7 ms·

Why I'm Rooting For Google+

188 points by razin 15y ago

michaelchisari 15y ago
Although I'm no fan of walled gardens, I have much greater faith in Google adopting an open, federated protocol, given their track record, than I ever had with Facebook. And if they did, that would push Facebook to adopt it as well.
- SkyMarshal 15y ago
  Fwiw, in your Google Plus settings menu, one of the top level items is "Data Liberation", where you can download all your data, including your conversation streams, in zip and/or json. Nice to see that in there from the start.
  - michaelchisari 15y ago
    That's great, and a huge step above the dump that Facebook emails you, but that's not quite the same as federation.
  - akkartik 15y ago
    As it happens I just tried it an hour ago. Contains your posts but not your comments or +1s. It looks like there's currently no place I can go to see all my comments or +1s. The +1 tab only shows external +1s from google search. Also, images attached to posts are not with the stream but with your Picasa pictures, which is weird.
- orijing 15y ago
  It's a competitive tactic to be open when you're small and less open when you're big. For example, you can download your entire profile as a .zip file from Facebook (not sure if you can get the email), and you can allow any apps to access your data (again, probably not email), even though Facebook is the largest social network on the web. In comparison, Google doesn't let you download your entire search history and everything else that they collect about you--what sort of ads you like, keywords that have worked well for you, links you've clicked on. To me, my "search history" is my profile on Google while my wall/profile is my data on Facebook.
  - jonknee 15y ago
    You're wrong. You can export your search history as an RSS feed (well I can't, as I have web history turned off). Not sure how that would be useful though... And to be fair, Facebook doesn't let you download your entire search history and everything else that they collect about you either. They only let you download what you put in. Google does the same, you can download your Gmail contacts (or sync them to another service), Picasa photos, Reader subscriptions, etc.
  - jeffdavis 15y ago
    "For example, you can download your entire profile as a .zip file from Facebook" Do you get all of your connections (by what identifiers?), all the messages you've sent, and everything else?
    - orijing 15y ago
      I don't know. I haven't touched that feature in a while. But there's a philosophy that you own your content, but connections are owned by both ends. I'm not even sure that being able to export your wall (including others' private comments) is fair to others. Otherwise, you end up with Google's public-sharing bug (where you can share a private item publicly). There's a fine balance between respecting your privacy and flexibility, and those of your friends.
      - rxin 15y ago
        This argument is too weak to sell. In the same realm, you should remove from the zip file photos that contains the user's friend(s).
      - jeffdavis 15y ago
        "Otherwise, you end up with Google's public-sharing bug (where you can share a private item publicly)." If you share something digital with someone, they can share it with someone else. That's just the way it is. Interfaces and clients should help you avoid doing that accidentally, and even make it slightly challenging (perhaps you need to write a new client against their API or something) -- but preventing you from exporting your own data, or data that someone has explicitly shared with you, is just not justified. It sounds a lot more like a convenient excuse for lock-in.
rinkjustice 15y ago
Rooting for Google+ over Facebook is like rooting for MC Hammer over Michael Jackson. Get outside and get a life.
Newky 15y ago
"Well first, I don't think competitors kill companies and services. I think the vast majority of "deaths" are self inflicted." I like this line, and it amplifies my feelings that in order for plus to be successful, it will require not only the polished product which is being introduced but also something that the other services lack.
ignifero 15y ago
We only have one social platform today worth building on, facebook. Let's hope this will change.
- smhinsey 15y ago
  I think this could be huge. My experience with building on the FB platform has been so dramatically negative that I gave it up and really no longer trust them (I'll take a look at this new platform they're working on, of course) as a platform provider. I think Google, with their track record of APIs and platforms like GAE, could really light a fire under them that'd be beneficial to everyone.
  - ignifero 15y ago
    Unfortunately i rely on facebook for traffic. When i started, Dave Morin was in charge and things were looking good. Since then, we've only seen limitations constant changes, unenforced policies, things breaking etc etc. At this point it is indeed really in a bad shape, and a good reason may be that they don't feel any competition.
    - smhinsey 15y ago
      Yeah, the types of problems we had (I sort of wrote about it elsewhere[1]) were just totally inexplicable. I forget the precise specifics but one of them was something along the lines of things that would work one day but not the next, etc. Just really wild stuff that made me have no trust for the reliability of the platform. Edit: The "best" part, if you follow that link, is that the project I mentioned that ended up cancelled would've had to be rewritten anyway now that FBML is on the way out. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2693190 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2693190
- pmjordan 15y ago
