Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 04:34:22 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Tom (Myspace) on Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook)'s first public response to Google+  (Read 953 times)
BitcoinPorn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560


Posts: 69


View Profile WWW
July 14, 2011, 03:40:02 AM
 #1


Quote
Today at the Facebook news conference, +Ben Parr had the stones to ask Mark what he thought of Google+. (He was polite about it. I approve.) Zuckerberg responded by saying that lots of companies are going to build things like video chat, but FB competitors also have to build up their social graph first. Facebook's job is to just keep innovating. Perfectly reasonable response, and of course, he's exactly right--the challenge is to get the userbase, and make it easy for them to use. Done and done for Facebook. The integration looks great.

Some pundits are complaining that the technology is not new, but that's besides the point. Case in point: at MySpace we launched what Zuckerberg is announcing in 2007 (try googling "myspace skype partnership"), and MySpace also had one-on-one video chat back in 2004. The point is that people weren't really ready for it back then--now is the time, and FB has the userbase. The large userbase (750 million) paired with a simple integration of the arguably the best voice/video tech (Skype) is what makes this news.

Zuckerberg also pointed out in his response to the Hangout question, that one-on-one video chat will be the more common use case (Google+ has "Hangout" which allows 10 users to video chat at once). Again, perfectly reasonable, and probably right. Many sites have group video chat, Google+ is not the first, nor is Hangout a game-changer. What you need here is the userbase, which currently only Facebook has, and people will more likely talk one on one (like we do on the phone, duh).

The more interesting part of his announcement, I think, was the implicit response to Google+ in his intro leading up the Skype integration. What he said is that Groups on Facebook are actively used by half of the 750 million user base. And "Groups" is really Facebook's second attempt at "Friends Lists," which Zuckerberg admitted months ago, were not getting traction (people didn't want to do the work of putting people into lists).

The Facebook Groups feature is designed in a way so that users who do care to do the work, can. Someone invites you, and you're in the group without you having to take any action. (In fact, you have to do some work to get out of the Group!) Zuckerberg points out that this is how friend requests work as well--there's always a select few who do all the friending, and the rest of us just follow along, with a much easier "approval." Facebook's Groups were designed in a way to overcome the friend list problem. They've grown quickly, even if 95% of the userbase can't be bothered to make their own groups.

And if you think about it, that's the smart way Facebook has approached many things: build an app platform, and let the developer community do the heavy lifting. Create a translation platform, and let users translate Facebook in every language known to man. Create a Group feature, and let the 5% create the groups for the other 95%. It's like Mechanical Turk, but we're not getting paid. (Unless you're Zynga! ;-)

What remains to be seen, is which model will users prefer in the long run--Facebook "Groups"--which function more like an old-school Yahoo Group with a Forum built-in). Or Google+ "Circles"--which is more like an email distribution list-meets Twitter with better commenting. The two are actually very similar, but each probably does certain things better than the other. Thinking about what each model does better is probably the key to unlocking what "model" is going to "win.




----

If anyone still wants in on the Google + train, just PM me an email address, so far I have got 15+ people in Google+ without charging one Bitcoin.  And so far only one person has donated a Bitcoin and I feel bad about it cause I swear I say it is for free!    But I will not feel bad about further donations lol

Anyways, fucking cool as fuck that Tom is all over Googe+.  I only know this because of Plato (also on +).  Lots of cool shit going on, lots of random people here using+, good to see it Smiley

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480912462
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480912462

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480912462
Reply with quote  #2

1480912462
Report to moderator
JohnDoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392



View Profile
July 14, 2011, 04:24:23 AM
 #2

I really hate Zuckerberg but I want Facebook to win. If Google wins this one they'll become way too strong for my taste. 
BitcoinPorn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560


Posts: 69


View Profile WWW
July 14, 2011, 04:38:36 AM
 #3

I really hate Zuckerberg but I want Facebook to win. If Google wins this one they'll become way too strong for my taste.

Meh.  This is a situation where, "wait, I already had a Google account, hell, before I had a Facebook account"

Google already won, they are now just giving us bonus features that other sites gimp Smiley

MtRev
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168



View Profile
July 14, 2011, 12:15:54 PM
 #4

Isn't both facebook and google being funded by the CIA?
As much as I want both to fail, I love their projects/services Tongue

They are getting too much info on us.

You need a web designer? I'm offering big agency quality, without the big agency invoices!
Drop me a message; will work for BTC, LTC & PPC =]
Tx2000
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182



View Profile
July 14, 2011, 07:23:20 PM
 #5

Suckerberg should have sold Facebook when he had the chance.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!