6 ms·

Why Mark Zuckerberg’s First Public Response To Google+ Is The Right One

66 points by MatthewB 15y ago

BvS 15y ago
I really enjoy Toms post on Google+: https://plus.google.com/112063946124358686266/posts?tab=mX https://plus.google.com/112063946124358686266/posts?tab=mX Pretty balanced when it comes to fb vs. Google+. Also I think he his right on this one pointing out the power of fb-groups where you basically all join the same circle ready made for you by someone else. On of the few groups I am in was created around a wedding. There is currently no way to do that with Google+ (everyone can put up new posts which can only be seen inside the group without adding/friending anyone themselves).
- esrauch 15y ago
  I suspect that Google+ will launch an equivalent feature, I think there is some real incompatibilities with the way that Facebook is handling it and Google+'s current privacy model that they are pushing. If you share something with a group-circle and then someone joins the group then they can see your post; you are suddenly sharing with someone that you didn't actively intend to. Right now if you share with circles and the people in those circles changes it tracks the changes, but since you are the only person who can change the circles that doesn't provide any similar issue.
tomelders 15y ago
Arguments along the line that Facebook holds an advantage or a competitive edge because of the size of it's userbase are patently flawed. By that reckoning, myspace would still be a serious contender, but the size of it's userbase couldn't mitigate the damage inflicted by bad management, poor quality, contentedness and lack of vision. I personally think that Facebook suffers form the same problems, especially contentedness, with the additional problem in the fact that their founder and public face isn't all that likeable. In short, solely because of Google+, Facebook is the new Myspace in all the wrong ways. And of course, it would be naive to discount the advantage Google has through the presence of one person and one person alone; Andy Hertzfeld. He's a big hitter... a really big hitter. To me, it feels like Yoda just turned up to show the young upstarts what it really means to be a Jedi.
- hackinthebochs 15y ago
  The situation with myspace then and facebook now is vastly different. The concept of social networking was still being defined. Now, facebook is social networking in most people's minds. The concept has been solidified. Google's recent offering does nothing to reinvent the concept. Also, social networking was still something mostly young people were into. The network-effects now are much greater in magnitude than they were then. The biggest factor in myspace's downfall was that it was perceived as a "ghetto" (I had multiple people describe it to me as such). People didn't join facebook because it was more compelling, they left myspace because it had degenerated to a ghetto and facebook was the most viable option. The social networking battle is facebook's to lose, not google's to win. As long as facebook doesn't stumble majorly, they're not going anywhere. edit: There is a serious anti-facebook downvote brigade going around here.
  - CamperBob 15y ago
    The network-effects now are much greater in magnitude than they were then. True, and in fact, they are so much greater in magnitude that they're no longer always a good thing. I don't benefit from any 'network effects' when my mother, my boss, my wife, my girlfriend, and the kid who used to beat me up for lunch money in 4th grade are all part of my one and only 'network.' If Facebook doesn't get a clue about that, Google can and will eat their lunch.
    - hackinthebochs 15y ago
      I just don't think this is as big of a problem as those in tech circles seem to think it is. Facebook already has mechanisms to mitigate this; from wall updates filtered based on activity to friends lists and groups. Anyone who this was really a problem for has many options: delete unwanted "friends", ignore them, create lists for people they want to share with, create exclusion lists, create groups. People just don't seem to care that much. Facebook has always had a "public by default" feel to it. Most people have adjusted their behavior, and their expectations, accordingly. The circles feature will take some serious marketing by Google before it becomes a killer feature for anyone but highly technical people. At that point, all facebook would have to do is make lists for visible to mitigate any mass defection. The ball will always be in facebook's court, until some major redefining feature is invented by an upstart.
d0m 15y ago
Disagree. The Google+ circle group integration is MUCH better than facebook's one - which is what makes it totally different. Also, talking about user base.. everyone who's using a google service will automatically be on google+.
- shareme 15y ago
  and those who use Google search number approximately 6 billion compared to FB of 750million
  - jrockway 15y ago
    Not every person on earth uses Google. There are still continents where the major concern for most people is living past 30. The Internet is not even on their radar.
    - ez77 15y ago
      Which continents? I wouldn't have asked had you used a singular term.
      - executive 15y ago
        Antarctica is the obvious one.. I'd guess Africa is the other.
        ez77 15y ago
        If anything Africa is the closest to being obvious. Antartica doesn't qualify, as it has no permanent population [1]. Even if it did, its non-permanent population is so many orders of magnitude behind the rest [2] that its inclusion in the original term 'continents' would be clearly misleading. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_population#Area_and_population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_populatio...
      - 15y ago
bad_user 15y ago
I think Tom Anderson is right, but there's something that bothers me about Facebook Groups and Facebook in general. I do not like that I can be added by other people in groups without my permission. I do not like that people can tag me in photos without my permission. And to revert a photo tag for instance, the person that did it doesn't get a notification, sometimes thinking that it is his fault -- for this one photo that was posted in a group, I had to untag myself more than a dozen times, as people kept adding me. And same with groups -- for one group I didn't want to be in, I had to remove myself like 3 times. And to add insult to the injury, when people realize that I don't like being tagged or be part of their stupid group, it's in human nature to get upset, feelings hurt and all that, so they get upset. But Facebook doesn't care about me; as it's in their best interest to encourage pictures of drunken teenagers and other things that generate gossip and traffic.

