Google+ really is a Facebook killer. Here are few simple reasons why. | Hacker News Reader

Google+ really is a Facebook killer. Here are few simple reasons why.

8 points_j0lt11 comments

Google+ integrated into all Google web properties. Some, like GMail, Youtube, and search, are already huge market leaders.

Google+ integrated into Chrome, which is quickly becoming the browser of choice. Social notifications straight to your browser without any extensions... Default Google+ functionality like share/+1/etc. Facebook has no chance of competing with this.

Google+ integrated into Android, the leading smart phone OS. What happens when all those hundreds of millions of Android phones start shipping with default Google+ functionality? What happens if Google decides Facebook doesn't really have a place on Android anymore?

Google+ is Google's Grand Unification. If they really planned for everything to work out like this, then they're absolute geniuses and they pulled a fast one on almost everyone. They've built the most impressive social network I've seen, completely in reverse, one piece (site) at a time.

I honestly won't be surprised if Microsoft/Facebook/Twitter start crying foul and throwing around the monopoly word. And perhaps that's why all these puzzle pieces are starting to slowly come together, because if they launched all this functionality at once, Google would probably be neck deep in lawsuits.

As a corollary to all this, if Google+ fails, Google will take a huge hit. It's a remarkable gamble that has the potential to change the web entirely, for better or worse.

EDIT: I forgot Google Maps with Google+ integration/check ins. It's daunting to think of all the ways Google can take over the world.

"What happens if Google decides Facebook doesn't really have a place on Android anymore?"

If Google did that, they would face billions of dollars worth of fines from competition regulators in the U.S and Europe.

Apple does it all the time though. They removed Google Voice because it "competed with core functionality." Facebook would "compete with Android's core functionality" in this scenario...

How much money has Microsoft paid in fines to regulators.

Google doesn't need to block services if they make a good enough product.

I'm not saying they would, I'm just trying to give an idea of the kind of power Google has at their finger tips right now.

I agree, Google needs to be very careful where they go from here. If they try to take over Android, or the iPhone, or the world, they could get into a shit load of trouble because of the antitrust laws in place here in America.

It's pretty ridiculous that a company can get in trouble for providing so many great services for free.

It's not that ridiculous. What happens when they decide the great services shouldn't be free anymore since there is no competition. Even Hayek hated monopolies and argued that rules and government intervention were needed to defend against them.

They can integrate themselves into their products (positive efforts) but they can't block their competitors in any way (negative efforts). Takeover just has to be totally positive.

Google+ is awesome, but these are not good reasons why it will be a Facebook killer.

Just because Google can shove it in people's face doesn't mean that it can or will succeed.

What's the minimum public Google profile one is required to have? So far, I've avoided having a public Google profile.

Name and gender.

Then again, Google doesn't seem to require you to use your legal name, like Facebook does.

Ha. Re pseudonyms, I just realized the problem I'm beginning to face; Multiple Persona Disorder. ;-)

(If today is Tuesday, I must be...)

Seriously, though, that is a plus, if it is reasonably defensible within the Google ecosystem. I'm an "opt in" kind of guy (there goes the gender anonymity); that includes personally identifiable information.

Over the years, I've seen a lot of quite productive and meaningful communication that's been facilitated, or entirely enabled, by selective anonymity.

Online. And "in real life".

You can have a conversation with a stranger in a cafe, without proffering so much as a first name. People should have the same ability online.

I've known some people (in real life) for months at a time on such a basis, e.g. in a particular venue, and gotten to know them fairly well. Selective anonymity is not a new feature, or "aberration", created by the internet, and its value as an element/feature in society is in my mind long-standing and well demonstrated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com