  I'm curious to see whether they'll base their API on OpenSocial. After all, it is a Google-based "standard" that's seen updates right through late 2010. It would certainly give them an instant base of apps right from the start, and an obvious transition from iGoogle to Google+. They could however unceremoniously cut it off and come up with something new to replace it.
ajdecon 15y ago
I really like the idea that there won't be "one social service to rule them all": I know that Facebook and Twitter serve different purposes for me, and I'm also occasionally active on niche social services like LinkedIn and Goodreads. But I'm concerned that the pain of managing multiple friends lists will force one or two "winners" which try to be all things to all people: it's much easier to hook into Facebook's existing social graph than build a new one, but I honestly don't want Facebook to contain all my life. Google+ seems to be trying the "all things to all people" approach as well, and I'm similarly skeptical of it at the moment. I'm still trying to feel out where it will fit in my own usage: if it finds a purpose other than just "Facebook replacement" I will probably use it, but otherwise it may be too difficult to escape the network effects.
- bdhe 15y ago
  For those already actively using GMail, Google Calendar and other Google services (including Search), the fact that the Plus Bar on top allows you to share links and keep notified across the web is a very big difference over Facebook. In that sense, already I see it having a better staying power than Facebook. Also, anecdotally, I am rarely logged in to Facebook constantly because it serves me no useful "productive" purpose. I catch up with friends and family only when I'm done working. With Google+ it is going to be that much harder because I'm always logged in to check mails and organize my calendar.
  - jfoutz 15y ago
    No bar with the new UI's. I'm sure it's just another oversight, like music.
jeffool 15y ago
I sincerely don't think any company will successfully "become the platform" in perpetuity, They'll just make obscene amounts of money while their star is shining. But I do think good can come from this. As Facebook, Google, Twitter, (the stillborn?) OpenID and others compete to be the "company that handles online identities," everyone else can just focus on what they do. They don't have to run massive databases of users, just allow a trusted third party login and let people at the good stuff. Aside from that, I don't really care too much about it.
- icebraining 15y ago
  >everyone else can just focus on what they do. They don't have to run massive databases of users, just allow a trusted third party login and let people at the good stuff. Not really; you still need a users database to store everything else related to the user. You only really save on the authentication related fields, which are a very small part of it.
  - jeffool 15y ago
    Small insofar as data is concerned, but by far the most important. For instance you don't have to worry about hackers taking passwords from you any more. At worst they bust in and take a list of functional email addresses (assuming you email users) and site settings (which may our may not be valuable, depending on your site.) Maybe I did a shit job of explaining my concern. Or maybe I'm further off base than I think?
    - icebraining 15y ago
      I was replying to the "massive" part. But yes, you're right, and I wish more websites would do that.
      - jeffool 15y ago
        Then a shit job in explaining my concern it is/was!
- 15y ago
zeddez 15y ago
Social is too important for one company to control the market. This is a great start for Google+, but Google is fighting with one arm behind their back given the network effects of Facebook.
shareme 15y ago
Fred, doesn't get it yet.. FB is fully public everyone G+ is user controlled sharing for both public and private..big difference
- orijing 15y ago
  You have confused FB with Twitter...
wilschroter 15y ago
If Facebook can grow to 750m users this quickly isn't it safe to say the infrastructure/adoption exists for another company to grow to that number even faster? Let's stop pretending it's the 80's and only one company can figure out how to rule a market (Microsoft). Facebook, too, shall pass. We of the technology world should know this better than anyone.
gruseom 15y ago
Off topic, but the OP links to a post called "Be your own bitch" that contains the following paragraph that makes me happy: "The thing that I have come to appreciate most about founders is a deep obsession about one thing over a long period of time. When we first met Joshua Schachter he had launched three versions of what were sort of social bookmarking, that he had then shut down before he launched Delicious. Dennis Crowley has been working on what has become Four Square since vindigo, which was a flat iron portfolio company that we invested in over 10 years ago. Jack Dorsey you know, came up with the original version of twitter back in the late 90's and he had been obsessed about that idea for almost a decade before he built it inside ODEO. And I can go on and on and on, but that sort of maniacal obsession about a specific issue and a specific domain and a specific kind of service, is the thing that to me is the most compelling trait of an entrepreneur." http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/23/fred-wilson-be-your-own-bitch/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/23/fred-wilson-be-your-own-bit...
- 6ren 15y ago
  What is a flat iron portfolio company such that it is similar enough to Foursquare to support the obsession thesis?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - hollerith 15y ago
    Flat-Iron Partners or some such was a venture-capital fund Fred was involved in.
  - nikcub 15y ago
