Why Mark Zuckerberg’s First Public Response To Google+ Is The Right One | Hacker News Reader

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

techcrunch.com

66 pointsMatthewB42 comments

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.

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.

"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). "

and FB isn't?

"People didn't join facebook because it was more compelling,"

exactly!

"they left myspace because it had degenerated to a ghetto and facebook was the most viable option."

And now there is even more viable option on the horizon...

No, facebook is not in any way a "ghetto". If you saw what myspace degenerated to, to warrant the comparison, you wouldn't even begin to try to place that label on facebook.

exactly, and Google+ isn't so good that it's going to sweep FB users away. It's FB for geeks, and that's why this crowd likes it, but I don't think it's going anywhere close to where Facebook has gone.

I agree, I find Google+. I don't see my non-Geek friends asking for invites to Google+, if anything they would be like "what's Google+?". Half the people I invited don't even use Google+ after the first day, but they are still religiously visiting FB.

Just wait until that red box on that gray bar hovers over their every search. Their email. Maps. Maybe calendar.

It's like we've all forgotten who the 800 lb gorilla is! Google's launchpad is tree-mendous. The show is just getting started.

Google doesn't have a history of successful product dev in the social space, so I don't know why everyone assumes this time will be different.

Well, if Google can't make it then everybody doing any kind of social networking software should just quit. Right Now.

I don't agree. The reason Google wouldn't make it is not because they don't have the firepower, but because they don't have anything to add to the space that isn't being done already. They just aren't sexy.

Will people use it? Sure, but I doubt that millions of users will actually leave FB for Google+.

This (with the links to the dissertion) gives a pretty thourough background:

http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2007/06/24/viewing...

Funny you mention how people felt MySpace was a ghetto in light of Facebook because my first impression of Google+ was that it made Facebook look like a chaotic mess.

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.

> If Facebook doesn't get a clue about that, Google can and will eat their lunch.

Come on now, isn't it a bit premature to make a statement like this?

Google has positively sucked at social every time they tried anything until Google+. Now they have something that is obviously a lot better and interesting in many ways, but I don't understand why the bubble pundit set is frothing at the mouth so vigorously. They have a huge road ahead to compete with Facebook in any meaningful way.

Everyone wants to sound the Facebook death knell, but you can't look at Friendster or MySpace for historical lessons, neither of those sites crossed the chasm, and both suffered from severe technical setbacks that hampered development. Despite the valley mentality of always searching for the next big thing, there's no sign that the public at large has any appetite for a new social network. It could well be that social network adoption was a fad, and Facebook just becomes the defacto standard for non-techies, and the up-and-comers all end up serving smaller niche audiences. I'm not saying that's what I believe will happen because I think it's foolish to make any predictions about something as volatile as social networking, but it certainly seems just as likely to me as Google+ just up and "eating Facebook's lunch".

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.

You have a wife and a girlfriend? And both are connected to you on FB?

Not to play the doubter, but I remember when Hertzfeld was slated to be the savior of Linux back in 2000/2001 (god I feel old!). His company, Eazel, did produce the file manager Nautilus, but then promptly went out of business.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/08/22/hertzfeld_spills_all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eazel

Plenty of really good products come from companies that go out of business, and Nautilus was one of them. It drove the Linux desktop experience forward by about a decade – from Apple c. 1993 to Apple c. 2003, as flippant as that sounds.

I switched to Linux on the desktop for a couple years largely on the strength of Nautilus. I eventually gave up and went to OS X (conveniently if accidentally using Linux to skip most of Apple’s rough OS transition period) when it became clear that, although there were some brilliant people on the Gnome team and elsewhere,* Nautilus and its approach was being left for dead. Instead, there were five years of stagnant file managers with pseudo-Aqua pinstripe themes. But Nautilus gets a lot of credit for trying.

* For example, http://www.tigert.com/ was a graphic artist who come up with some really elegant interface stuff.

