Google To Challenge Facebook Again 197
Hugh Pickens writes "Google is set to make a fresh attempt to gain a foothold in the booming social networking business, seeking to counter the growing threat that Facebook poses to some of its core services. USA Today reports that the search giant is upgrading Gmail to add social-media tools similar to those found on Facebook, including photo and video sharing within the Gmail application, along with a new tool for status updates. According to reports, Google is planning to give Gmail users a way to aggregate the updates of their various contacts on the service, creating a stream of notifications that would echo the similar real-time streams from Facebook and Twitter. Google's decision to exploit the heavily-used Gmail service as the basis for its latest assault on the social networking business partly reflects the failure of Google's previous stand-alone efforts to enter the social networking sector. Its Orkut networking service, though launched before Facebook, has failed to gain a mass following in most parts of the world, despite success in Brazil, and its acquisition of Twitter rival Jaiku ended in failure after it scrapped development of the service." Update: 02/09 19:32 GMT by KD : It's been announced as Google Buzz; CNET has a detailed writeup.
privacy is key (Score:5, Insightful)
Although it would take quite a few HCI PhDs to figure out how to do it all without cluttering an already cluttery gmail UI.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This might be interesting if they manage to get the privacy thing right. If they don't, I see it as a disaster. I use gmail to communicate with a much wider audience than Facebook. If somehow they managed to let me easily and effectively segment users into different groups, with STRONG WALLS between groups, then it might be interesting.
Although it would take quite a few HCI PhDs to figure out how to do it all without cluttering an already cluttery gmail UI.
Wouldn't you really just need to have two accounts, your real life account and then your second one for all the naughty stuff you don't want people to find out about? Of all the drama stories I've seen or heard about, it's usually because the two lives mixed. Embarrassing photos associated with your name on your facebook, web posts associated back to you, mistress texting you on the same phone you use for your normal life with the wife able to read said messages when you set the phone down for a moment, mes
Re:privacy is key (Score:5, Insightful)
We all have pro-email and personal email but I'd bet that the majority of us had to give out the personal one away in a professional context for whatever reason (file size limit, exchange server bogged down, msn/google chat, etc..) and we really don't need our clients and recruiters to know about the boozing festival we had last week end for our childhood friend's birthday. It's not that we're ashamed of it. It just none of their business.
Re:privacy is key (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't you really just need to have two accounts, your real life account and then your second one for all the naughty stuff you don't want people to find out about?
The person you're being naughty with has a friend who has a friend who is your real-life serious friend.
Facebook does not hide friends lists. So the circle can easily be followed.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's why I don't have any friends. Now get out of my basement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:privacy is key (Score:4, Insightful)
And clearly the sample of stories that are told is representative of how thing go wrong in peoples lives.
The separate domains of my life shouldn't overlap. The stories are re-told because they are sensational, not because they are likely, or frequent, or representative of what people should worry about. The fact that you have things that you do not want others to know about isn't about hypocrisy, it is about privacy. Privacy allows for hypocrisy, but the fact that something is private, or even would be embarrassing, does not imply that it is wrong or hypocritical. Internal memos about client plans would be embarrassing if leaked, but there is no shame in having them. I don't want clients seeing my work life, I don't want anyone able to see what is going on with my love life (even though I am doing nothing I am in any way ashamed of,) and I don't want the wider world who I've emailed once seeing my private life at all.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Wow, what a nice post about gmail, I never knew you could apply gay, transexual prostitutes and televangelist with gmail in the same sentence, I guess you learn something new everyday.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's one way to go. But it's a hassle to be signed into two at once. Not a huge hassle, but using two browsers at once is just beyond the average dipshit user.
Companies need to tread very carefully when they make big changes. One thing I used to enjoy about Yahoo previously was the aliases. You signed into your account with one main ID, but you could have sub accounts that looked to others just like a separate account. So it was easy
If it functions like their existing system (Score:2)
Your Google profile (the one that already exists) is only fully visible to people who are logged into their google account and are in the contact group you assigned as having full access. Probably good enough for most.
At this point though, the press release looks a lot more like integration of existing properties...
Contact list upgrades that link Picasa data, and "status updates" (perhaps including photo updates and whatnot). Maybe they'll add personal Google Groups (basically Facebook's wall).
Which if you
Re:privacy is key (Score:4, Informative)
...if they manage to get the privacy thing right.
LOL
Just to be clear, I meant privacy in terms of your friends. In terms of Google, privacy was pretty much given up a long time ago.
