook graph. Note that Myspace and Facebook coexisted for awhile.
- Jun8 16y ago
  Good point! Cringely was talking about the disadvantages of huge social graphs recently, too (http://www.cringely.com/2010/05/lets-get-small/ http://www.cringely.com/2010/05/lets-get-small/). I don't think so. I think the interesting messages coming from the 80% I communicate 20% of the time may be even more valuable, e.g. to casually keep in touch, learn interesting stuff, etc. A social app is not just status messages.How will the Google social app easily absorb all the photos, etc. I'm sharing in FB? What if the friends I enjoy on FB decide not to join the Google thing? I think tehse are huge drawbacks. Look at Plaxo, Ning, etc. They are just wannabes in this space. You are right about MySpace and FB, but the crowds they were catering to quickly diverged. That also explains how LinkedIn can thrive independent of FB.
GiraffeNecktie 16y ago
People have trust issues with Google? Perhaps, but trust is a much bigger problem for Facebook which has launched a series of all out assaults on user privacy. Certainly Google has had some missteps in this area but they've responded quickly and with contrition. Facebook drags their feet and whines about how privacy is so passé.
fjabre 16y ago
If it really is something very close to FB then I agree. After all, I don't really like the idea of 1 or 2 companies owning pretty much all there is to own in the tech space. It's too Orwellian.

by Jun8 16y ago

vog 16y ago

> I want to hedge my information among different big companies I prefer different small companies. However, sometimes big companies are unavoidable (search engines, insurances, etc).

Jun8 16y ago
A definite no. I would never trust important information with small companies, they have a much smaller threshold to abuse it or forgo proper security since they have much less to lose.
- generalk 16y ago
  But you'd trust important information with companies like AT&T? I mean, I don't know, maybe you don't. It just seems to me that a smaller company can instantly lose if a security breach is exploited, but larger companies with gigantic market share can/will continue to operate after such an event due to massive PR machines and consumer inertia. (Edited for clarity.)

stcredzero 16y ago

people (including me) will show great resistance since they have so much time invested in FB The solution is to make something that can coexist with Facebook which solves the problems with using FB. The truth is that you don't have to absorb someone's entire social graph. You only really want the approximate 20% they talk to about 80% of the time. That's the part with most of the value anyhow. In fact, knowing what that 20% is might be even more valuable than having the entire graph. What this means is that a genuinely useful Facebook adjunct can easily map out the most valuable part of the Facebook graph. Note that Myspace and Facebook coexisted for awhile.

Jun8 16y ago
Good point! Cringely was talking about the disadvantages of huge social graphs recently, too (http://www.cringely.com/2010/05/lets-get-small/ http://www.cringely.com/2010/05/lets-get-small/). I don't think so. I think the interesting messages coming from the 80% I communicate 20% of the time may be even more valuable, e.g. to casually keep in touch, learn interesting stuff, etc. A social app is not just status messages.How will the Google social app easily absorb all the photos, etc. I'm sharing in FB? What if the friends I enjoy on FB decide not to join the Google thing? I think tehse are huge drawbacks. Look at Plaxo, Ning, etc. They are just wannabes in this space. You are right about MySpace and FB, but the crowds they were catering to quickly diverged. That also explains how LinkedIn can thrive independent of FB.

GiraffeNecktie 16y ago

People have trust issues with Google? Perhaps, but trust is a much bigger problem for Facebook which has launched a series of all out assaults on user privacy. Certainly Google has had some missteps in this area but they've responded quickly and with contrition. Facebook drags their feet and whines about how privacy is so passé.

fjabre 16y ago

If it really is something very close to FB then I agree. After all, I don't really like the idea of 1 or 2 companies owning pretty much all there is to own in the tech space. It's too Orwellian.