With Facebook now public and sitting on a huge pile of cash, let’s turn the conversation to the social network’s most pressing competitor, Google. Google and Google+ don’t appear to present much of a threat to Facebook, but the game board was reset on Friday and tactics at both companies will change accordingly. Now Facebook has to find a way to grow revenue and users and will increasingly bump up against Google’s huge advantages in search and apps. For Facebook to achieve its goals, the company will have to enter both spaces with gusto.
Google has learned how to leverage its strengths and suddenly one of those strengths is Facebook’s success. Now that Facebook is a $100 billion company, it doesn’t hurt Google to be number two in that space. Who else is? Pinterest? Instagram? Twitter? None of those services offer a full-fledged social network for those who do want a Facebook alternative, and some people will.
There’s nothing that unique at Google+ to cause people to leave Facebook for it. But there are compelling reasons why publishers might decide they need to make use of it, chiefly for search rankings. If the publishers think they’ll get better rankings, they’ll help push it along, which means Google+ will continue to grow whether people actually use it or not.
In January, for example, Google added a new box promoting people who are on Google+. If you’re not on Google+, you can’t appear in the box. Do a search for “music,” and someone like Britney Spears was showing up. The following week, Lady Gaga – who ignored Google+ up until that point and so didn’t appear in the box – joined. Search for music today, there’s Lady Gaga.
That’s a game changer. Google has used the attraction of its search page to convince publishers to effectively jump start its social network. It probably won’t overtake Facebook. It might always remain a distant second to Facebook. But it has given Google a much more viable competitor than ever before. And if you’re a publisher, you want to be part of it, because it has a huge impact on your visibility in Google search.
The guy who really gets this is Danny Sullivan over at Search Engine Land.
Google has other apps it can leverage like GMail, for example, and Google Docs. And of course there’s basic search, itself. Looking at GMail as an example, it has been in Facebook’s interest to keep users communicating inside the social network rather than extending relationships outward through a mail client where they’d risk escaping from Facebook entirely, talking among themselves. In its new role as a grownup, however, Facebook will ultimately have to face the external mail needs of its members it if intends to continue subscriber growth, so I’d look for some sort of FMail service with clever social media hooks.
Of course the most obvious way for Facebook to take it to Google would be in basic search, but that’s where I’d see Facebook playing a similar card to Google and accepting number two status in search by acquiring Bing from Microsoft. This makes sense for both companies since it would probably happen as a stock deal with Microsoft increasing its Facebook holdings (and influence). For Facebook buying Bing this week would cost a lot less than it would have last week, since it can pay with bloated stock.
There’s no do-or-die in this, but Facebook and Google are lining-up as each other’s main enemies and in order to compete each will start to look a lot more like the other.

First, woo hoo!
It must be the very definition of sad and stupid. Having so little in your life that it is important to be “first” but having nothing whatsoever to say.
It doesn’t say much for one to rain on the short lived simple pleasure of another.
I was going to post a facetious “43rd – Yippie!” or some such, but your wise comment humbles me, Tim K. I’ll shut up now.
Let me say this about that…
seek!
First Again – Weee!
I agree – APPS ARE IT! PERIOD!
I do app interface design & Facebook needs to hits the planet hard with an app SDK & GDK. There’s really no other path for them to go down and compete head-to-head with Google unless they do.
I bet they will…..
Dang – missed it by 20 seconds….. oh well….
You actually are first, so be glad. Being first only counts if you have a real comment other than gloating about being first.
I guess this reasoning makes my reply about the same as the “first” comment. Ah, well….
Except “I agree!” isn’t a comment. You idiots are why anonymous comment systems are increasingly rare.
That’s unfair even by your rules since he said more than “I agree”. Remember the hundreds of posts that followed Bob’s series about IBM…most reflected agreement but also with additional information.
I think you greatly overestimate Google’s importance in social for two reasons.
1. The reason why Pinterest, Twitter, etc. have seen more success than Google+ is because they didn’t try to be Facebook. Google+ offers no reason for anyone to join since it’s just a clone. I think the play here is to attack Facebook where it hurts on privacy and mobile. The problem is that Google will always be weak on privacy. It should be interesting times ahead if (or most likely when) Apple makes iCloud into its own private social network like Instagram was.
2. General search is becoming increasingly irrelevant because of mobile and people are using apps that give specific and better results.
