8 Reasons Why Google+ Will Beat Facebook in the long run | Hacker News Reader

8 Reasons Why Google+ Will Beat Facebook in the long run

plus.google.com

10 pointsjustatech12 comments

The link to the actual list: http://arunshroff.com/2011/08/10/8-reasons-why-google-will-b...

I can't help but feel that the original list skews a little "nerdy" and aren't really a draw for most people. Some of the arguments are just specious and/or dubious. Privacy & trust? Facebook's privacy controls are actually more fine grained than Google+'s and Google's track record with respect to privacy is just as mottled as Facebook's and includes some higher profile incidents as well. Did we all forget about the Buzz release? Google ecosystem and a "blended experience"? There is absolutely no evidence that there is demand for that and my gut feeling is that there isn't.

The rest of the arguments are just as spurious and the article is, in my opinion, representative of the tech world's flawed and narrow take on Google+. It seems like most commentators have let their analyses be skewed by either an irrational dislike of Facebook or a love of new technology. Neither of these will drive people away from Facebook or towards Google+. Furthermore, a lot of these arguments seem, sometimes implicitly, predicated on the idea that Facebook is just going to stand by and let themselves be steam-rolled by Google. Google is the underdog here, they have a lot of failures under their belt in this area and at the end of the day, despite the novelty involved in binning friends into circles, Google+ is just a Facebook clone.

"Facebook's privacy controls are actually more fine grained than Google+'s" > But confusing and convoluted to the point where most users have no clue what is being shared vs not. Circles makes it so much easier. Facebook lists were supposed to do that - but they were hidden away and not very easy to use - so very few users used them.

The most important thing about Google+ is that it integrates from the start platforms that have arisen since the first generation of social media. So Google+ is Facebook-like and Twittery and bloggy in one package.

But I think this means that G+ might not ultimately be the winner here. The things it really has going for it is combining models developed by others. The big winner will come at the very end, when all the small stuff has been created, and it will be service that combines all the features to become the one network.

This is so silly.

It's clear that Google is not playing the same game as Facebook.

What is more likely than Google+ displacing Facebook is that it will prevent Facebook from making Google irrelevant (social search is a relatively uncharted frontier).

> What is more likely than Google+ displacing Facebook is that it will prevent Facebook from making Google irrelevant (social search is a relatively uncharted frontier).

Totally true, it also makes Facebook play a defensive game instead of going after search as they were going to.

Pretty much agree on most of the points in that blog post + the one that Paul Allen mentions - the Developer network and APIs will be huge pluses against Facebook. Again it is the same reason that Apple will eventually lose out to Android - closed systems/walled gardens and proprietary stuff will always lose out against open systems that does not restrict users and developers.

Yes, I think once Google+ releases their APIs (what is taking them so long) one can see hundreds of new apps popping up - not just for the web but also for the mobile version. Also the group video chat they have (hangouts) is actually Google+'s killer app - can already imagine many cool apps using it (customer support, training etc).

I don't think it's the same at all.

I think one of the advantages that Apple has over every other platform is that designers use Apple for work which builds brand loyalty to its products and platform. Thus, a good portion of the people who are creating will do so for the platform that they care about, especially one that prioritizes industrial and interactive design. And before, I would've just suggested it's just designers but over the past few years years, I've witnessed plenty of SF/NY developers who use Apple computers and iPhones for the same reasons.

The fact that it is a closed-system IS it's advantage: there is quality control across the board from the apps to the phone the user is viewing it on. And quite frankly, I prefer designing for the iPhone and iPad because of the consistency of sizing and proportions.

But there doesn't need to be a clear winner. It's great that there is a choice for people who just want complete freedom and those who just want stuff to work well in a very polished fashion.

"closed systems/walled gardens and proprietary stuff will always lose out against open systems that does not restrict users and developers."

Do you have evidence for that?

Should have qualified that - with Not always but often enough. Consider : AOL and Microsoft network from the late nineties gave way to the open web; Android is beating iOS globally in market share (~50% vs 20%).

What about linux? depends on what you mean by losing.

then with the qualifier 'that does not restrict users and developers', what restrictions would suffice to push users and developers out vs. the incentives that drew them in in the first place.

open for openness sake is not enough - it's just one more variable in the ecosystem equation. A couple of examples: as a user I do want developers to be restricted from putting malware on my device. And as a dev I would want users restricted from going against the TOS of my app.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com