I don't get it. Isn't anyone else as creeped-out by the idea of a Google social network as I am?<p>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.<p>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 <i>everyone else</i> just sees this as an attempt by a gigantic company to destroy a good service that it sees as a threat.<p>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.
Off topic, but the OP links to a post called "Be your own bitch" that contains the following paragraph that makes me happy:<p>"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."<p><a href="http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/23/fred-wilson-be-your-own-bitch/" rel="nofollow">http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/23/fred-wilson-be-your-own-bit...</a>
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.
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.<p>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.
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.
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).<p>Facebook, too, shall pass. We of the technology world should know this better than anyone.
"Well first, I don't think competitors kill companies and services. I think the vast majority of "deaths" are self inflicted."<p>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.
<i>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.</i><p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>Aside from that, I don't really care too much about it.
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.
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)<p>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?
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.
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)
I'm rooting for it for rather more personal and selfish reason:<p>1. I'm a shareholder in GOOG<p>2. All the Facebook employees I've ever met have been kinda annoying, so I don't want to see those individuals get rich.