Facebook is in a conundrum because making a great mobile native app will move them away from their dominance on the web.
Pinterest has a very nice UI.
If FaceBook really wanted to shake things up at Google’s expense, they would start making traditional email obsolete.
If you think about it, email is great for one-to-one communication. However, the moment you need to add a third person to the conversation, email falls flat. You can forward an email to a third person, with the full chain of the conversation, but they have difficulty going back and commenting on earlier parts of the conversation. It can be done, but it is awkward.
What you really want is a discussion where each participant can pick out a word, phrase or sentence from any prior comment and reply to or comment on that. Then, you need the ability to retain that conversation for long periods of time, so you can refer back to it and modify it as time goes by.
You need the ability to keep a conversation private within a limited group of people and add more people as time goes by.
That doesn’t threaten Gmail per se. More like renders the fundamental concept behind Gmail obsolete, which threatens much more than Google. That could take a bite out of Yahoo (you know they want to) and Hotmail while they’re at it.
People already put all kinds of personal details in email via Gmail. And yes, Google tailors the ads to the content of the email. What’s to stop Facebook from doing the same?
Note: I do not have an account with Facebook, as I consider their privacy policy not so much “lax” as “antithetical.” Still, I see the need for something better than email in its current form.
Add in the ability for the conversation to develop in real-time, like a group Instant Message, and you’ve unified two rather different communications media and rendered both of them semi-obsolete.
Interesting to hear that from another person. I have been frustrated with email as a sysadmin at a small office in the sense that you are talking about. Each mailbox becomes an island of parts of a conversation thread, and it would be great to have those islands joined into one continent of a discussion. I would love to supplant email (at the very least, internal email) with a social business software solution. The ones that I have seen are only affordable to huge enterprises who would find huge value out of the system. In my view, this is where Google+ is more prepared to step in than Facebook if Google (or some 3rd party) could integrate some SBS functionality (project sites, file uploads, internal activity stream, etc) into G+ that separates the business data from the public data (with some administrative controls). This would be especially true in the Google Apps environment. That may be a great way to force a bigger and business oriented user base.
But with that said, Google really alienated potential users when they boggled opening G+ to apps users. Especially by letting folks (me included) start G+ in a personal account with the exact same email address as a google apps account (before availability in G Apps), forcing people to migrate their profiles away from that email address to a temporary email address, promising a future migration tool to migrate back in a few weeks, and then never delivering it (here we are 6 months or so later). http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/apps/fYnM–jWv2c
Google actually tried exactly what you are suggesting with Google Wave. Great concept, but nobody used it and it languished and was recently scrapped (Though the APIs and technology still exists somewhere I think.)
Email is so ubiquitous that supplanting it is an almost impossible task, no matter how good your alternative.
That is similar to how USENET groups worked (or didn’t work).
You are correct. Usenet messages were explictly threaded, unlike email. Gmail does a pretty good job of implicitly threading my conversations; far better than most standalone e-mail clients. But, something better is still needed. Also, Usenet required you to reply to the entire message, which frequently resulted in the replies quoting part of the original message. If you could select part of the original message and reply to that, that reduces the need to quote, which reduces the total amount of text which needs to be stored and shown.
If they REALLY wanted to kill Gmail, they’d do what I suggested above AND do it “right” on mobile. Not only would they put a dent in tranditional email and IM, it would also be another nail in SMS’ coffin. I mean, wouldn’t you rather be using data than SMS messages? It would be taking people closer and closer to a unified communication system, breaking all of these individual silos down. That might be enough to get me over my distaste for their lack of privacy policy and get me on-board.
Yes, I’m publicly spilling an idea that I’ve been playing with for years. I just never got it to the point of developing a commercial product based on it, and Facebook is already pretty close to what I’m outlining.
Give the ability to make one or more of your conversations “public.” You can already have people follow you on there. Do it right, and they won’t need to worry about Twitter. They’d be able to squash it like a bug.
Furthermore, if they wanted to invade the enterprise, they’d probably want to package up some small, 1U rackmount appliance which would a corp could put behind their firewall (not unlike a Barracuda or a Google Search Appliance). Then, the corp could replace email and IM with conversations, tie it to corporate-supplied Blackberries, user-supplied iPhones, etc. I would for an F500 corp right now, and we won’t significantly use ANYTHING which isn’t behind the corporate firewall.