Will there be any difference? (Score:2, Insightful)
Neither company values privacy and just wants all the data for advertising so what difference does it make?
Re:Will there be any difference? (Score:4, Interesting)
Your lives belong to us (Score:5, Insightful)
I think many people (though probably not enough) already worry about what Google and Facebook separately know and track about their online and private lives. Putting them both together under the control of just one of those companies? No thanks. A million times no.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about Google teaming up with Facebook. It's about Google trying to replcae Facebook and all your base belong to them.
Re: (Score:2)
By way of Google's existing social offerings, (Mail, Talk, Voice, Blogger, YouTube, etc., etc., etc.) Google probably already has better social graph data than Facebook, and more of it concerning things people might want to be "privat
Google Fail..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that the article really understands Google's intentions here. Google has already demonstrated, with Wave [google.com], that they do not see email, in its current incarnation, as the future of communication on the Internet. They have a very clear vision of merging all the disparate forms of communication on the Internet into one platform. Yet they've hit a stumbling block with Wave, in that nobody really wants to use it until everyone else is using it. I think that this is less about "taking on Facebook
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They have a clear vision with Wave? If they do, they have done a terrible job communicating it. Wave looks promising to us propeller heads, but the general public is confused by Wave. It's slow and without knowing some secret incantations, it is brutal to navigate. Most people look at it for 2 minutes and give up.
Facebook is butt ugly but simple to jump in and use. If Google is going to have any prayer of making any social center work, it has to get back to fundamentals.
Google's original product was
Re: (Score:2)
I think the Wave application is basically just a proof-of-concept to draw interest from, as you say, "propeller heads". The clear vision with Wave isn't something that is clear through the application as such, but instead clear through the existence of the Wave Protocol and infrastructure and the conceptual documents surroundin
Re: (Score:2)
There are two reasons for not using wave:
1. it's slow (even firefox 3.6).
2. no "standalone server" yet, that I could install at work, or for my _private_ stuff
Re: (Score:2)
Google Wave sucks because it doesn't solve any problem that isn't better solved by someone else. i tried it a few months ago and even a lot of the public waves are people saying how cool this is and then nothing posted for weeks at a time. the apps are untrusted, at least by me.
the only point of Wave seems to be Google trying to redirect facebook, twitter and forums traffic through their systems to make money off it, but it's a very poor attempt.
and it's slow. horribly slow and a resource hog. Google Chrome
Re: (Score:2)
And that's the thing, in so many things they've tried they aren't dominant. They came late to the table without offering a clearly superior product and have suffered for it.
Re: (Score:2)
MySpace became irrelevent through obsolescence...
MySpace became irrelevant because they were the geocities of social networking. Too many people doing things to their pages simply because they could rather than because it made for a nice page. While I visited very few MySpace pages, the vast majority of the time that I did do so I was greeted by a page overloaded with crap. Sound and flashing graphics and insane background images and everything possible that could make a page as offensive to the senses as possible. And I'm confident that I can't be the o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bigger the company, the better the chance that they've hired unscrupulous people. The bigger the company, the better the chance that the corporate culture will lean to a "don't care" attitude. Money is power and power corrupts. The bigger the company, the more money it has.
So, Big != evil, but Pevil(big)>Pevil(small)
Re: (Score:2)
When will people learn that companies are amoral? Sometimes they'll take actions that seem "right" or "wrong", but their goal is always increasing value.
The problem with being big, in Google's case, is the prevalence in all websites. If you browse with NoScript you really understand how widespread Google Ads and Analytics are. If you then "help" them by voluntarelly providing personal information, they will hold an enormous amount of data about you, which is always dangerous.
Not that I'm paranoid
Re: (Score:2)
Laziness (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Laziness? Why would I move to another social networking site, if all my friends are still on Facebook?
Re: (Score:2)
So you have no more friends on MySpace? I bet your Facebook friends are on Twitter now.
I forgot what it was before MySpace, but that was THE shit just five years ago. Twitter is getting big now and Facebook is soso. Who knows.
I doubt google will take either over, but if they have a constant stragity, they might be the fall back for allot of people. I might be on all three services, but I still use gmail for my mail.
Re: (Score:2)
And am considering twitter, for a similar reason."
I guess I'm lost on the social networking things. I keep up pretty much daily with all my friends.....with email.
