Google working on a Facebook competitor: Google Me | Hacker News Reader

Google working on a Facebook competitor: Google Me

gigaom.com

76 pointsbrianclintwud57 comments

At some point, Google is bound to get "social" right. Maybe this time round. Maybe the next.

Once they do, however, they will have some serious synergy effects with all their existing projects, which Facebook, Twitter etc don't have.

Not to mention Google can afford to experiment and make mistakes like Wave, Buzz and Orkut. Whereas Facebook or Twitter don't have that luxury as their revenues are a fraction of Google's.

Personally, I think web search is a lot more valuable compared to social networking. I hardly ever even bother to check my FB profile anymore. If I want to get in contact with a friend, I text or call them on the phone. If I wish to maintain a business contact, LinkedIn is the way to go. At one time MySpace seemed like a good purchase for $580 million. In a bubble economy, things look best right at the peak. I don't know if Facebook has peaked, but if they continue to become ever-more spam infested and continue to annoy and frustrate users over privacy, I can see someone beating them at their own game.

It is however surprising just how big mistakes Wave and Buzz have been (IMHO).

Buzz still seems superior to me technologically. The reason it hasn't caught on is probably either lack of simplictiy, or bad luck/timing.

Wave I see as a work in progress/concept work. Features will probably bleed over to docs over time. In that it is not a failure I would say.

I think part of the reason Buzz hasn't caught on is the privacy debacle at the start. It left people with a bad association with Buzz, and that's not something that's easy to shake.

Wave I see mostly as an experiment. It can do some cool stuff, but I've never really had a use for it. I did see it used for streaming commentary the Google I/O keynote (courtesy of Lifehacker), and it worked fantastically for that. In fact, I'd say that was the nicest live coverage method I've seen. However, I personally still have not found a use for Wave.

For me Buzz is the tweets of about a dozen people I already follow on Twitter.

For me, it's one guy 'liking' YouTube videos.

If Buzz had had a really compelling user experience and killer features at the start then that's what the early media reaction would have been about.

Instead they launched a half-baked product, with high expectations because anything Google does immediately has a high standard to meet, and that let the unforced error they committed with privacy dominate the news.

It's certainly a failure from just how much it was being hyped up as "the next internet" etc.

Yeah I think quite possibly both are superior technically, and I think integrating Buzz with GMail was a good move, but I think they'd do better adding features and iterating gently toward where they want, rather than suddenly introducing new things that confuse/alarm users.

Personally? Lack of integration in clients. Everything hooks into Twitter. Everything hooks into FB. Extremely little hooks into Buzz. I also want more privacy & organization controls than it offers, but I doubt that has a lot of impact outside geekdom.

From my uses, at least. If/when it changes, I'll probably start using Buzz more.

Wave is no mistake (yet), it's still under construction. Also, it's a protocol, not that much a product. Also, the client-server protocol isn't even finished.

You get one chance to make a good impression.

People have moved on. Maybe there will be some killer app (farmville or something) released on top of wave, but I can't see why.

Protocols are fairly easy work. It's getting people to use stuff that's hard.

Please remember that Orkut is still the most popular social networking website in Brazil, by far (and in India too, if I remember well.)

But yeah, I don't know anyone that is using Wave or Buzz.

Why do you think they are bound to get it right? Is MS bound to get search right? Is IBM bound to get desktop computing right?

Just a feeling really...

I am the first to preach that there is no danger in entering a saturated market, but when it comes to social I have to admit that I don't see myself switching from Facebook in any near future. I am way too locked in to bother, even if a different product has better features - and I suspect that many of my friends feel so even more.

To be a threat, it has to be a different product altogether.

Like everything else that is social - social networks are likely to be cyclical. Things that are fashionable will become unfashionable once everyone uses it and people will move onto the next cool environment.

Rinse repeat every 5 years or so.

If Google can time this right so that it becomes the next fashionable social network then it might well succeed.

Very true. I'm not a teenager but I can imagine Facebook is definitely beyond "cool" for them at this point. Their parents and extended family are now their friends on Facebook. They'll soon be ready for the next thing where they can be with just their friends.

I am teenager too, and for some weird reason I have never used Facebook consistently. In fact I made an account and deactivated it after an agonizing week of operation.

The natural question is why was it agonizing for me?

Well, I am a LGBT kid in a really homophobic country so I have to protect my identity wherever I go, or I risk some very unpleasant consequences. So, Facebook became a big no-no after random people I scarcely knew started adding me. I had to censor everything about myself, and I felt that it's use as a communication medium was greatly undermined by my lack of privacy.

On the other hand this is an issue for most people. All of us have certain social images that we live up to certain people and the minute we are on a platform like Facebook we have to wear a mask to communicate, which inherently strips that act of any meaning whatsoever. I don't want to spend my time saying LOL to people, and taking dumb quizzes or replying to "friends". I definitely don't want to know that someone added xyz to their crushes list and that I should go over to their wall to comment. It's just so fake, and I have better stuff to do.

I really don't feel that need to network. Gmail and IM are better in this regard. At least, I have my privacy and I am not hounded by noise, which allows for more meaningful conversation.

The funny thing is that I am not antisocial. I, personally, love talking to people I can be myself with. It's just opening and freeing without the burden of judgement.