“If you could select part of the original message and reply to that…” That is how newsgroups have always worked, it’s just that many people choose to leave the entire quote instead of editing it as they should. By the way, they still exist, it’s just harder to find free servers and clients. They can’t easily include ads, as web forums can.
FB already does this, though not for corporate environments, just personal. That said, the problems of “flexible email” are more around how one uses it and so far FB has been unable to create a sticky UI around its “social” email.
Well, Cringely used Collaborize (now apparently at http://www.collaborizeclassroom.com) for his Startup Tour nominations. Wasn’t perfect, but showed promise. BTW, Robert X., your Tour link now goes nowhere…
I once tried to get a company I worked for to use its source code control system as a general engineering blackboard, but it didn’t catch on.
Are there any blogging engines out there that support inline comments? That would come close to filling the bill.
Funny to see this posted on the same day that I read how the EU Competition Commission is looking for Google to NOT promote its sites when users are searching (because Google has a “dominant share” in search, “monopoly” not necessary).
Yes, Google will want to do this, and where it legally can, probably will.
But if Google becomes little more than the ad vehicle of choice for the Fortune 500, they’ll find that they’re shooting themselves in the foot.
Google SO should have bought LinkedIn. They potentially might have done that for about what the offered for Groupon. Instant, high-quality user base! Maybe it isn’t too late?
I use Google and Gmail because they work and they’re professional.
I only have to see that irritant teenager Zuckerberg grinning back at me to know that facebook can never be taken seriously. Yeah I know that’s personal, but that’s how I make my business decisions, and I don’t see Zuckerberg as a peer businessman.
Sadly, it’s even harder to take someone seriously who makes business decisions based in an emotional reaction to a company’s CEO – and yes, calling the non-teenager Zuckerberg a “teenager” constitutes an emotional reaction. If you’re a Google fanboy, why not just say so? Saying “they’re for business” ignores the most important trend in IT in the past ten years, commoditization of IT functions with consumer products.
Interesting analysis.
There’s an implicit “Microsoft is irrelevent except as an investment banker” in this and a more explicit “Microsoft doesn’t have the presence in mobile or social to make Bing work.”
Bob I think the key over revenue or user growth for Facebook is profit. They are currently way overpriced and as I noted in your last Facebook post I see their stock price falling quite a bit.
My bigger question is has Facebook peaked for their business model? What part of the business cycle are they in? They can only milk Facebook itself for so much and other things like email won’t generate a dime.
They picked a great time to cash in, but I’ll be very surprised to see them grow profitably to the level that they need to.
Well, here’s a thought.
Get a bunch of wanna-get-rich-quick types to pay $x / share (too much). After the company has gotten a huge influx of cash from this, watch the share values drop to $y / share (something a little more realistic). Initiate a stock buy-back program using some of that cash. You got $x / share in the IPO. You buy them back for $y, where y < x. (x – y) * shares bought = pure profit from clueless people. As you do so, the Earnings / Share goes up (S is diminishing, so E/S goes up if E remains stable). As E/S hits appropriate levels, the share value stabilizes.
You just got a pile of money which doesn't need to be repaid, and you put a pile of shares back under the company's control, reducing the amount of influence the shareholders would've had over the company.
In other words: game the market. Isn't "gaming" what Facebook does best?
I dunno… I feel like it’s the people. There’s nothing Facebook has that Google+ doesn’t — for me — except all my friends.
It’s not going to be some killer app that gets people to come. Google needs to buy an audience.
Or, if it were really smart, embed Google+ into Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, you name it.
It’s like the EU problem they face… they have weeks to prove they’re not anti-competitive. Simply adding “Search on Bing | Search on Yahoo! | Search on Ask.com” to the top of their page would go against the anti-competitive argument and yet make their position even stronger. Why bother going to Bing if I can get to Bing from Google?
Instead of taking away all the easy access to Facebook, make it really easy to post to Facebook and Google+ at the same time. Make it easy to share your new blog post on Blogger or the blog post you’re reading on Google Reader or Google News, make it easy to update your Facebook status at the same time you update your Google+ stream. The song you’re listening to on Google Music. Search results. Sites. Docs. Etc. You get the picture. (Purchasing AddThis or Pandora or any product that Yahoo! wants to divest might be a great start towards buying an audience. Heck, is Apple still bitter about being rebuffed by Facebook for the Ping integration?)