What advantages do the social networking sites have over simple email....I can see the disadvantages of the privacy, etc being argued all the time, but, I don't know how these sites do anything any better
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention inertia.
For example, I use Windows Live Messenger. Not because it's the best IM protocol (it certainly isn't) but because all my friends are on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Button: "Import Facebook Contacts."
Fine print: "Pressing this button spams all of your contacts with join invitations every 30 seconds until they cave in and join the Google hive"
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry!
Google already knows everything about you. Your page has be pre-populated with all your data and pre-linked to all of your friends!
They'll be taking care of your updates too! What could be easier?
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people already have Google Accounts, and already use them "socially" (via Mail, Talk, Calendar, Voice, Blogger, etc.) These services are already somewhat integrated (Talk is available in the Mail UI, Mail and Talk are both available for contacts through the Voice mobile UI, contacts are synchronized throughout the account, etc.) Buzz ads microblogging/status in a Twitte
Re: (Score:2)
Google will fail to get a foothold for one reason laziness
On the contrary, that's precisely the reason they stand a chance. All the people who already use GMail can start reading what their friends are up to at the same time as checking their e-mail.
So after checking email clicking on the facebook shortcut is too much work? As opposed to moving over all your photos and having to re-friend everyone. Moving over photos could be automated but not refriending (friend John Smith). Even if Google would find all the John Smiths do I really want to wade through all of them on the chance he has moved over.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook can already import in your gmail contacts, why can't it work the other way and have gmail import your Facebook contacts?
Re: (Score:2)
Because Google isn't trying to keep your data walled up so that you can't access it except through their site, while Facebook is.
Paying for facebook (Score:2)
Google should first target those groups on Facebook that think any day now Facebook is going to start "charging" a monthly fee to use the service.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=26810775786 [facebook.com]
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=445591600322 [facebook.com]
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=292810587737 [facebook.com]
Less, not more! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, just do what other Slashdotters do - don't have any friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, you insensitive clod, I'm a shut in.
besides, mom says I'm special.
Re: (Score:2)
Like Twitter, you can control who you are following on Buzz, so if you don't want to get your contacts Buzz updates, don't actively choose to follow them on Buzz.
Facebook/Twitter Threaten Google News? Laughable. (Score:2, Interesting)
... seeking to counter the growing threat that Facebook poses to some of its core services.
What?
From the expert quoted in that article:
"Facebook could be a major disruptor to the News and Media category. And with the Wall Street Journal already publishing content to Facebook, perhaps the social network can avoid the run-ins that Google has suffered recently with Rupert Murdoch. We will continue to watch this space."
Yeah, in the same way that McDonalds could be a major disruptor to grocery stores. Rampant, ridiculous speculation and little more. Remember when MySpace was supposed to be the greatest news source EVER? And tried to become a gaming platform [slashdot.org]? Unless I've missed some new development with Twitter and Facebook (I'm only a user of the latter), this is preposterous.
The only thing you'd see with Twitter or Facebook adding news is social networking bloat.
McDonalds was disruptive. (Score:2)
Yeah, in the same way that McDonalds could be a major disruptor to grocery stores
Think of how the supermarket has changed since the emergence of the fast food franchises.
The emergence of the no-name brand bulk warehouse.
Think about how much space the mega mart allots to microwave and other prepared foods.
The meal in five minutes. Fast food sales in store.
At the opposite extreme you're likely to find foods that were rarely stocked outside of a gourmet specialty house.
No Farmville! (Score:5, Funny)
I will not use this until I can play Farmville on it and send people were-pigs and pork-knights so they can defend themselves properly.
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't know of anything like Farmville on it yet, Google does have an publicly available application infrastructure with free and paid hosting, integration into Google Accounts, etc., available already.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually most of them carry HAMmers.
Facebook : 2010 :: CB Radio : 1975 (Score:2)
Google needs to find one niche for the age 13-20 crowd, and exploit it.
Facebook will fall as fast as MySpace did.
Personally, I think that niche is security. Facebook has already failed miserably on that front, and, although I hate thinking about everything that Google knows about me, they (somehow) have a reputation of protecting that information.
Re:Facebook : 2010 :: CB Radio : 1975 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Facebook : 2010 :: CB Radio : 1975 (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe I should rephrase it.
I think that security is one niche that Google can exploit, since Facebook has failed on that front, and Google has a good reputation in that area.
Really, though, there needs to be a "feature" that is exciting for the young crowd.
