
Why I'm Rooting For Google+ - razin
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/07/why-im-rooting-for-google.html
======
timr
I don't get it. Isn't anyone else as creeped-out by the idea of a Google
social network as I am?

I'm definitely not thrilled at the idea of Facebook being the One True Social
Network, but the idea of a Google social network makes me sad, and more than a
little nervous. The fact that Google is trying to exploit their search
dominance to funnel people into a Facebook competitor screams "anti-trust
violation" to me, and the information-control consequences make me a little
woozy -- I'd rather that Facebook dominate the space completely than give
Google any more of my personal information. Google+ may not be evil, but it
isn't exactly lily-pure, either.

I'm hoping that this is another classic case of Nerd Blindness (much like Rob
Malda's famous proclamation that the original iPod was 'lame'): Google has an
exceptionally good technical reputation, so techies are foaming at the mouth
to get access to their newest plaything, while _everyone else_ just sees this
as an attempt by a gigantic company to destroy a good service that it sees as
a threat.

Cheering for Google to win in the social network space seems to be to be a bit
like hoping that IBM will take down Microsoft. When giants fight, I can't
summon up any other feeling than fear that the rest of us are going to get
squashed.

~~~
naner
Google, while not perfect, has been more consumer friendly in handing privacy
issues than Facebook has. They allow adblocking in Chrome, they allow you to
export your data from their properties, they allow you to delete your account,
etc. Also Google's walled garden is more permeable than Facebook's.

So while data collection is creepy and monopolies are harmful, I trust Google
more than I trust Facebook.

~~~
nbm
Facebook allows you to export your data, and to delete your account.

Export your data: <https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=18844>

Delete your account: <https://www.facebook.com/help/?page=185698814812082>

~~~
reso
Thanks. I don't understand how people constantly forget this. What was once
true is not necessarily true today.

------
gruseom
Off topic, but the OP links to a post called "Be your own bitch" that contains
the following paragraph that makes me happy:

"The thing that I have come to appreciate most about founders is a deep
obsession about one thing over a long period of time. When we first met Joshua
Schachter he had launched three versions of what were sort of social
bookmarking, that he had then shut down before he launched Delicious. Dennis
Crowley has been working on what has become Four Square since vindigo, which
was a flat iron portfolio company that we invested in over 10 years ago. Jack
Dorsey you know, came up with the original version of twitter back in the late
90's and he had been obsessed about that idea for almost a decade before he
built it inside ODEO. And I can go on and on and on, but that sort of maniacal
obsession about a specific issue and a specific domain and a specific kind of
service, is the thing that to me is the most compelling trait of an
entrepreneur."

[http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/23/fred-wilson-be-your-own-
bit...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/23/fred-wilson-be-your-own-bitch/)

~~~
6ren
What is a _flat iron portfolio company_ such that it is similar enough to
Foursquare to support the obsession thesis?

~~~
nikcub
Flatiron Partners was a legendary NY-basd VC fund during the first dotcom
era[1]. Most remember them for the Kozmo.com investment

Fred wrote a post about moving from Flatiron to USV[2]

[1] [http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/companies/company-
profil...](http://www.vault.com/wps/portal/usa/companies/company-
profile/Flatiron-Partners?companyId=10203)

[2] <http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2005/02/flatiron_partne.html>

------
michaelchisari
Although I'm no fan of walled gardens, I have much greater faith in Google
adopting an open, federated protocol, given their track record, than I ever
had with Facebook. And if they did, that would push Facebook to adopt it as
well.

~~~
orijing
It's a competitive tactic to be open when you're small and less open when
you're big. For example, you can download your entire profile as a .zip file
from Facebook (not sure if you can get the email), and you can allow any apps
to access your data (again, probably not email), even though Facebook is the
largest social network on the web.

In comparison, Google doesn't let you download your entire search history and
everything else that they collect about you--what sort of ads you like,
keywords that have worked well for you, links you've clicked on. To me, my
"search history" is my profile on Google while my wall/profile is my data on
Facebook.

~~~
jeffdavis
"For example, you can download your entire profile as a .zip file from
Facebook"

Do you get all of your connections (by what identifiers?), all the messages
you've sent, and everything else?