    Flatiron Partners was a legendary NY-basd VC fund during the first dotcom era[1]. Most remember them for the Kozmo.com investment Fred wrote a post about moving from Flatiron to USV[2] [1] http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/companies/company-profile/Flatiron-Partners?companyId=10203 http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/companies/company-profil... [2] http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2005/02/flatiron_partne.html http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2005/02/flatiron_partne.html
kmfrk 15y ago
I don't see how this will "kill" other services. I hope that it might centralize and compartmentalize the idiosyncratic inanity in one place to clean up the noise on other platforms.
ignifero 15y ago
So, to get down to business, it's reasonable to hope that google will provide an oAuth 1.0 api for your social stuff, as they do with other services. The question is: what communication channels shall G+ give to developers? Also, will google use opensocial (I really hope not)
timr 15y ago
I don't get it. Isn't anyone else as creeped-out by the idea of a Google social network as I am? I'm definitely not thrilled at the idea of Facebook being the One True Social Network, but the idea of a Google social network makes me sad, and more than a little nervous. The fact that Google is trying to exploit their search dominance to funnel people into a Facebook competitor screams "anti-trust violation" to me, and the information-control consequences make me a little woozy -- I'd rather that Facebook dominate the space completely than give Google any more of my personal information. Google+ may not be evil, but it isn't exactly lily-pure, either. I'm hoping that this is another classic case of Nerd Blindness (much like Rob Malda's famous proclamation that the original iPod was 'lame'): Google has an exceptionally good technical reputation, so techies are foaming at the mouth to get access to their newest plaything, while everyone else just sees this as an attempt by a gigantic company to destroy a good service that it sees as a threat. Cheering for Google to win in the social network space seems to be to be a bit like hoping that IBM will take down Microsoft. When giants fight, I can't summon up any other feeling than fear that the rest of us are going to get squashed.
- ryanhuff 15y ago
  Competition is good. Facebook hasn't shown to be a proponent of users rights, made convenient because of their dominant market position. If they had a serious competitor, their attitude of forced acceptance of new features would likely change.
  - timr 15y ago
    Competition is great, but I don't think Google gets especially high points for "forced acceptance of new features", either. After all, they're pushing google+ by putting it on every other property they own.
    - Kylekramer 15y ago
      What company besides Microsoft (out of fear/legal obligations) doesn't do that? It is nice and all to say everyone should start on a level playing field, what is wrong with a company advertising to their well earned and legally obtained users?
ams6110 15y ago
My dad, for example, doesn't want any of those experiences. He might like Google+. It's a lot like email. He can curate groups of friends; his friends from school, his friends from the army, his friends from the community he lives in, and share information with them quickly and easily. OK so I don't really get it. This is nothing that can't be done easily with any email service now, using mailing lists. Dad can have a mailing list of his school friends, army buddies, etc. Why put another layer on top of that? Using email doesn't require any of the participants to have register or create yet another profile with yet another service. I don't see this as a very compelling example.
- d0m 15y ago
  The author meant compared to Twitter, Facebook and the like. He goes on explaining how Google+ has a better privacy control.
- toyg 15y ago
  My mother doesn't know what a mailing list and couldn't manage one to save her life, but she's quite active on Facebook. Email is the command line, social networks are Windows.
- ugh 15y ago
  Nobody (within reason) knows how to create and manage a mailing list. Circles solves a usability problem, not a technological problem.
tilt 15y ago
I was thinking at the Developers' part instead. What's the plan with Games and Apps? Is G+ going to offer the same conditions as for its Web store? (more likely) That would be a huge game changer (FB has 30% cut) expecially for those biggies like Zynga. Could this be related to Zynga's "rush" for the IPO?
mongol 15y ago
I am not on Facebook but I think it is "good for the world" if Google+ becomes succesful. I agreed with the poster that likened Facebook to dirty jeans. I don't know where that analogy came from but it resonates with me. However, I am undecided if Google+ is something for me. What I fear (hopefully unfounded) is that Google suddenly introduces a "feature" where it shows your friends what you have searched for. I _think_ (not sure) that something similar to that occurred on Youtube, where suddenly friends could find my Youtube account and see what videos I had seen.
- chc 15y ago
  I'd think that's pretty unlikely. Since the Buzz fiasco, Google is legally bound by an agreement with the federal government to take privacy more seriously. See http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/03/ftc-settles-with-google-on-charges-of-buzz-privacy-violation.php http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/03/ftc-settles-with-google...
pschlump 15y ago
This article has the best summary of what the different social functions Facebook, Tmblr and Twiter provide.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
hugh3 15y ago
I'm rooting for it for rather more personal and selfish reason: 1. I'm a shareholder in GOOG 2. All the Facebook employees I've ever met have been kinda annoying, so I don't want to see those individuals get rich.