Imagine something like Webkinz, [wikipedia.org] where kids under 13 are already addicted. Funnel those kids into a social network when they reach 13, duplicate facebook's features, and then they'll never need to join fb. In 5 years, you have 13 to 18 year olds hooked on your fb replacement.
Re: (Score:2)
And now you read Slashdot, while the girls that you wished would talk to you while you were in that age range are sharing information about what they had for dinner with their friends on Facebook. You ain't the target demo, regardless of age.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Google needs to find one niche for the age 13-20 crowd
> Personally, I think that niche is security.
You must know different 13-20 year olds than I do.
Google is succumbing to the Dark Side (Score:2, Insightful)
Innovation and producing the "Next Big Thing" is the more difficult but potentially more rewarding path.
Slapping lipstick on your competitor's pig is the easy shortcut.
Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
no!!! (Score:3, Informative)
NO!
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
Did I mention, NO?
I am already annoyed, pissed off, angry and fed up with having to use lame gmail and other core Google services on my Android device. I have PRIVATE business contacts in there. I have NO PERSONAL CONTACTS.
I do not want them seeing each other, seeing when I am online, what I am doing, where I am, or anything of the sort! I use corporate email, not silly gmail for emailing my clients, both from my phone and from my desktop. The *only* reason I use gmail is for the calendar and contacts that I am *FORCED* to keep there.
If Google makes me, or my company the least bit *more* uncomfortable with this situation, we'll be moving to Blackberries.
BAH!
Google has gone so far downhill, I've actually tried Bing!. I *HATE* Microsoft. I _LOATH_ them. Google is just getting so bad, however, I had to try!
Heck, it's almost impossible to search for what you want on Google now, as it constantly changes your search terms. You pretty much have to add a + in front of every search keyword, in order to get what you want. Shouldn't that be opt-out? You know, an "actually search for things I asked for, not things you suggest" option?
Now they have those idiotic search suggestions, while you are typing. Annoying, and slow. About 1% of the time I search for something (I'm in IT, I search hundreds of times per day), the Google redirect domain they use is slow, and you have to reload to get where you want to go. Now they have personalized searches, which of course just makes things worse.. so now I have to randomize all Google cookies using a Firefox app.
What is wrong with these people?
Re: (Score:2)
BAH!
Google has gone so far downhill, I've actually tried Bing!. I *HATE* Microsoft. I _LOATH_ them. Google is just getting so bad, however, I had to try!
Heck, it's almost impossible to search for what you want on Google now, as it constantly changes your search terms. You pretty much have to add a + in front of every search keyword, in order to get what you want. Shouldn't that be opt-out? You know, an "actually search for things I asked for, not things you suggest" option?
In my mind's eye I'm reading this as subtitles to that angry german kid video on Youtube. Bravo, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
NO!
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
Did I mention, NO?
Ok, calm down.
Google has gone so far downhill, I've actually tried Bing!.
How has it gone down hill? It's as good as it's ever been in my experience. Also, you say you've tried Bing! Was it actually any better?
Heck, it's almost impossible to search for what you want on Google now, as it constantly changes your search terms. You pretty much have to add a + in front of every search keyword, in order to get what you want.
Hyperbole much? It's always done that. It makes sense. If you want to search for a specific phrase you still can.
About 1% of the time I search for something (I'm in IT, I search hundreds of times per day), the Google redirect domain they use is slow, and you have to reload to get where you want to go.
Actually I have noticed this. I'm in the same position and Google seems incredibly slow during office hours. It can't be that bad a service if you use it hundreds of times a day though...
What is wrong with these people?
They're trying to provide a services that works for millions o
Re: (Score:2)
NO!
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
Did I mention, NO?
You could just not use it. Did that thought occur before your spazzing-out fit?
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about irritating - a few months ago (maybe longer), Google decided my handle is a plural. So now if I want to googlebate, I have to search for "solios -solio" (and throw in a few other minuses to weed out Matrox, etceteras). Google's first hit for 'solios' is not solios [solio.com] (there's a shock), whereas the first hit on Bing is something me-related. There's also this [amongthechosen.com] - a case example of Bing coming back with DWIM and Google sticking its thumb up its ass and getting drool on the floor.
Google was fantastic w
Re: (Score:2)
Just because Buzz is available in Gmail doesn't mean Google is forcing you to use it if you use Gmail, or automatically posting status updates for you. If you don't choose to share information, its not shared. Not that hard.
