

Why Mark Zuckerberg’s First Public Response To Google+ Is The Right One - MatthewB
http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/06/zuckerberg-first-public-response-to-google-plus

======
tomelders
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.

~~~
hackinthebochs
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.

~~~
CamperBob
_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.

~~~
dasil003
> _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".

------
BvS
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).

~~~
esrauch
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.

------
bad_user
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.

------
d0m
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+.

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

~~~
jrockway
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.

~~~
ez77
Which continents? I wouldn't have asked had you used a singular term.

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

~~~
ez77
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...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_population#Area_and_population)

