Tumbling Block

Why Google+ Will Win

On Wednesday, Mark Zuckerberg unveiled a slew of new chat features for Facebook.  In doing so, there was some discussion about Google+, the new Facebook-killer being unleashed by Google.  And yes, I do mean Facebook-killer.

No, I was not there, and my argument relies entirely of what other people have reported.  Below is Business Insider’s Matt Rosof’s account of Zuck’s presentation. Rosof’s words are in italics.  If you’d like to read the full article, click here.

Mashable’s Ben Parr asked him directly about Google+, and here’s more or less what he said (it’s a rough transcript — not precise):

I’m not going to say a lot about Google+, we’ve all only spent a little time on the service….The last five years have been about connecting people, the next five years are about connecting apps. We’ll see a lot of companies who haven’t looked at social begin to build it into their apps. Not just Google. Netflix is a good example, they’ve talked openly about wanting to be more social…I view this as validation of how this is going to play out over the next five years. Every app is going to be social. If we build the best service, there’s massive value there. If we don’t, somebody else will.

Seems pretty humble.

Zuck’s right.  Google isn’t the only company getting into social.  But Google is the only company getting into social that has the infrastructure all over the Internet to take Facebook down.

Think about this:  If the next five years is about connecting apps, how does Google not have the upper hand?  They already have all the apps that everyone needs and they’re all already connected.  Gmail, Google Docs, Google Maps, Google Calendar, YouTube, the list goes on and on.  While Facebook started with social and added apps, Google took the reverse approach.  They built apps—good apps, apps that everyone has come to rely on and use every day—and now they’re making them social.

Zuck should be humble.  But while he said he wouldn’t talk much about Google+, there were quite a few not-so-subtle shots at the platform throughout the remainder of his presentation:

• This is all Facebook does. “Companies doing one thing will always do better than companies doing a million things.” Facebook is and always has been about social networking. Google already has its fingers in a million pies — search, advertising, online video content, music, mobile phones, and on and on — and is trying to add social layers on top of them.

First off, Facebook doesn’t just do one thing.  Once upon a time, they did, but no longer.  Google also used to do just one thing.  Companies grow and they have to expand.  It’s natural for both of these rivals to do so.  Google has the technology and infrastructure to be able to do many things very well simultaneously.

Besides, this goes against the previous argument that social is now about connecting apps.  Sure, Google has its fingers in a million pies, but those pies are all connected, making them precisely the type of company that could take Facebook down.

• People don’t want to manage groups. With Facebook’s group feature, “everyone who is in the group knows that everyone else is in the group,” said Zuckerberg. Google’s equivalent, Circles, lets you put people in particular circles, but they don’t know which circles they’re in or who else is in them. Plus sometimes you’re simply following people — like on Twitter — but you can still communicate with them directly. Other times, they’re following you back, which is more like a Facebook friend-friend relationship. Overall, it’s time-consuming and a little focusing.

I’ll admit, I don’t have a Google+ invite (yet), so I’m not completely sure how to use Circles.  That said, I’ve watched the videos and it doesn’t seem that complicated.  This sounds like an As-Seen-on-TV product trying to convince me that opening a jar is backbreaking work.

In fact, I’m excited to try Circles for the exact reasons Zuck claims people won’t like it.  I don’t want all my friends to know who I share what content with.  My parents are aware (or should be by now) that I block them on Facebook.  That’s mostly because they used to write inane comments on literally everything I post.

The problem is that my parents can’t see my wall because of them being blocked, which is how they figured out they were blocked in the first place.  Facebook doesn’t offer another solution.  I can create a Facebook Group, but everyone knows everyone else in that group and I would have to share content only amongst the people in that group.  That’s just not realistic.  Google Circles lets you be stealthy with whom you share your content, and I like that, and other people will like that too.

• Group video chat is a corner case. Google+ Hangouts lets users video chat with up to 10 people at once, while Facebook-Skype only allows one-to-one calls. But “the vast majority of chat is 1 to 1 today,” said Zuckerberg. This is a little misleading — Skype charges for group calls while 1 to 1 is free, so of course it’s going to be rarer. But even so, he’s intuitively right. Think about the times you’ve needed to make a phone call. Now think about the times you’ve needed to start a conference call. 

As Rosof points out, this is misleading.  Also, it’s a moot point.  Even if most chats are one-to-one, that doesn’t mean offering a multi-user chat is a negative or a useless feature.  You can still do one-to-one chats on Google+, but you can also add as many as 8 more people to the chat if you want to.  How is that not a legitimate argument in favor of Google+?

And if group chat is not a big deal, why did Facebook just unveil group text chat? Why add that feature if the majority of chats are one-to-one?  The truth is, Google has always been better at chat than Facebook.  Gchat has had video and group chat for a long time now and it’s never as glitchy as Facebook chat is.

And now the biggest flawed argument in favor of Facebook:

• Everybody’s on Facebook already. Philip Su, the engineer who worked on Facebook video chat, said it’s a one button click to any friend “on the social network that already HAS all your friends.” That’s definitely not the case with Google+ yet.

Right.  Second movers never win, right?  Is that why Facebook never had a chance against MySpace or Friendster?  Please.

In fact, this argument is precisely why Google+ will take Facebook down. Everybody’s on Facebook.  Everybody.  Including my parents.  And my grandma. And everybody.  You see my point?  I already explained how I block my parents on Facebook.  Google+ is a platform where my parents are not yet and won’t be for a long time.  And if they are, I can just put them in a circle and not share with them.

Facebook used to be new and hip.  It was only college students, then college and high school students, then professional networks, and finally everybody.  Now they’re no longer the exclusive new club.  Parents and grandparents have made Facebook less cool.  Sure, it’s great being able to share with your family, and Facebook will always have a place for things like that, but Google+ is the new fascination.  With the invite-only beta testing, Google has made + exclusive, buzzworthy, and exciting.  It’s everything Facebook used to be.

Now, Google has dropped the ball on social before.  Wave was a disaster and Buzz never took off.  If anyone can screw up social, Google can.  But I have reason to believe Google+ is different.  It’s much more integrated with everything else Google does, and the roll out is much more controlled.  Time will tell whether or not I’m right, but Google+ seems poised to give Facebook its first major test, and I do think Google will win.