188 points by razin 15y ago

Although I'm no fan of walled gardens, I have much greater faith in Google adopting an open, federated protocol, given their track record, than I ever had with Facebook. And if they did, that would push Facebook to adopt it as well.

SkyMarshal 15y ago
Fwiw, in your Google Plus settings menu, one of the top level items is "Data Liberation", where you can download all your data, including your conversation streams, in zip and/or json. Nice to see that in there from the start.
- michaelchisari 15y ago
  That's great, and a huge step above the dump that Facebook emails you, but that's not quite the same as federation.
- akkartik 15y ago
  As it happens I just tried it an hour ago. Contains your posts but not your comments or +1s. It looks like there's currently no place I can go to see all my comments or +1s. The +1 tab only shows external +1s from google search. Also, images attached to posts are not with the stream but with your Picasa pictures, which is weird.
orijing 15y ago
It's a competitive tactic to be open when you're small and less open when you're big. For example, you can download your entire profile as a .zip file from Facebook (not sure if you can get the email), and you can allow any apps to access your data (again, probably not email), even though Facebook is the largest social network on the web. In comparison, Google doesn't let you download your entire search history and everything else that they collect about you--what sort of ads you like, keywords that have worked well for you, links you've clicked on. To me, my "search history" is my profile on Google while my wall/profile is my data on Facebook.
- jonknee 15y ago
  You're wrong. You can export your search history as an RSS feed (well I can't, as I have web history turned off). Not sure how that would be useful though... And to be fair, Facebook doesn't let you download your entire search history and everything else that they collect about you either. They only let you download what you put in. Google does the same, you can download your Gmail contacts (or sync them to another service), Picasa photos, Reader subscriptions, etc.
- jeffdavis 15y ago
  "For example, you can download your entire profile as a .zip file from Facebook" Do you get all of your connections (by what identifiers?), all the messages you've sent, and everything else?
  - orijing 15y ago
    I don't know. I haven't touched that feature in a while. But there's a philosophy that you own your content, but connections are owned by both ends. I'm not even sure that being able to export your wall (including others' private comments) is fair to others. Otherwise, you end up with Google's public-sharing bug (where you can share a private item publicly). There's a fine balance between respecting your privacy and flexibility, and those of your friends.
    - rxin 15y ago
      This argument is too weak to sell. In the same realm, you should remove from the zip file photos that contains the user's friend(s).
    - jeffdavis 15y ago
      "Otherwise, you end up with Google's public-sharing bug (where you can share a private item publicly)." If you share something digital with someone, they can share it with someone else. That's just the way it is. Interfaces and clients should help you avoid doing that accidentally, and even make it slightly challenging (perhaps you need to write a new client against their API or something) -- but preventing you from exporting your own data, or data that someone has explicitly shared with you, is just not justified. It sounds a lot more like a convenient excuse for lock-in.