~~~
orijing
I don't know. I haven't touched that feature in a while. But there's a
philosophy that you own your content, but connections are owned by both ends.
I'm not even sure that being able to export your wall (including others'
private comments) is fair to others. Otherwise, you end up with Google's
public-sharing bug (where you can share a private item publicly).

There's a fine balance between respecting your privacy and flexibility, and
those of your friends.

~~~
jeffdavis
"Otherwise, you end up with Google's public-sharing bug (where you can share a
private item publicly)."

If you share something digital with someone, they can share it with someone
else. That's just the way it is.

Interfaces and clients should help you avoid doing that accidentally, and even
make it slightly challenging (perhaps you need to write a new client against
their API or something) -- but preventing you from exporting your own data, or
data that someone has explicitly shared with you, is just not justified. It
sounds a lot more like a convenient excuse for lock-in.

------
ajdecon
I really like the idea that there won't be "one social service to rule them
all": I know that Facebook and Twitter serve different purposes for me, and
I'm also occasionally active on niche social services like LinkedIn and
Goodreads. But I'm concerned that the pain of managing multiple friends lists
will force one or two "winners" which try to be all things to all people: it's
much easier to hook into Facebook's existing social graph than build a new
one, but I honestly don't want Facebook to contain all my life.

Google+ seems to be trying the "all things to all people" approach as well,
and I'm similarly skeptical of it at the moment. I'm still trying to feel out
where it will fit in my own usage: if it finds a purpose other than just
"Facebook replacement" I will probably use it, but otherwise it may be too
difficult to escape the network effects.

~~~
bdhe
For those already actively using GMail, Google Calendar and other Google
services (including Search), the fact that the Plus Bar on top allows you to
share links and keep notified _across the web_ is a very big difference over
Facebook. In that sense, already I see it having a better _staying power_ than
Facebook.

Also, anecdotally, I am rarely logged in to Facebook constantly because it
serves me no useful "productive" purpose. I catch up with friends and family
only when I'm done working. With Google+ it is going to be that much harder
because I'm always logged in to check mails and organize my calendar.

~~~
jfoutz
No bar with the new UI's.

I'm sure it's just another oversight, like music.

------
mongol
I am not on Facebook but I think it is "good for the world" if Google+ becomes
succesful. I agreed with the poster that likened Facebook to dirty jeans. I
don't know where that analogy came from but it resonates with me. However, I
am undecided if Google+ is something for me. What I fear (hopefully unfounded)
is that Google suddenly introduces a "feature" where it shows your friends
what you have searched for. I _think_ (not sure) that something similar to
that occurred on Youtube, where suddenly friends could find my Youtube account
and see what videos I had seen.

~~~
chc
I'd think that's pretty unlikely. Since the Buzz fiasco, Google is legally
bound by an agreement with the federal government to take privacy more
seriously. See [http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/03/ftc-settles-with-
google...](http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/03/ftc-settles-with-google-on-
charges-of-buzz-privacy-violation.php)

------
wilschroter
If Facebook can grow to 750m users this quickly isn't it safe to say the
infrastructure/adoption exists for another company to grow to that number even
faster? Let's stop pretending it's the 80's and only one company can figure
out how to rule a market (Microsoft).

Facebook, too, shall pass. We of the technology world should know this better
than anyone.

------
Newky
"Well first, I don't think competitors kill companies and services. I think
the vast majority of "deaths" are self inflicted."

I like this line, and it amplifies my feelings that in order for plus to be
successful, it will require not only the polished product which is being
introduced but also something that the other services lack.

