Hacker News Reader

Comment by joebadmo | Hacker News Reader

The problem with your assertion is that a lot of technically inclined people know a lot of other people and want to interact with them socially. It's Facebook's most powerful and most difficult to overcome feature: all your friends are already on it.

To me, the only truly viable way for Google to combat that is to create a truly open, federated collection of social networks that can interoperate, by releasing the underlying code to G+ the way they did with Wave, or the way email works.

It would enable Diaspora, identica, etc. to become full-fledged social networks, and all still be viable because they could talk to each other, as well as talk to G+. Don't trust Google or any other company? Host your own Plus server. Companies could host their own internal Plus platforms.

I can't imagine that Google can fight the closed platform of Facebook with another closed platform, and the open web has always been its symbiotic ally.

View on HN

    a lot of technically inclined people know a 
    lot of other people and want to interact with 
    them socially

I remember a time when Facebook was the gathering place for technically inclined people, while normal people would hang out on MySpace or Hi5. I also remember a time when Apple products were reserved for professionals doing either creative work or software development. And speaking of Google, I also remember a time when Yahoo and AltaVista were used by normal people, while people with in-knowledge would quietly type "google.com" in the address bar.

For me, I never liked MySpace or the copycat Hi5 because noise, eye-bleeding page customizations and idiotic comments were actively encouraged and I couldn't stand it. Then Facebook came with a cleaner design and (initially) a more well-behaved audience and so I was hooked. But now that initial advantage is gone, the masses found out about it, so half of my news feed is filled with invites to idiotic games or stupid jokes and I don't have the patience to block them all (on the other hand Google+ has a spam problem already).

The reality is that technically inclined people are the trend setters when it comes to technology, not the other way around.

I remember those times, too, but MySpace never had the sheer ubiquity that Facebook has. It feel qualitatively different to me, in that I never felt like I was out of the loop or unable to communicate with certain people or excluded from certain conversations because I wasn't on MySpace. That was partly because I could see people's MySpace pages (not that I frequently wanted to) without having an account, unlike Facebook.

Yes, the technical elite from MySpace eventually moved to FB, but more importantly, FB got a ton of users that were never on MS. I don't think Google can do the same to FB, because there just aren't that many people that aren't on FB. They have to actively court current FB users. Stealing the technical crowd is relatively easy. But FB's network effect is unprecedented and represents a much bigger challenge, IMO.

Generally speaking I agree, but Google screwed up Wave so badly that the lead developer went to work for Facebook; any developer that was in the community or building products for Wave was also so badly screwed I think they'll never work with or for Google again (Full disclosure: I was among them).

I think this needs a new company. Anyone interested?

It's more like the lead developer screwed up with Wave so badly that he lost all credibility and had to leave. Google gave him all resources he asked for and he produced a shitty overhyped product.

That's fair, but I don't know who has the intersection of Google's clout and incentives. Google's the only powerful force that has the incentive to fight for an open web, as opposed to a collection of closed silos.

My not-so-secret hope is that the lesson Google took from the Wave debacle was to first focus on making a product that's compelling and engaging to users, get a critical mass of adoption, and then release the code. I guy can dream, can't he?

It is ultimately not about clout and incentives; it is about drive. It is just like when a lot of people know what the right thing is to do but are too short sighted to pursue it (wasn't Google just trying to acquire Zynga, for example).

Google also seems like one of the most long-term thinking companies in existence. Self-driving cars come to mind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com