66 points by MatthewB 15y ago

BvS 15y ago

I really enjoy Toms post on Google+: https://plus.google.com/112063946124358686266/posts?tab=mX https://plus.google.com/112063946124358686266/posts?tab=mX Pretty balanced when it comes to fb vs. Google+. Also I think he his right on this one pointing out the power of fb-groups where you basically all join the same circle ready made for you by someone else. On of the few groups I am in was created around a wedding. There is currently no way to do that with Google+ (everyone can put up new posts which can only be seen inside the group without adding/friending anyone themselves).

esrauch 15y ago
I suspect that Google+ will launch an equivalent feature, I think there is some real incompatibilities with the way that Facebook is handling it and Google+'s current privacy model that they are pushing. If you share something with a group-circle and then someone joins the group then they can see your post; you are suddenly sharing with someone that you didn't actively intend to. Right now if you share with circles and the people in those circles changes it tracks the changes, but since you are the only person who can change the circles that doesn't provide any similar issue.

tomelders 15y ago

Arguments along the line that Facebook holds an advantage or a competitive edge because of the size of it's userbase are patently flawed. By that reckoning, myspace would still be a serious contender, but the size of it's userbase couldn't mitigate the damage inflicted by bad management, poor quality, contentedness and lack of vision. I personally think that Facebook suffers form the same problems, especially contentedness, with the additional problem in the fact that their founder and public face isn't all that likeable. In short, solely because of Google+, Facebook is the new Myspace in all the wrong ways. And of course, it would be naive to discount the advantage Google has through the presence of one person and one person alone; Andy Hertzfeld. He's a big hitter... a really big hitter. To me, it feels like Yoda just turned up to show the young upstarts what it really means to be a Jedi.

hackinthebochs 15y ago
The situation with myspace then and facebook now is vastly different. The concept of social networking was still being defined. Now, facebook is social networking in most people's minds. The concept has been solidified. Google's recent offering does nothing to reinvent the concept. Also, social networking was still something mostly young people were into. The network-effects now are much greater in magnitude than they were then. The biggest factor in myspace's downfall was that it was perceived as a "ghetto" (I had multiple people describe it to me as such). People didn't join facebook because it was more compelling, they left myspace because it had degenerated to a ghetto and facebook was the most viable option. The social networking battle is facebook's to lose, not google's to win. As long as facebook doesn't stumble majorly, they're not going anywhere. edit: There is a serious anti-facebook downvote brigade going around here.
- CamperBob 15y ago
  The network-effects now are much greater in magnitude than they were then. True, and in fact, they are so much greater in magnitude that they're no longer always a good thing. I don't benefit from any 'network effects' when my mother, my boss, my wife, my girlfriend, and the kid who used to beat me up for lunch money in 4th grade are all part of my one and only 'network.' If Facebook doesn't get a clue about that, Google can and will eat their lunch.
  - hackinthebochs 15y ago
    I just don't think this is as big of a problem as those in tech circles seem to think it is. Facebook already has mechanisms to mitigate this; from wall updates filtered based on activity to friends lists and groups. Anyone who this was really a problem for has many options: delete unwanted "friends", ignore them, create lists for people they want to share with, create exclusion lists, create groups. People just don't seem to care that much. Facebook has always had a "public by default" feel to it. Most people have adjusted their behavior, and their expectations, accordingly. The circles feature will take some serious marketing by Google before it becomes a killer feature for anyone but highly technical people. At that point, all facebook would have to do is make lists for visible to mitigate any mass defection. The ball will always be in facebook's court, until some major redefining feature is invented by an upstart.

d0m 15y ago

Disagree. The Google+ circle group integration is MUCH better than facebook's one - which is what makes it totally different. Also, talking about user base.. everyone who's using a google service will automatically be on google+.

shareme 15y ago
and those who use Google search number approximately 6 billion compared to FB of 750million
- jrockway 15y ago
  Not every person on earth uses Google. There are still continents where the major concern for most people is living past 30. The Internet is not even on their radar.
  - ez77 15y ago
    Which continents? I wouldn't have asked had you used a singular term.
    - executive 15y ago
      Antarctica is the obvious one.. I'd guess Africa is the other.
      - ez77 15y ago
        If anything Africa is the closest to being obvious. Antartica doesn't qualify, as it has no permanent population [1]. Even if it did, its non-permanent population is so many orders of magnitude behind the rest [2] that its inclusion in the original term 'continents' would be clearly misleading. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_population#Area_and_population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_populatio...
    - 15y ago

bad_user 15y ago

I think Tom Anderson is right, but there's something that bothers me about Facebook Groups and Facebook in general. I do not like that I can be added by other people in groups without my permission. I do not like that people can tag me in photos without my permission. And to revert a photo tag for instance, the person that did it doesn't get a notification, sometimes thinking that it is his fault -- for this one photo that was posted in a group, I had to untag myself more than a dozen times, as people kept adding me. And same with groups -- for one group I didn't want to be in, I had to remove myself like 3 times. And to add insult to the injury, when people realize that I don't like being tagged or be part of their stupid group, it's in human nature to get upset, feelings hurt and all that, so they get upset. But Facebook doesn't care about me; as it's in their best interest to encourage pictures of drunken teenagers and other things that generate gossip and traffic.