Does Google+ have a chance at taking down Facebook?
Google has finally begun to unveil its new social networking platform, Google+. For now the platform is invitation-only, and even some of those with invitations can’t access it yet, as the network has been temporarily shut down. Will Google+ be able to take down Facebook, or even make a dent on its Facebook’s share of social networking market? It will be no small feat, but if anyone can do it, it’s Google.
More often than not in the tech world the first-comer to a new idea ends up with the greatest share in the interest for
that idea. The iPhone is by far the most popular smartphone, not because it’s the best out there, but because it was the first out there, and was therefore able to snatch up most of the market before any viable alternatives (Android) were available. Even though most Android phones are much better than the iPhone (bias? Perhaps.), the iPhone still has most of the smartphone market, and remains the symbol of the new smartphone.
The same goes for Facebook and Google, who have been seemingly battling it out for internet superiority for the past few years. Google is by far the premiere search engine, in large part due to the fact that it has been the best for a long time, and the longer it remains the best, the harder it will be to unseat it. Think of it as inertia. Facebook (as well as Microsoft and a few others) has been fighting a losing battle against Google on the search engine front, attempting to frame Facebook as a more personal search engine, displaying the results you seek from the opinion of your friends. Would anyone actually use Facebook instead of google when searching for a good restaurant, a some background info on the new Transformers movie or the latest on the NFL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement? Doubtful.
Similarly, tons of other websites (Google, LinkedIn, Renren, to name a few) have been attempting, rather unsuccessfully, to compete with Facebook on the social networking front. There is no doubt that Facebook has established itself as the dominant social networking site in the country, and probably also the world, though its popularity isn’t quite as high abroad as it is in the U.S.. History would suggest that only a truly revolutionary concept will be able to unseat Facebook as the dominant social networking website. Facebook was one of those concepts all those years ago. When it was launched it made Myspace look simple, amateur-ish and obsolete almost instantly.
I haven’t had a chance to see Google+ yet, so it remains to be seen whether or not it is simply an improvement on Facebook or a revolutionary new way of connecting people. (By the way, if anyone has a Google+ invite they want to send my way it would be greatly appreciated.) From what I’ve read so far it seems like the former. That doesn’t mean I won’t check it out when I get the chance, as I’ve rarely been disappointed by Google, and there’s nothing that says I can’t use both platforms.
Will Google+ take down Facebook? My instincts tell me it won’t, but for now I’ll remain optimistic, and say hopefully. As great as Facebook is, I wouldn’t mind a little good competition to keep them both REALLY innovating.
Cheers, and have a great 4th of July weekend.
-Mercho
I like the idea of posting articles related to the trending topics of today, but I believe AvenueMA should do a bit more due diligence. A few points that were debatable:
1. The advent of facebook made Myspace look “simple”. Actually the result was the opposite. Users saw facebook and realized that they liked its streamlined approach as compared to Myspaces’s cluttered look.
2. Calling the iphone the 1st smartphone is at best simplistic. RIM had many quality phone releases before the iphone was an apple (no pun intended) in Steve Jobs eye.
3. I think its a bit much to say that history suggests that only a revolutionary concept can unseat an entrenched idea or product. Off the top of my head, I would say that the Japanese car industry would be of an example of a product slowly and methodically replacing an entrenched one (the US Car Industry). Or even in the smartphone market, palm was as entrenched, if not moreso, then the iphone is, yet RIM slowly and methodically brought that product and company to its knees.
4. Calling Linkedin anything other than a success just shows ignorance. The company just had a huge multibillion dollar IPO where the stock rose significantly on its first day and is continuing to trade at a high premium to peers.
So I guess overall I would say good idea, not so good execution on this posting.
Thanks for the feedback!
I see what you mean re your first point…simple might not have been the word I was looking for. Facebook looked much simpler, but in reality was much more complex.
The iPhone was without a doubt the first smartphone of it’s kind. RIM had the blackberry, but the iPhone created a huge shift in the way smartphones were designed. The accelerometer, touch screen, reasonable app store, etc.
You’re definitely right about the Japanese car industry, my comment was aimed specifically at specifically the tech industry, particularly during the last decade or so. The Palm might have had a greater market share for smartphones, but there way fewer viable options at the time. iPhone is still entrenched as the dominant smartphone even though there are tons of alternatives between all of the android phones, RIM’s attempts to stay relevant and Microsoft trying to get a piece of the pie.
With regards to Linkedin, that might not have been the best example. It has definitely been a success. It hasn’t though created an alternative to Facebook in the social networking world. Then again, that may not have been it’s intention at all in the first place…so again, maybe not the best example.
Mercho
I’ll give you that the iphone took the smartphone to a different place, but by industry terminology it was not the 1st smartphone or even the 1st with a touchscreen.
Additionally, in just the past 10 years we have seen quite a few entrenched tech related companies overcome gradually. First I would bring up Netscape Navigator and then Internet Explorer (though I’m using IE right now), both were entrenched as monopolists and now just aren’t. Another example would be in the world of media websites (TMZ, ESPN, WSJ etc.) where originally just a few websites generated a vast majority of the hits in their designated field but slowly were eroded over time by more niche competitors. I think the argument can be made quite easily that one of the major developments that the internet has brought about in our economy is the idea that smaller, more specific companies can be much more successful than larger ones and can over time (and with a critical mass of niche companies) significantly eat into a monopolists position.
Will this happen with Facebook? Who knows.
Also, just got on Google+ thanks to a few friends. I’ll be posting a review within the next day.
Check out my first impression of Google+ here: http://www.avenuema.com/?p=698
Google+ may be able to capture the Twitter market if Twitter doesn’t react properly; however, I sincerely doubt they can tackle Facebook. They are already being mocked at for looking exactly like Facebook keep in mind (keep in mind this is their third attempt – Buzz, Wave, now Google+).
Google Maps was able to catch up with Mapquest because they starting adding features quicker than them. and Google Maps is now a more popular option. A similar strategy way work against Twitter.
On a side note, I found it interesting how Google released this after a $420 million anti-trust suit had been filed against them the prior week. The timing of the announcement makes me question if they are just trying to quickly announce good news to combat fears of investor concern about the anti-trust suit.
If anybody were to do this, like you said, it is Google though. It should be interesting to hear Mark Zuckerberg’s reaction next week.