rinkjustice 15y ago

Rooting for Google+ over Facebook is like rooting for MC Hammer over Michael Jackson. Get outside and get a life.

Newky 15y ago

"Well first, I don't think competitors kill companies and services. I think the vast majority of "deaths" are self inflicted." I like this line, and it amplifies my feelings that in order for plus to be successful, it will require not only the polished product which is being introduced but also something that the other services lack.

ignifero 15y ago

We only have one social platform today worth building on, facebook. Let's hope this will change.

smhinsey 15y ago
I think this could be huge. My experience with building on the FB platform has been so dramatically negative that I gave it up and really no longer trust them (I'll take a look at this new platform they're working on, of course) as a platform provider. I think Google, with their track record of APIs and platforms like GAE, could really light a fire under them that'd be beneficial to everyone.
- ignifero 15y ago
  Unfortunately i rely on facebook for traffic. When i started, Dave Morin was in charge and things were looking good. Since then, we've only seen limitations constant changes, unenforced policies, things breaking etc etc. At this point it is indeed really in a bad shape, and a good reason may be that they don't feel any competition.
  - smhinsey 15y ago
    Yeah, the types of problems we had (I sort of wrote about it elsewhere[1]) were just totally inexplicable. I forget the precise specifics but one of them was something along the lines of things that would work one day but not the next, etc. Just really wild stuff that made me have no trust for the reliability of the platform. Edit: The "best" part, if you follow that link, is that the project I mentioned that ended up cancelled would've had to be rewritten anyway now that FBML is on the way out. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2693190 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2693190
pmjordan 15y ago
I'm curious to see whether they'll base their API on OpenSocial. After all, it is a Google-based "standard" that's seen updates right through late 2010. It would certainly give them an instant base of apps right from the start, and an obvious transition from iGoogle to Google+. They could however unceremoniously cut it off and come up with something new to replace it.

ajdecon 15y ago

I really like the idea that there won't be "one social service to rule them all": I know that Facebook and Twitter serve different purposes for me, and I'm also occasionally active on niche social services like LinkedIn and Goodreads. But I'm concerned that the pain of managing multiple friends lists will force one or two "winners" which try to be all things to all people: it's much easier to hook into Facebook's existing social graph than build a new one, but I honestly don't want Facebook to contain all my life. Google+ seems to be trying the "all things to all people" approach as well, and I'm similarly skeptical of it at the moment. I'm still trying to feel out where it will fit in my own usage: if it finds a purpose other than just "Facebook replacement" I will probably use it, but otherwise it may be too difficult to escape the network effects.

bdhe 15y ago
For those already actively using GMail, Google Calendar and other Google services (including Search), the fact that the Plus Bar on top allows you to share links and keep notified across the web is a very big difference over Facebook. In that sense, already I see it having a better staying power than Facebook. Also, anecdotally, I am rarely logged in to Facebook constantly because it serves me no useful "productive" purpose. I catch up with friends and family only when I'm done working. With Google+ it is going to be that much harder because I'm always logged in to check mails and organize my calendar.
- jfoutz 15y ago
  No bar with the new UI's. I'm sure it's just another oversight, like music.