Facebook has 750 million users. [1]

Myspace has 63 million users, maybe less. [2]

I think userbase is a valid part of a social network argument. Or at least far from "patently flawed".

1. https://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics 2. http://social-media-optimization.com/2011/03/myspace-loses-1...

Facebook didn't start with 750 million users though, or even 63 million users, and that fact had no bearing on Facebooks rise to prominence.

Userbase size is a symptom of something else. It is not causation.

Mark Zuckerberg could easily become likeable within a year. He just has to make it his annual challenge; he must prioritize connecting with people (one aspect of himself) over animals (this year's challenge though another, perhaps less immediately relatable aspect of himself, though perhaps also a smarter long term strategy).

Please take this with a grain of salt because I am still working on liking myself but at this stage in my life I do identify with Mark Zuckerberg very much. I listened to him talking on a YouTube interview at the Palo Alto house in 2005 and noted an intense similarity or parallel I perceived in our body diction - particularly vocal tone.

I'd like to apologize for an inappropriate, tired and not very thoughtful comment. I would like to amend it to refer to Sorkin's character of Mark Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg in The Social Network. Although I'd very much like to, I do not know Mark.

I really enjoy Toms post on Google+: 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).

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.

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.

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+.

What do you do if you want to share something (eg pictures) to a certain group of people (eg everyone who attended your wedding) and also give everyone else in this group the possibility to post new things (eg additional pictures) to everyone else in this group without adding every single person? You can't do that with circles (yet) but facebook groups are perfect for that.

Another usecase would be the "epic bro" circle Google used in one of the Google+ commercials. Why should I and everyone of my "epic bros" create the same circle separately?

Google Circles and Facebook Lists are the same feature.

Facebook groups are different. I only mention it because a lot of people seem confused (Lots thinking Fb Lists and Fb groups are interchangeable).

Agreed, but I'm not sure if groups are in the end much more important / better solution for what people want when sharing with a limited number of friends.

I agree with this. The key differentiator in my mind is that categorizing my friends in Circles is, Hell, almost fun. I can easily drag someone to multiple circles, or drag multiples of people into a circle, or drag multiples of people into multiple circles.

The user experience on it is just great. Yes, Facebook sort of has this functionality, but it isn't anywhere remotely close to being as usable as Circles is out of the box.

and those who use Google search number approximately 6 billion compared to FB of 750million

In fact, Google hit 1 billion monthly uniques for the first time in May: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/06/21/google-notches-one-bi...

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.

I take it you don't travel much. You need to go to very small, very poor and extremely remote villages before you find no internet connections or people who are aware of computers. I have found a grand total of one, ever. I've visited unpowered, tribal villages of people who had no obvious access to western goods (no modern synthetic clothes, limited plastic, only a couple of steel items) but still knew what a computer programmer was when I told them my occupation. The world is remarkably modern and globalised now so try to update your previous century's vision of it.

So you're saying these people use Google? Because that's what my post is referencing.

Which continents? I wouldn't have asked had you used a singular term.

I'm puzzled by the downvote... There is plenty of granularity within every country, let alone every continent. But even allowing some rough generalizations, [1] shows that Africa is the only firm candidate for such an assertion.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expec...

He's exaggerating. Even in Africa most countries have a life expectancy over 30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Life_Expectancy_2011_Estim...), at least according to the CIA World Factbook. Even then in most African countries life expectancy averages are cut short because the high number of HIV infections.

OP had a good point though, not everyone in the world uses Google, and not even all of the 2 billion internet users use Google.

Antarctica is the obvious one.. I'd guess Africa is the other.

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

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_populatio...

A search user will not automatically translate into a google+ user. The question is how many unique gmail/picasa/blogger users does google have?

Don't forget the equally important question: how many Android phones will be sold? It's hard to buy an Android phone and not get sucked into the Google ecosystem - and I assume Plus will become a big part of that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com