------
ams6110
_My dad, for example, doesn't want any of those experiences. He might like
Google+. It's a lot like email. He can curate groups of friends; his friends
from school, his friends from the army, his friends from the community he
lives in, and share information with them quickly and easily._

OK so I don't really get it. This is nothing that can't be done easily with
any email service now, using mailing lists. Dad can have a mailing list of his
school friends, army buddies, etc. Why put another layer on top of that? Using
email doesn't require any of the participants to have register or create yet
another profile with yet another service. I don't see this as a very
compelling example.

~~~
toyg
My mother doesn't know what a mailing list and couldn't manage one to save her
life, but she's quite active on Facebook. Email is the command line, social
networks are Windows.

------
jeffool
I sincerely don't think any company will successfully "become the platform" in
perpetuity, They'll just make obscene amounts of money while their star is
shining. But I do think good can come from this.

As Facebook, Google, Twitter, (the stillborn?) OpenID and others compete to be
the "company that handles online identities," everyone else can just focus on
what they do. They don't have to run massive databases of users, just allow a
trusted third party login and let people at the good stuff.

Aside from that, I don't really care too much about it.

~~~
icebraining
>everyone else can just focus on what they do. They don't have to run massive
databases of users, just allow a trusted third party login and let people at
the good stuff.

Not really; you still need a users database to store everything else related
to the user. You only really save on the authentication related fields, which
are a very small part of it.

~~~
jeffool
Small insofar as data is concerned, but by far the most important. For
instance you don't have to worry about hackers taking passwords from you any
more. At worst they bust in and take a list of functional email addresses
(assuming you email users) and site settings (which may our may not be
valuable, depending on your site.)

Maybe I did a shit job of explaining my concern. Or maybe I'm further off base
than I think?

~~~
icebraining
I was replying to the "massive" part. But yes, you're right, and I wish more
websites would do that.

~~~
jeffool
Then a shit job in explaining my concern it is/was!

------
zeddez
Social is too important for one company to control the market. This is a great
start for Google+, but Google is fighting with one arm behind their back given
the network effects of Facebook.

------
tilt
I was thinking at the Developers' part instead. What's the plan with Games and
Apps? Is G+ going to offer the same conditions as for its Web store? (more
likely)

That would be a huge game changer (FB has 30% cut) expecially for those
biggies like Zynga. Could this be related to Zynga's "rush" for the IPO?

------
kmfrk
I don't see how this will "kill" other services. I hope that it might
centralize and compartmentalize the idiosyncratic inanity in one place to
clean up the noise on other platforms.

------
pschlump
This article has the best summary of what the different social functions
Facebook, Tmblr and Twiter provide.

------
ignifero
So, to get down to business, it's reasonable to hope that google will provide
an oAuth 1.0 api for your social stuff, as they do with other services. The
question is: what communication channels shall G+ give to developers? Also,
will google use opensocial (I really hope not)

------
ignifero
We only have one social platform today worth building on, facebook. Let's hope
this will change.

~~~
smhinsey
I think this could be huge. My experience with building on the FB platform has
been so dramatically negative that I gave it up and really no longer trust
them (I'll take a look at this new platform they're working on, of course) as
a platform provider.

I think Google, with their track record of APIs and platforms like GAE, could
really light a fire under them that'd be beneficial to everyone.

~~~
ignifero
Unfortunately i rely on facebook for traffic. When i started, Dave Morin was
in charge and things were looking good. Since then, we've only seen
limitations constant changes, unenforced policies, things breaking etc etc. At
this point it is indeed really in a bad shape, and a good reason may be that
they don't feel any competition.

~~~
smhinsey
Yeah, the types of problems we had (I sort of wrote about it elsewhere[1])
were just totally inexplicable. I forget the precise specifics but one of them
was something along the lines of things that would work one day but not the
next, etc. Just really wild stuff that made me have no trust for the
reliability of the platform.

Edit: The "best" part, if you follow that link, is that the project I
mentioned that ended up cancelled would've had to be rewritten anyway now that
FBML is on the way out.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2693190>

------
shareme
Fred, doesn't get it yet..

FB is fully public everyone

G+ is user controlled sharing for both public and private..big difference

~~~
orijing
You have confused FB with Twitter...

------
hugh3
I'm rooting for it for rather more personal and selfish reason:

1\. I'm a shareholder in GOOG

2\. All the Facebook employees I've ever met have been kinda annoying, so I
don't want to see those individuals get rich.

------
rinkjustice
Rooting for Google+ over Facebook is like rooting for MC Hammer over Michael
Jackson.

Get outside and get a life.