jeffool 15y ago

I sincerely don't think any company will successfully "become the platform" in perpetuity, They'll just make obscene amounts of money while their star is shining. But I do think good can come from this. As Facebook, Google, Twitter, (the stillborn?) OpenID and others compete to be the "company that handles online identities," everyone else can just focus on what they do. They don't have to run massive databases of users, just allow a trusted third party login and let people at the good stuff. Aside from that, I don't really care too much about it.

icebraining 15y ago
>everyone else can just focus on what they do. They don't have to run massive databases of users, just allow a trusted third party login and let people at the good stuff. Not really; you still need a users database to store everything else related to the user. You only really save on the authentication related fields, which are a very small part of it.
- jeffool 15y ago
  Small insofar as data is concerned, but by far the most important. For instance you don't have to worry about hackers taking passwords from you any more. At worst they bust in and take a list of functional email addresses (assuming you email users) and site settings (which may our may not be valuable, depending on your site.) Maybe I did a shit job of explaining my concern. Or maybe I'm further off base than I think?
  - icebraining 15y ago
    I was replying to the "massive" part. But yes, you're right, and I wish more websites would do that.
    - jeffool 15y ago
      Then a shit job in explaining my concern it is/was!
15y ago

zeddez 15y ago

Social is too important for one company to control the market. This is a great start for Google+, but Google is fighting with one arm behind their back given the network effects of Facebook.

shareme 15y ago

Fred, doesn't get it yet.. FB is fully public everyone G+ is user controlled sharing for both public and private..big difference

orijing 15y ago
You have confused FB with Twitter...

wilschroter 15y ago

If Facebook can grow to 750m users this quickly isn't it safe to say the infrastructure/adoption exists for another company to grow to that number even faster? Let's stop pretending it's the 80's and only one company can figure out how to rule a market (Microsoft). Facebook, too, shall pass. We of the technology world should know this better than anyone.

gruseom 15y ago

Off topic, but the OP links to a post called "Be your own bitch" that contains the following paragraph that makes me happy: "The thing that I have come to appreciate most about founders is a deep obsession about one thing over a long period of time. When we first met Joshua Schachter he had launched three versions of what were sort of social bookmarking, that he had then shut down before he launched Delicious. Dennis Crowley has been working on what has become Four Square since vindigo, which was a flat iron portfolio company that we invested in over 10 years ago. Jack Dorsey you know, came up with the original version of twitter back in the late 90's and he had been obsessed about that idea for almost a decade before he built it inside ODEO. And I can go on and on and on, but that sort of maniacal obsession about a specific issue and a specific domain and a specific kind of service, is the thing that to me is the most compelling trait of an entrepreneur." http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/23/fred-wilson-be-your-own-bitch/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/23/fred-wilson-be-your-own-bit...

6ren 15y ago
What is a flat iron portfolio company such that it is similar enough to Foursquare to support the obsession thesis?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- hollerith 15y ago
  Flat-Iron Partners or some such was a venture-capital fund Fred was involved in.
- nikcub 15y ago
  Flatiron Partners was a legendary NY-basd VC fund during the first dotcom era[1]. Most remember them for the Kozmo.com investment Fred wrote a post about moving from Flatiron to USV[2] [1] http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/companies/company-profile/Flatiron-Partners?companyId=10203 http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/companies/company-profil... [2] http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2005/02/flatiron_partne.html http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2005/02/flatiron_partne.html

kmfrk 15y ago

I don't see how this will "kill" other services. I hope that it might centralize and compartmentalize the idiosyncratic inanity in one place to clean up the noise on other platforms.