Anyway, that's what I would say to anyone who wants to develop another Facebook.

Of course, there's a possibility that there is something wrong with me, but I think that instead of making another Facebook they should move on to something that leverages their ability to search. You know, extend the concept of Buzz; noise free networking.

I am a teenager, and Facebook has not been cool ever since the police use it as a way prosecute underage drinking.

Do you still use Facebook or is there something else out there that teenagers are using?

That says more about the law than about Facebook: if something is so socially accepted that it is cool to post about on facebook as long as the police don't find out, it is probably time to change said law. I'm wondering if you could take "I'd post about it on Facebook" as a basis for your peronsal moral code.

It may well be, but something that is only used while it is new and cool is something that people will move away from in time. Something that is no longer cool but still commands the user base has a lot more staying power.

Succeed, until it becomes unfashionable in 5 years? Is that really success?

Unless you think Michael Phelps is a failure because somebody will someday beat his record, I would posit that yes, that is success.

Yeah, I guess Google could only make a few billion in profit from that scenario.

Anyone else concerned about privacy? Google already has heaps of your search data, can track browsing history with the doubleclick and adsense network already. With social network data, they can directly tie in who you associate with, age, birthdate, etc.

I'm actually less concerned about Google having my data than, say Facebook. Google already has a ton of my data, but they don't sell it off to third parties. They practically define the analytics and targeted advertising. Facebook's problem is that they can't figure out how to actually make money with the data they have so they're resorting to selling it to third parties (Google, Bing, Yelp, Pandora, CNN, etc). That is what scares me at least.

I'm not too sure how this would fare. People already have trust issues with Google, not sure how willing they would be to give Google (more) access to their lives.

I'd feel safer in the hands of google than facebook to be honest.

I have a recurring nightmare that one day, all the world's software developers will be facebook/apple employees and that startups will be limited to the facebook/apple platform, made by facebook/apple subsidiaries, and will only be available to those with a few million to throw at the advertising...

Agreed. Unlike Facebook, Google let's you pull out all of your data from their services: http://www.dataliberation.org/

I don't understand why you feel this way, do you have any rational justification, or is it just a gut feeling? I don't know if you use GMail but Google already has a lot of information about you. Do you also want them to have your social network?

EDIT: If you want to downvote OK, but please also add a comment with an argument to back your beliefs, other than "I think Facebook is evil"

With Google, it's at least "just" Google who has the personal data.

With Faceboook, a lot of unwanted entities get access to personal data. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870451310457525...)

Also, disabling the "sharing" of all personal information is quite cumbersome in Facebook. (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/12/business/faceb...)

Google does have its drawbacks, but compared to the "social websites" it seems to be the lesser evil.

The links you cite are before the latest big changes to the security procedure in FB. Have you tried it after the changes?

Also "just" Google may be bigger than you think, e.g. your voice or text mail may end up in a lot of different departments that use it to train algorithms. Remember what happened with their WiFi sniffing.

My default stand is: all big companies are evil and will abuse my data if they need to. Therefore I want to spread the chances of abuse among different companies.

I think the biggest difference is that Google has aligned its interests more in line with users (as their best long-term strategy). Facebook seems willing to exploit users any way they can.

It's wise to be cautious sharing your data with any large company, but not all of them are created equal.

But you don't have this fear about Google? To me they're much more dangerous because it's going to be a lot harder to unseat their income source.

I would say that even more people have trust issues with Facebook, and look how far that's gotten them.

As long as Google starts off with a gentle, opt-in approach (to stem the problems that came from Buzz), I think they'll be successful.

Adam D’Angelo: http://www.quora.com/Is-Google-Me-a-fake-rumour-Misleading-e...

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.

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.

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.

Good point! Cringely was talking about the disadvantages of huge social graphs recently, too (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.

> 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).

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.

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.)

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.

I'm not surprised at the news actually. And I'll put my money on Google Me being based on the OpenSocial framework. Wave, Buzz, iGoogle, Google Friend Connect etc. looks like MVPs which would fit into this new social network. Part of the master plan.

no matter what the results of google vs facebook will be, we can be sure this has currently given quora a lot of press. very ingenius marketing

The clue is in the title I think. This will be a standard profile page aimed at business users (a bit like LinkedIn) - OR perhaps just a connections site for people. Your average web user will not use a service named 'Google Me' as a social networking tool like Facebook. If this supposed site/project is happening that is.

When I enter "google me" in google, it shows me:

See results for: teyana taylor

What is that about??

Seems she wrote a song titled google me in which she tells people to google her.

If only it could be as successful as Google's Twitter competitor, Google Buzz!

Nothing wrong with giving something the ol' college try. I admire Google's desire to get out there.

There are plenty of things wrong with the "ol' college try", the a few big ones off the top of my head would be a dilution of resources (engineering and otherwise - though this doesn't seem to bother Google much). Turning allies into enemies - I'm not really sure its smart for Google to try to "beat" everyone in the valley. They need some strategic partners. Brand overload - frankly as much as I like, and use, some Google products, I'm getting seriously sick of them sticking their nose into every corner of the internet.

You know what they say: the hojillionth time's the charm.

Again?

Google should buy Twitter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com