Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tom Anderson: Google+ makes Google a better, more integrated set of services

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: Tom Anderson: Google+ makes Google a better, more integrated set of services

#61

Post by encoderer »

andrewljohnson wrote: post #24

Most businesses can't "die" suddenly. It's very hard to turn a $850,000,000 business into a $35,000,000 in just a couple of years, unless something truly catastrophic or industry-changing occurs. The exception to this rule is social internet companies. Social companies are built in a day and can die in a day - we've seen it happen again and again, and Facebook's scale is no protection. To beat Verizon, you need a net…

You're papering over some things here to make your point. Like the fact that "equivalent engineers" is an expensive proposition. And data centers cost as much as factories.

In fact, I'd say it's a lot easier to build another Tesla -- who moved into a shuttered NUMI factory -- than another Facebook. It's a lot easier and cheaper to hire machinists, fabricators, welders, millwrights and assembly workers than it is to hire developers. And there's no network effects to selling your product.

Facebook began earning the mindshare of people outside college campuses 7 years ago. Hardly a day. And you say "sical internet companies" as if Facebook can be compared to other social networks. Truth is, facebook has market penetration (in mindshare and daily use) unmatched in internet history outside of Google (and Amazon I suppose).

I think that G+ will be successful. But i think it'll be successful alongside Facebook, and that Facebook will be a strong, profitable, influential company for a long time to come. And that Facebook isn't nearly as easily broken as you claim: In fact, I think there's only one company capable of really threatening it, and that is of course the company that is doing just that with G+.

Re: Tom Anderson: Google+ makes Google a better, more integrated set of services

#62

Post by antihero »

andrewljohnson wrote: post #24

Most businesses can't "die" suddenly. It's very hard to turn a $850,000,000 business into a $35,000,000 in just a couple of years, unless something truly catastrophic or industry-changing occurs. The exception to this rule is social internet companies. Social companies are built in a day and can die in a day - we've seen it happen again and again, and Facebook's scale is no protection. To beat Verizon, you need a net…

Also a user base needs to be generated very quickly as the people are what makes the site worth using.

Re: Tom Anderson: Google+ makes Google a better, more integrated set of services

#63

Post by btilly »

jellicle wrote: post #56
btilly wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, not true. I am not inside of Google, and multiple people in my social network who are also not in Google have been using Google+ in the last few days. The product has been very usable.

The product for me, and for the vast majority of every human who has ever tried to use it, consists of a page saying: "Already invited? We've temporarily exceeded our capacity. Please try again soon."

The majority of people I personally know who tried, got in.

But try again. You never know when you'll get in. (A birdy suggested that your odds are pretty good now...)

Re: Tom Anderson: Google+ makes Google a better, more integrated set of services

#64

Post by Apocryphon »

jamesbritt wrote: post #37
icebraining wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a Google+ account and it's visible to me.

Very interesting. Whatever link I initially grabbed to test in another browser gave me a page that said a Google+ account was needed. But just now I looked at the post and noticed a dropdown-arrow next to it which revealed an option to get a link. That link is indeed publicly visible. Also insanely long and ugly, but whatever, it works.

I think you just have to be logged into Gmail or another Google account to see it.

Re: Tom Anderson: Google+ makes Google a better, more integrated set of services

#65

Post by khafra »

Baughn wrote: post #54
Eliezer wrote: post #44

You will hear nothing about Google+ a year from now. You heard it here... well, probably not first, but you heard it here.

That seems like an unwarranted level of confidence. Could you explain your reasoning?

He's using Reference Class Forecasting[1]. Without digging deep into Google+'s unique features, he's betting that it will do roughly what other web services in the class "Facebook competitor" and "Google-owned foray into social networking" have done in the past.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_class_forecasting

Re: Tom Anderson: Google+ makes Google a better, more integrated set of services

#66

Post by Eliezer »

khafra wrote: post #65
Baughn wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like an unwarranted level of confidence. Could you explain your reasoning?

He's using Reference Class Forecasting[1]. Without digging deep into Google+'s unique features, he's betting that it will do roughly what other web services in the class "Facebook competitor" and "Google-owned foray into social networking" have done in the past. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_class_forecasting

Eyup.

Re: Tom Anderson: Google+ makes Google a better, more integrated set of services

#68

Post by wedrifid »

Eliezer wrote: post #44

You will hear nothing about Google+ a year from now. You heard it here... well, probably not first, but you heard it here.

In meatspace conversation I had Eliezer make the prediction concrete in scope and give it a number.

From one year after the date of the parent comment Eliezer expects that Google+ will not appear on Hacker News (except as a mistake, an obituary, an "It failed, I told you so!", etc). The probability Eliezer assigned to his prediction being correct: 55%.

I asked for the number with the intent of betting against him. At that figure I am not quite comfortable staking money. That is, I am not sufficiently confident that google+ has a significantly more than 45% chance of taking off. (Because I think that 45% chance of still being significant in a year is a good place to be, given the potential payoffs!)

Post reply on HN