Generate all kinds of new and repeat traffic to the Google family of sites where the minute you’re signed in you’re part of Google+.
Even modern-day AOL knows the walled garden is a bad idea.
Where is this box? I typed “music” in the search box — there is no box and no reference to Google+.
I think this article too ignores Facebook’s “social app” ecosystem. G+ is getting/will get there, but FB’s huge advantage has been – whether we like it or not – it’s many, many apps allowing people to play games and so forth.
That said, I think G+ already is having a problem in trying too hard to be FB-like, its UI is getting crowded and “noisy.”
And G+ is not really app-heavy on mobile, either; I get the impression Google can’t figure out how to apply its own technologies to its own social site, a sad state of affairs.
I used to like G+ a lot more, now I find it just “okay,” and I do not like Facebook at all, so my comments here are by no means from a FB fan.
All this said, on the whole I agree that G+ “only” has to remain a distant 2nd to Facebook to remain not merely viable but an important force. How long did Apple play that game to MS – successfully, more or less, too? Quite a while.
What if Facebook buys both Bing and Yahoo? Wouldn’t that complete the 3/4′s of the whole? The remaining part that’s missing is mobile. Could a Yahoo acquisition start filling in the mobile part?
There’s nothing unique on Google+? Then why have I circled 100 people and 500 have circled me, but in Facebook I only have 7 friends?
Why? Because you’re in the tiny minority known as tech geeks (and I say that with no disrespect). As often happens on the Interwebs, you need to ask if you are an edge case before using yourself as an example.
Why do I get the feeling within the next five to ten years Facebook and Google won’t matter to users or investors because both companies will spend so much time competing against each other, someone else is going to come up with an app or enterprise that supersedes both companies? Google may evolve and survive, but it’s hard to see where can Facebook go as a company that has one of the most closed communities on the internet.
I see Facebook as a checkbook with data. They will buy the next company that does Facebook better and continue that way forever.
You don’t get it about search. Facebook should develop it’s own search technology because it has a completely unique data set — the links that people post on Facebook. Every link that matters is posted on facebook.
Let me repeat that — “Every link that matters is posted on facebook.”
In addition to that, they have actual social metrics to figure out how important a given link is to 900 gazillion people. This is something that Google tries to approximate with PageRank. Facebook has the direct data. If facebook mines that for a search engine, it will rival or surpass Google’s search.
Within context, non? Wouldn’t “farmville” end up as the highest rank on almost every search?
If I found one link on Facebook that mattered to me, I’d use it more often. With Google, a direct email to the right person, or with subject-specific web forums and newsgroups, I can get my questions answered or find the right products to solve my problems, but social networks merely provide a forum for people to talk about themselves.
Yes — great point. FB has 900M users and tons of data about what they supposedly like, but as of yet they have not found the algorithms to process the data into a true Web2.0. Google, for all its flaws and stumbles, has a lead on data that FB won’t likely match soon. I suspect most of FB’s data is corrupted by the simple narcissistic nature of the data; most users’s favorite topic is themselves (not a slam on FB users, just the nature of a social network).
Why did Facebook go public?
They couldn’t figure out the privacy controls either.
But yeah, this is why I switched to G+ in January and ditched my FB account.
And look who is jumping into the arena NOW:
http://www.so.cl/
And Dvorak hates it so it MUST be good!
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2404679,00.asp
I’m beginning to wonder if Facebook is seriously considering a challenge to Google in the basic search space. I own a rather large forum with 2.5 million posts and 30k+ members, so it gets its share of attention from Google’s spiders/crawlers. Recently though, the number of Facebook’s own spiders/crawlers have dwarfed those from Google. Google was always the big dog previously, eclipsing Bing and Yahoo in bandwidth used and individual crawler bots on our site simultaneously. But now Facebook solidly owns that distinction.
Maybe that means nothing – maybe that means something. That’s your job to figure out, Bob.
So what’s that quiet rumble I hear …. ?
Is it Microsoft? “So.cl” or something ….
I suppose that being able to tie-in a service to an operating system must have an advantage.
Apple has FaceTime and iMessaging but not social-networking
Google has social-networking and search but Chrome as an o/s?