Bad Move (Score:2)
Most corporations block webmail(security, trojans, viruses, etc) but many are now allowing access to social network sites. Most folks visit social networking sites during the workday. So a webmail social networking app is a non-starter.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? My workplace blocks Facebook. I thought many, or even most businesses blocked social sites.
Re: (Score:2)
We used to have access to Facebook as well as many forums but I guess folks were taking too much time out of work to socialize and they're blocked. I can still get in to my webmail accounts though and ESPN is still unblocked. There are a few sub-Yahoo! domains that I can't get to including my profile (identified as social networking). I imagine work will figure out which google servers are the social ones and block them.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
Most workplaces I know that block webmail also block social networking sites, IME.
IME, most people that do that either work someplace that doesn't block webmail, or use their own mobile device rather than work computers.
Work blocks Facebook (Score:2)
Now it'll block Google. Guess I'll be forced to use Bing!
[John]
Best tag (Score:2)
The law of unintended consequences... (Score:3, Insightful)
If Google pimps up GMail enough, with file-sharing, social networking, instant-messaging, and gee-whiz features, it will get blocked at our firewall as a security risk.
Right now, Google Chat is blocked. Google Voice is blocked. YouTube is blocked. Google Docs is blocked.
Keep it up, Google, and I won't be able to use much Google at all at work.
Now, for those of you who have no responsibilities, feel free to flame on and explain why my corporate masters are shortsighted, maniacally obsessed with control, and oblivious to reality in their vain attempt to secure the corporate data, protect our customers' information, and be responsible to the shareholders. It starts out as funny, then becomes annoying, and finally settles into a tragic display of ignorance of the reality of large corporation security issues.
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Or $50 million.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse is that work uses Blue Coat filters. So sites are blocked based on someone else's definition of a site. I'm amazed that I can still get to Slashdot though.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, Google Chat is blocked. Google Voice is blocked. YouTube is blocked. Google Docs is blocked.
How can you block Google Chat/Voice when it tunnels over HTTPS? Does it go to known IPs different from the Google Mail servers?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The URL is still visible. They block both HTTP and HTTPS, though I suspect from what I know of the proxy and filtering software, they can capture the UEL and block on that just fine.
ps- We use a LOT of HTTPS here. Managing that is not so much different from HTTP from a proxy/filter vantage point.
My original point was that if our team decides that Gmail (SSL or not) is giving access to services not permitted, like YouTube or Google Chat, they will block Gmail, and let us lose ALL of it.
You understand now?
T
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, Google Chat is blocked. Google Voice is blocked. YouTube is blocked. Google Docs is blocked.
Your boss' brain is blocked.
Re: (Score:2)
And how would you know?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is anathema to many, especially the young, but...
There are some things that cannot be resolved by a 'hold them responsible for fuckups' policy. You would probable, for instance, not be impressed by that policy if it required firing several people who let your financial data spew forth. After all, your credit is gone, your house is gone, your future is unnecessarily complicated, and it will take years to put it all back. No amount of retribution will fix it or make you whole.
We've read many reports o
Re: (Score:2)
The general claim may be valid, but the example is clearly pretty bad -- a company
Re: (Score:2)
You missed one of my points, I think.
Sometimes, there is NO compensation.
Congressman Joe Murtha may have died unnecessarily due to a surgical error. How do you compensate Joe?
Similar situations occur in data security.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I did, which is why I said your general point may be valid, but the example didn't demonstrate it.
Yes, the cases where people die would be better examples of cases where compensation isn't an adequate remedy (although, you'll notice, they are also the cases where we mostly handle them by holding people responsible; we may
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, the cases where people die would be better examples of cases where compensation isn't an adequate remedy (although, you'll notice, they are also the cases where we mostly handle them by holding people responsible;"
Ah, deterrence. Works fairly well in medicine, I think, somewhat in capital offenses.
Much less effective in netowrk security. Seems everyone thinks they aren't the problem. And then they install LimeWire cause it's fun.
Deterrence doesn't solve the compensation problem. And I hated giving
Google is the new Walmart (or Microsoft) (Score:2)
Google is the new Microsoft. It goes wherever they see money. It is the 800 lb gorilla that not only has the money to undercut its competition, but the advantage of giving themselves a higher page rank in searches. They can make their product appear better by marketing the new product's integration with the rest of Google's services.
Soon it will be like the 80's when tech companies' strategy switched from long term goals to the short term "What would make us attractive to Google?" strategy. Did we not lear
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit, pure fucking bullshit.
