4 ms·

I was kinda wondering about the "too late", turns out it means "before they go public", which is too late in the "more expensive, less control" meaning. As for

by erez 15y ago

I was kinda wondering about the "too late", turns out it means "before they go public", which is too late in the "more expensive, less control" meaning. As for the "should", they really don't. They could launch they're own LinkedIn-like service, or buy them, or do a different social network, or not. The article keeps hammering that Google have to "win in social". They don't, because, unlike search, there is no, currently, a good way to secure a major share of the market, which is what I'm guessing they mean by "win", because "social" is a bubble, not a real market. This bubble will burst, sooner or later, and the less Google blows on "social", the better they'll come out of it.

ThomPete 15y ago
Yes the bubble will burst. Just like the dot com bubble did. That does not mean that dot com is is dead. I am not sure but I do think that Google has to at least make some sort of dent in the curation space. Personally I am using google less and less because I end up with search results that are based on how well google was gamed rather than on the value of the content. It's very hard to do algorithmic work that can't be gamed and thus the question at least to me is whether curation by humans will end up winning over recommendation by machines.
- erez 15y ago
  Google's already in that space, they are so ubiquitous with almost anything. Take Google analytics, that's in probably 50% of the web. Google search is default in any browser that is not IE. Take gmail, Google calendar, Google docs, the level of human interaction that is made through their servers is second to none. They just don't have a major stake in "social", but they do, through search, through crawling, etc. And with the current privacy and sharing status (that is, lack of), they have a lot of access to a lot of user details. The only thing a social network has over Google is the ability to perform application-level data cross-referencing, and Google wants a hold in that. Probably before the bubble bursts and those details get lost, or sold, or leaked, or whatever.
  - ThomPete 15y ago
    The problem is that the qualification of search results are not based on human interaction or curation but on optimizing for google accessibility. That creates a very very different landscape. It's not the details that's important it's the sentiment and opinion around the details that's important and that google haven't solved yet.
hyperbovine 15y ago
I don't understand this logic. If it's a given that the price of a company goes up after the IPO, why would any company ever sell beforehand?
- erez 15y ago
  First, it's not a given. Second, selling the company puts money in the pockets of the shareholders, while going public means the company is getting the money. Going public, by definition, means revealing your data, your balances, budgets, revenues, it might not look as good as it is now, especially in a bubble-based market. It's (very) basically like the usual 'let's make a deal' bargain, you can either get 1000$ now, or gamble for the envelope that might have ten times that, but might also have much less.

by erez 15y ago

ThomPete 15y ago

Yes the bubble will burst. Just like the dot com bubble did. That does not mean that dot com is is dead. I am not sure but I do think that Google has to at least make some sort of dent in the curation space. Personally I am using google less and less because I end up with search results that are based on how well google was gamed rather than on the value of the content. It's very hard to do algorithmic work that can't be gamed and thus the question at least to me is whether curation by humans will end up winning over recommendation by machines.

erez 15y ago
Google's already in that space, they are so ubiquitous with almost anything. Take Google analytics, that's in probably 50% of the web. Google search is default in any browser that is not IE. Take gmail, Google calendar, Google docs, the level of human interaction that is made through their servers is second to none. They just don't have a major stake in "social", but they do, through search, through crawling, etc. And with the current privacy and sharing status (that is, lack of), they have a lot of access to a lot of user details. The only thing a social network has over Google is the ability to perform application-level data cross-referencing, and Google wants a hold in that. Probably before the bubble bursts and those details get lost, or sold, or leaked, or whatever.
- ThomPete 15y ago
  The problem is that the qualification of search results are not based on human interaction or curation but on optimizing for google accessibility. That creates a very very different landscape. It's not the details that's important it's the sentiment and opinion around the details that's important and that google haven't solved yet.

hyperbovine 15y ago

I don't understand this logic. If it's a given that the price of a company goes up after the IPO, why would any company ever sell beforehand?

erez 15y ago
First, it's not a given. Second, selling the company puts money in the pockets of the shareholders, while going public means the company is getting the money. Going public, by definition, means revealing your data, your balances, budgets, revenues, it might not look as good as it is now, especially in a bubble-based market. It's (very) basically like the usual 'let's make a deal' bargain, you can either get 1000$ now, or gamble for the envelope that might have ten times that, but might also have much less.