|
|
It’s good to be king. Or, at least it would be if your rivals weren’t trying to assassinate you at any given opportunity. But that’s how it goes when you’re head honcho on the internet, where users can be as fickle as fashion and everyone knows it.
A few days ago, Digg founder Kevin Rose Tweeted and then quickly deleted some intriguing (though not particularly surprising) gossip:
Ok, umm, huge rumor: Google to launch facebook competitor very soon “Google Me”, very credible source
Rose hasn’t commented further on the could-be social-networking site, but his post is ironically still visible through Google’s caching feature, which has preserved the snippet for prosperity.
The Tweet has created juggernaut of rumors and speculation, and now others are coming out of the woodwork to confirm that “Google Me” is very real.
Former Facebook executive Adam D’Angelo posted the following today on his own site, Quora:
Here is what I’ve pieced together from some reliable sources:
* This is not a rumor. This is a real project. There are a large number of people working on it. I am completely confident about this.
* They realized that Buzz wasn’t enough and that they need to build out a full, first-class social network. They are modeling it off of Facebook.
* Unlike previous attempts (before Buzz at least), this is a high-priority project within Google.
* They had assumed that Facebook’s growth would slow as it grew, and that Facebook wouldn’t be able to have too much leverage over them, but then it just didn’t stop, and now they are really scared.
Now, Google has tried and failed at creating the “next big thing” in social networking a handful of times already. Buzz is useful, but who do you know who uses it? What about Wave? And Orkut…? Well, I’ve said everything I need to say about Orkut already. (See “Why EVERYONE Loves Facebook” / March 28, 2010)
That said, I don’t doubt Google’s abilities to give people what they want. They still run the best and most-used search engine on the internet, and that’s nothing to sneeze at.
So what must “Google Me” do to win over Facebook’s user base?
Here’s what I think:
- Guarantee Privacy: Users will only take so many months-long privacy fiascoes before finally jumping ship. Facebook needs to accept that while people love to share, they also love the freedom to choose what they’re sharing and with whom. I understand the temptation to sell our information to advertisers, but just don’t do it. A happy user is a loyal user.
- Don’t Enforce Awkwardness: Remember the good old days before the internet when we could simply avoid the people we didn’t want to talk to? We were communications ninjas: “Oh, I’m sorry, I must have missed your call”; “Did you come by? I wasn’t home.” Now, if we don’t want to be someone’s pal anymore, we have to declare it. We must “ignore” their friend requests or, if they’re already our Facebook “friends,” we have to physically delete them. It’s all so drawn-out and dramatic. And don’t even get me started on the concept of “frenemies.” (See “My Social Media Blackout: Confessions of an Addict” / April 18, 2010)
If Google can create connection tiers (acquaintances, coworkers, friends, family, etc.) and make it easy to create privacy settings specific to these different groups, I’ll be the first to sign up. Sure, you can do this through Facebook to some degree via “friends lists,” but the feature can be difficult to use. Plus, because Facebook calls everyone a “friend,” someone you barely know might be offended when they realize you’ve hidden your wall from them. It’s not particularly logical, but it’s true.
At least with tiered connections, you’ll have the chance to set your boundaries with people from the beginning.
- Don’t Be Creepy: If I want to connect with my junior-high band director’s uncle’s neighbor, I’ll find him myself. Don’t get all creepy on me and search through my connections’ connections’ connections for people I probably have no desire to “friend.”
Don’t get me wrong: This recommended friends thing is a great idea on paper. But at the very least, give me the option to disable it if I don’t like it.
That’s it from me for now. What do you guys think?

Rima Chaddha Mycynek is a writer, reporter, editor, photographer, videographer, former talk show host, and all-around journalism nerd. She currently teaches multimedia journalism at Boston University. [
Related Articles
9 users responded in this post
My thoughts on a Facebook killer?
I’d like to see:
* Less focus on games and gimmicks, especially ones that invade your screen real estate and email unless you manually track down settings to stop them.
* Less UI clutter and overall, genuine simplicity. Don’t make things complicated (super excessive customization, etc…) in an attempt to make them simpler.
* Reduction of “friend hoarding” (Perhaps friends need to be renewed every 6 months manually if no activity between the two is detected).
* Option for an intranet/closed system LAN/WAN option for businesses, especially businesses with sensitive data.
* More support for more traditional applications:
* Education / virtual classrooms (homework assign/handin, grades, course registration)
* Business apps (spreadsheets, desktop publishing…Google docs already has an edge here…)
* Shopping cart sites (eBay, Amazon, or electric bill, right from your social media account…)
* Admnistrative apps (work schedules, time cards, work order requests/assignments)
I’m not saying FaceBook can’t do these things right now, but a site that provided more of a promotion and framework for these activities could usher in a new type of social media that went beyond tagging pictures of friends at bars and could let us work, shop, learn, and manage our schedules using a universally loved interface with a low learning curve.
Going a bit more general, I’d like a FaceBook killer to have an overall usage philosophy that makes social media a much healthier staple in our lives rather than the invasive timewaste many of its naysayers claim it is. FaceBook is the ice cream of the computing experience. I love ice cream, and I love FaceBook, but a Facebook killer could nail every item in the computing food pyramid.
Kill – probably not, a little indigestion on both sides could be a good thing though
Yeah, just like Google Buzz was going to kill Twitter.
MySpace is still around.. if it can’t be killed, nothing online can.. well other than Geocities, but that took more than a decade of running it into the ground.
smycynek: Those are some great ideas. If Facebook can expand into other services (intranets powered by Facebook, educational resources, shopping cart sites, etc.), they could give Google a run for their money in so many other realms beyond social networking. Who’s to say that they won’t try to fight back with these concepts?
Everyone else: The way I see it, no one’s going to develop a site that will turn the bustling Facebook into a ghost town overnight. More likely, they (Google or whoever) will create something cool and innovative, and people will flock there slowly. Over time, the more useful and user-friendly of the two sites will win out and people will either migrate to the new site (just like MySpace -> Facebook) or, they’ll abandon their accounts and stick with what works (just like when people sign up for Friendster, only to never use it because everyone they know only cares about Faceebook).
Good luck, Google. Hope it goes better than your “killing” of the iPhone and Microsoft office. Vaya con dios.
@Brianna – MSOffice is a toughie (anyways 20%-ish is a win!) but dismissing iOS is going swimmingly
@Rima – Hmm, well, find something that needs google-gobs of data/computation in socialNetSpace that nobody else is doing – simple :~/
Google really seems to be over diversifying to me. But unless they want to start paying out dividends to their stockholders, I guess they’re pretty much forced to. It’s going to be hard for anyone around today to stay relevant 2 or 3 years from now. Google doesn’t provide any really essential products, or products where the cost of switching is burdensome. The only real reason why MS survived the past 10 years is because that’s exactly what they had. They locked up the OS market and could afford to fail a lot when they over-diversified and tried getting into software as a service. Google is now in the same boat. I think they might end up being the lumbering giant that MS has become.
^^ I really agree with this. Ultimately, Google is an ad business. They seem to be moving too far from their core competency.
Leave A Reply