Google history has nothing like the history of Microsoft. Microsoft has been breaking laws all the way back from when they stole computer time from The Computer Center Corporation (and caused important systems to crash) to write their "borrowed" basic interpreter. Bill Gates didnt start with a nice little upstart company with blue eyes and good intentions, its been bad to the bone from day one. Compared to Microsoft, Google must have been founded by nuns
While Microsofts histo
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me how you really feel. I knew I'd get some Google fanboi upset.
Since Google derives its revenue from traffic, how does this make Google any different than Microsoft? If it's popular then it's taking hits away from google therefore it is a threat to their income.
Re: (Score:2)
I used the word "appear" because it's more subjective than quantitative. It's a matter of personal preference, and besides even if Google is liberating the data it doesn't address the question of Google indirectly harming the consumer by limiting competition by integrating the service. I'll address this next...
Facebook? Twitter! (Score:2)
And if they do in their usual way, will be a somewhat open protocol, a federated social network. Not sure if twitter have such protocol, but if so, the right move for google would be to use the same protocol, and interconnect both.
This won't work (Score:2)
Individually, Google's projects are mostly very interesting. But they don't work together. I have to set pictures separately for Picasa Web Albums, and a google profile, for example. Some settings must be configured in each project, while others are common across all of them, but it's hard to know which is which, and indeed where to find out where to make changes.
Before trying to go for something as ambitious as rivalling Facebook, they should improve integration and consistency between their projects. Not
Re: (Score:2)
Google is always working on integrating their projects. It doesn't make sense for them to stop all new projects to do this.
Remember Lively? (Score:2)
Facebook pressured to change to style before last (Score:2)
Facebook has outraged thousands of obsessive shirkplace F5-pressers by changing its layout from the layout it changed to after the layout before that [newstechnica.com].
The change has met a storm of protest from users going so far as to click "Join This Group," with nearly two million people with, apparently, nothing whatsoever to do that they're actually being paid to stepping forward to demand that Facebook switch back to the layout before the last one, or the one before that.
"This new format makes absolutely no sense at al
first mover advantage (Score:2)
There is a strong first-mover advantage here because social networks are natural monopolies; For members of social networks the best choice of social network is the biggest social network because more of your friends are likely to be there. People acting on that basis grow the largest networks larger. The first network to have one member wins and no other social networks exist. In fact that is not the actual outcome because other factors play rolls, nonetheless first-mover advantage may play a dominant
All I want is a better Google Contacts (Score:2)
I don't use gmail (not counting work mail, I get about 2-3 emails a day, on a busy day), so its wonderful dealing-with-lots-of-mail features don't help me, but I do make use of its contacts manager. But I wish it were better, and more standalone from gmail. The main reason is that we've got a few different places that need to access contact info: our phones (G1s), our mail clients (IMAP via Thunderbird, sometimes webmail), various private web apps that I've written. I *hate* having to manage and manually sy
Ads in status updates (Score:2)
"Checking my mail while sipping some nice tea... BUY authentic Indian TEA for only $4 a box! Click HERE"
Google Asbergers (Score:2)
Another me-too product that Google is not designed or staffed to make and which will lower the value of their brand.
It's like they're starting a nightclub.
Error in summary (Score:2)
Its Orkut networking service, though launched before Facebook, has failed to gain a mass following in most parts of the world, despite success in Brazil
No, it's because of its success in Brazil. I was using Orkut before the Brazilians discovered it. Then I started to get deluged with spam in Brazilian Portuguese. Then I stopped using Orkut.
Re: (Score:2)
you can just use your gmail login for youtube whats the big deal
Re: (Score:2)
They're asking for cell phone numbers to "activate" new Gmail accounts too.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what you get for coming late to the party I guess
Re: (Score:2)
Google just doesn't get all these social things
That's because INTJ's don't do social.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. For those that are somewhat social (amongst younger folk) and are meeting new people regularly, it's practically the only solid, reliable way of communicating with others initially. Calling and even e-mailing is becoming much less common amongst people in my age group (18-24) since Facebook and text messaging are the de facto communication method. It's much more impersonal (which is actually an advantage amongst this crowd, since person-to-person communication seems to be somewhat discouraged),
Re: (Score:2)
A defined list of recipients is essential if there are things you don't want to share with everyone, public posts that people can follow (either by searching for particular keywords, or following a particular poster) are good for other things. Buzz supports both.