ignifero 15y ago

So, to get down to business, it's reasonable to hope that google will provide an oAuth 1.0 api for your social stuff, as they do with other services. The question is: what communication channels shall G+ give to developers? Also, will google use opensocial (I really hope not)

timr 15y ago

I don't get it. Isn't anyone else as creeped-out by the idea of a Google social network as I am? I'm definitely not thrilled at the idea of Facebook being the One True Social Network, but the idea of a Google social network makes me sad, and more than a little nervous. The fact that Google is trying to exploit their search dominance to funnel people into a Facebook competitor screams "anti-trust violation" to me, and the information-control consequences make me a little woozy -- I'd rather that Facebook dominate the space completely than give Google any more of my personal information. Google+ may not be evil, but it isn't exactly lily-pure, either. I'm hoping that this is another classic case of Nerd Blindness (much like Rob Malda's famous proclamation that the original iPod was 'lame'): Google has an exceptionally good technical reputation, so techies are foaming at the mouth to get access to their newest plaything, while everyone else just sees this as an attempt by a gigantic company to destroy a good service that it sees as a threat. Cheering for Google to win in the social network space seems to be to be a bit like hoping that IBM will take down Microsoft. When giants fight, I can't summon up any other feeling than fear that the rest of us are going to get squashed.

ryanhuff 15y ago
Competition is good. Facebook hasn't shown to be a proponent of users rights, made convenient because of their dominant market position. If they had a serious competitor, their attitude of forced acceptance of new features would likely change.
- timr 15y ago
  Competition is great, but I don't think Google gets especially high points for "forced acceptance of new features", either. After all, they're pushing google+ by putting it on every other property they own.
  - Kylekramer 15y ago
    What company besides Microsoft (out of fear/legal obligations) doesn't do that? It is nice and all to say everyone should start on a level playing field, what is wrong with a company advertising to their well earned and legally obtained users?

ams6110 15y ago

My dad, for example, doesn't want any of those experiences. He might like Google+. It's a lot like email. He can curate groups of friends; his friends from school, his friends from the army, his friends from the community he lives in, and share information with them quickly and easily. OK so I don't really get it. This is nothing that can't be done easily with any email service now, using mailing lists. Dad can have a mailing list of his school friends, army buddies, etc. Why put another layer on top of that? Using email doesn't require any of the participants to have register or create yet another profile with yet another service. I don't see this as a very compelling example.

d0m 15y ago
The author meant compared to Twitter, Facebook and the like. He goes on explaining how Google+ has a better privacy control.
toyg 15y ago
My mother doesn't know what a mailing list and couldn't manage one to save her life, but she's quite active on Facebook. Email is the command line, social networks are Windows.
ugh 15y ago
Nobody (within reason) knows how to create and manage a mailing list. Circles solves a usability problem, not a technological problem.

tilt 15y ago

I was thinking at the Developers' part instead. What's the plan with Games and Apps? Is G+ going to offer the same conditions as for its Web store? (more likely) That would be a huge game changer (FB has 30% cut) expecially for those biggies like Zynga. Could this be related to Zynga's "rush" for the IPO?

mongol 15y ago

I am not on Facebook but I think it is "good for the world" if Google+ becomes succesful. I agreed with the poster that likened Facebook to dirty jeans. I don't know where that analogy came from but it resonates with me. However, I am undecided if Google+ is something for me. What I fear (hopefully unfounded) is that Google suddenly introduces a "feature" where it shows your friends what you have searched for. I _think_ (not sure) that something similar to that occurred on Youtube, where suddenly friends could find my Youtube account and see what videos I had seen.

chc 15y ago
I'd think that's pretty unlikely. Since the Buzz fiasco, Google is legally bound by an agreement with the federal government to take privacy more seriously. See http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/03/ftc-settles-with-google-on-charges-of-buzz-privacy-violation.php http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/03/ftc-settles-with-google...

pschlump 15y ago

This article has the best summary of what the different social functions Facebook, Tmblr and Twiter provide.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

hugh3 15y ago

I'm rooting for it for rather more personal and selfish reason: 1. I'm a shareholder in GOOG 2. All the Facebook employees I've ever met have been kinda annoying, so I don't want to see those individuals get rich.