

Google+ really is a Facebook killer. Here are few simple reasons why. - oldstrangers

Google+ integrated into all Google web properties. Some, like GMail, Youtube, and search, are already huge market leaders.<p>Google+ integrated into Chrome, which is quickly becoming the browser of choice. Social notifications straight to your browser without any extensions... Default Google+ functionality like share/+1/etc. Facebook has no chance of competing with this.<p>Google+ integrated into Android, the leading smart phone OS. What happens when all those hundreds of millions of Android phones start shipping with default Google+ functionality? What happens if Google decides Facebook doesn't really have a place on Android anymore?<p>Google+ is Google's Grand Unification. If they really planned for everything to work out like this, then they're absolute geniuses and they pulled a fast one on almost everyone. They've built the most impressive social network I've seen, completely in reverse, one piece (site) at a time.<p>I honestly won't be surprised if Microsoft/Facebook/Twitter start crying foul and throwing around the monopoly word. And perhaps that's why all these puzzle pieces are starting to slowly come together, because if they launched all this functionality at once, Google would probably be neck deep in lawsuits.<p>As a corollary to all this, if Google+ fails, Google will take a huge hit. It's a remarkable gamble that has the potential to change the web entirely, for better or worse.<p>EDIT: I forgot Google Maps with Google+ integration/check ins. It's daunting to think of all the ways Google can take over the world.
======
AwesomeTogether
"What happens if Google decides Facebook doesn't really have a place on
Android anymore?"

If Google did that, they would face billions of dollars worth of fines from
competition regulators in the U.S and Europe.

~~~
Brewer
I agree, Google needs to be very careful where they go from here. If they try
to take over Android, or the iPhone, or the world, they could get into a shit
load of trouble because of the antitrust laws in place here in America.

It's pretty ridiculous that a company can get in trouble for providing so many
great services for free.

~~~
actionbrandon
It's not that ridiculous. What happens when they decide the great services
shouldn't be free anymore since there is no competition. Even Hayek hated
monopolies and argued that rules and government intervention were needed to
defend against them.

------
hasenj
Google+ is awesome, but these are not good reasons why it will be a Facebook
killer.

Just because Google can shove it in people's face doesn't mean that it can or
will succeed.

------
pasbesoin
What's the minimum public Google profile one is required to have? So far, I've
avoided having a public Google profile.

~~~
rufibarbatus
Name and gender.

Then again, Google doesn't seem to require you to use your legal name, like
Facebook does.

~~~
pasbesoin
Ha. Re pseudonyms, I just realized the problem I'm beginning to face; Multiple
Persona Disorder. ;-)

(If today is Tuesday, I must be...)

Seriously, though, that is a plus, if it is reasonably defensible within the
Google ecosystem. I'm an "opt in" kind of guy (there goes the gender
anonymity); that includes personally identifiable information.

Over the years, I've seen a lot of quite productive and meaningful
communication that's been facilitated, or entirely enabled, by selective
anonymity.

Online. And "in real life".

You can have a conversation with a stranger in a cafe, without proffering so
much as a first name. People should have the same ability online.

I've known some people (in real life) for months at a time on such a basis,
e.g. in a particular venue, and gotten to know them fairly well. Selective
anonymity is _not_ a new feature, or "aberration", created by the internet,
and its value as an element/feature in society is in my mind long-standing and
well demonstrated.

