Why Google+ Can Still Beat Facebook

After Larry Page replaced Eric Schmidt, Google turned into company run by salesmen(even though Page had a really groundbreaking idea with his PageRank algorithm). It is not what it used to be in the past.

It no longer innovates. Google's strategy is now more like the one that Microsoft used - copy successful products of other companies and use your money and resources as a leverage. In the mean time, to kill the competition, perform smear campaigns against them or use the vast cash reserves to let them die the financial death(cutting their margins as in the case of Dropbox).

I mean look at Google's search results, they display google + anywhere it is possible. The same can be said about youtube, google books. Soon they will cut off tremendous amount of profit from other websites by introducing the Google shopping upgrade ( paid placement! something they despised in the past ).

They always defend themselves by saying: "Other search engines are just one click away. People are free to choose others, but since they stay, it must mean we do something good."

Well it is mainly people's habits. For majority of Internet users, 'google' means 'search'. What is interesting is that even if other search engines have better quality of results, those people will not change their search provider. People prefer Bing results to Google's results when they are served in Google's template. That proves something interesting.

I understand - shareholders want growth - but for fucks sake, stop turning that company into the Big Brother.

Like for example before Gmail all email providers only gave 2MB of storage space and because of that you had to delete important emails daily, which was a real pain. But when Google came out with its 1GB storage plan in which there was nothing to delete ever, it solved a very big problem for a whole bunch of users. So while Gmail's interface is nice and Ajaxy and spam filters rock.. still the reason why everyone went through the trouble of changing their email addresses was still because of the huge space and no deleting emails everyday. Because if that wasn't there then I would have never used Gmail in the first place, let alone realize the other advantages it offered (like better ui, spam protection, etc)

Changing a social network similarly would also require such a huge motivation. Going after Privacy or giving Free apps is not reason enough for me or most users. They really need to solve a very real pain (unlike email this time it's not very clear what that huge pain is).

The article itself is poorly thought out. I doubt that people trust Google that much more than they do Facebook and data portability is a feature that might please some users but it isn't a significant reason to join nor will most people take advantage of it.

Keep on using one social network over another if that makes you happy, but honestly I don't see why I should care that my preferred social network "beats" the other one. Plenty of room on the Internet.

Google+ can win by making it difficult to leave.

>Google makes it relatively easy to permanently delete the data you’ve banked at Google+, and walk away. You accomplish this through a Google+ tool called Google Takeout; with just a few clicks, you can download data from your Picasa Web Albums, Google profile, Google+ stream, Buzz, and contacts.

Google+ can win by making it easy to leave.

Isn't this statement getting fairly resoundingly proven wrong by advertisers? Facebook has some great demographic data, but Google Searches tie directly to purchasing intent. As an advertiser I'd rather know someone was searching for "mini vans" then that they're a married person with 2 kids.

Everyone keeps touting Facebook's social graph data as its killer product, yet it seems that Facebook has struggled a bit to really turn it into a revenue stream on par with Google's search data.

I go to Facebook, what do I see? Babies of my friends, party invitations, jokes that have left Reddit 3 years ago who someone translated a year ago into a native language and so on. I go to Google+ ,what do I see? Posts, by people I've never partied with, which actually tend to interest me. There's that lawyer stuff about evolution of tech-related law. There is some really cool hacking. Some random excerpts of science. And generally a lot of interesting stuff, that's not personal and would never make it on Facebook.

I would sincerely appreciate it if someone could enlighten me as to why I am almost always forced to identify myself as something other than rch. Are random or numeric account IDs really so bad? Were there problems with early products like ICQ?

Quick edit: I know they dropped the real name requirements - I'm wondering why a unique, random account id couldn't be associated with one or more aliases, gmail addresses, etc., which could be aggregated, archived, hidden, dropped, and so on.

If it does, it will be because of two things.

#1. Sideways adoptions (Google Docs, Android Phones, Etc)

#2. Walled gardens tend to stave themselves over time. Right now Facebook has mastered emulating AOL in the sense of "Facebook is the Internet" for many people. But once social becomes less hip, more a casual part of normal days the pull (or at least value) of FB will tank, since G+ attaches it to other things, it might survive better.

I think will see the fall of the Social Empire and these social networks will break up into smaller social networks.

In other words, this article and others like it feel like a submarine[1].

1 - http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

This whole take on products in a result of the fact that tech reporters are seemingly unable to frame anything but in a "x vs. y" battle royale.

+ is meant as a pictured profile that a user would use across all their offering - which is something they lacked before - and everything else about it is just gravy.