Facebook has social-networking and Instagram and companies like Sony tied-in with their mobile o/s’s via add-on apps
It might be interesting to see how MS moves with it’s new baby given that it has a desktop o/s, a mobile o/s and a search engine too…
Actually I think the most striking comment made by Bob on this one is Microsoft giving Facebook their search engine Bing. It’s like admiting that once again Microsoft have failed with a search product.
So I’d like to ask the question – what have Microsoft got to do next?
Under Balmer they seem to be failing at everything they try. When was the last winner?
The main downfall of Google+ to date, I think, is the fact that it lacks the “real people” element. It seems as though most people who join Google+ don’t do so for any reason except self-promotion, but promoting yourself to a bunch of people all trying to do the same isn’t going to bring much of an ROI. All I’ve seen to date on Google+ is a bunch of high-class spam. That isn’t going to encourage me to join.
Hmm… Must be in different circles. I’ve seen one promoter of a book and that’s it. Most of the people I follow are SF related (David Brin, John Scalzi, etc) or science related.
Hi,
God Bless!
your blog really touches me, have been reading it for awhile… Just wanted you to know about a website i started ReadYourBiblesChurch.com… It’s a place for Bible study guides.. I also put a forum in that can be viewed from a mobile device.. I couldn’t find where to contact you privately so I’m commenting, hope that is okay.
Jenn.
I have google+ but I don’t use it because everyone I know is on facebook so I use that (VHS/Betamax). I use google for mail, calendar, satnav, android phone sync etc so for me google is a completely different product to facebook so it’s like comparing apples to socket wrenches. Why would google want to be Betamax?
Heh. One of the reasons I left FB was because everyone I now was on it (mom, aunties, cousins, that annoying guy from high school band, my boss, etc). I let a few folks know where I relocated to on G+ before I left. A couple have followed me but most haven’t. Ah, well.
You could have left Facebook without relocating. It sounds like you just had to be somewhere, hence Google+. I’m just trying to better understand the attraction to social networks.
Facebook keeps you connected to your past. G+ and Twitter push you to meet new people. Pinterest keeps your material greed nicely organized. It’s nice to have choices.
Unfortunately people seem to “like” the type of environment that is similar to AOL.
For me Facebook is too controlling of what I consider my data. Privacy and wide open choice are going to be the real gold of future.
Self interest will cause stagnation over time, personal and Facebook’s.
People will get tired of being “controlled”, that is if they are even aware of it yet.
I have to remind myself that this is an evolving process.
Every social media firm is an electronic library, in effect. As FB offers the massive interconnectivity between every file owner (each being an author with a book in that library), it effectively has become a publisher of paragraphs, pages and photos constantly being added by each author, and shown instantly to every other author wanting those updates. Libraries are inherently boring – realtive to an amusement park – but can be eternally fascinating. My only hesitation: ads in libraries won’t sell cars.
Google+ has a tightrope to walk, but a much better business type (a massive yellow pages, now with celebs galore) to market ticks for targeted ads.
Way less boring than a library, too. Sort of… I only wanted a local hardware store and got MC Hammer? wtf?
slinks in
“relative”
retreats
If Google pushes Google+ too hard, people might start leaving Google in droves.
Remember that Yahoo was once the leader in search. What happened? Yahoo decided to leverage it’s “search” app to become a PORTAL! Going to Yahoo to find something became an onerous task. You had to navigate all the celebrity new, flashing ads, and popups just to do your search.
And, there was Google, a webpage with just a search box, and two buttons. Sure, PageRank made searches better, but not really enough for people to leave. What drove people to Google was Yahoo, Excite, and all of the other search engines driving their customers away with annoying ads, false search results, and generally being a big pain to use.
Now, Google is beginning to futz its search results to drive people to Google+. How long can Google debase their currency before people notice? Don’t mess with your user base, or else you will no longer have a user base. People are worried that Google is turning into the next Microsoft. What Google should really worry about is whether they might turn themselves into the next Yahoo.
“PageRank made searches better, but not really enough for people to leave”. In my case more complete and accurate results made the difference. But I agree that I always prefer relevant busyness to irrelevant. Bing is a good example of irrelevant busyness while Google’s Advanced Search Page is busy with text but very useful.
http://www.vipaffiliates.com The highest commissions and the best customer service available online. Period.