Google+ is Awesome. Facebook Maimed, Twitter Mortally Wounded? • Hacker News Board

Re: Google+ is Awesome. Facebook Maimed, Twitter Mortally Wounded?

#31

Post by jimbokun » Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 3:46 PM UTC

goodside wrote: post #19

This headline is sensationalistic beyond the pale of respectable journalism, and certainly beyond that of HN. The article does nothing to justify the title. Speculating ways in which Twitter might eventually lose to a new competitor does not license you say they've already been "mortally wounded". To the extent that anyone reading this has the authority to change headlines (I only know for sure that pg does), could y…

The headline's awful, and the tone of the article sensationalistic, but I thought it made some good points.

If the description of Google+ is accurate (don't have an invite, haven't really tried to get one), Google may have found a solution for Facebook spam. I tried to use my Facebook account for awhile, but it quickly became a wall of Farmville updates. I know there are settings I could use to get rid of those, but investigating it seemed too much work to bother.

So it seems that Google is attacking Facebook at their weakest point, and that's pretty interesting and worthy of discussion, and I'm glad it got up voted enough that I saw it, in spite of the bad title.

Re: Google+ is Awesome. Facebook Maimed, Twitter Mortally Wounded?

#32

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 3:50 PM UTC

lhnz wrote: post #26

pmichaud wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook has "circles" but they are called "groups." I have sources that say, unofficially that: 1) They were not blindsided at all. They worked hard to compete on major features before g+ ever came out. 2) "Groups" has more or less similar functionality, and the feature is known to have a poor UI right now. The point though is that FB thought about this and even though they aren't up to the same polish with that fea…

"Just UI polish" is a hilarious way of stating this. It's not just the UI that needs to change, more importantly it's the UX. It's disappointing if they are willing to ignore the importance of something like this. It's not just a "lick of paint" that's needed. They need to rework the whole concept and this is time-consuming and difficult to do right. The super embarrassing thing for Facebook is that Google already to…

[deleted]

Re: Google+ is Awesome. Facebook Maimed, Twitter Mortally Wounded?

#33

Post by icebraining » Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 3:51 PM UTC

I don't have a G+ account, so forgive me the question: since everything seems to be cataloged based on circles where you put people, how does it work for unapproved followers? Is there an 'empty' circle for them?

Re: Google+ is Awesome. Facebook Maimed, Twitter Mortally Wounded?

#34

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 3:51 PM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #23

pmichaud wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook has "circles" but they are called "groups." I have sources that say, unofficially that: 1) They were not blindsided at all. They worked hard to compete on major features before g+ ever came out. 2) "Groups" has more or less similar functionality, and the feature is known to have a poor UI right now. The point though is that FB thought about this and even though they aren't up to the same polish with that fea…

"Just UI polish." If Apple's success has taught us anything, it's that "UI polish" trumps pretty much everything else when it comes to making money from software, and it is hard to get right (or else everyone's UIs would be just as polished as Apple's). So if Facebook is behind Google in "Just UI polish" they may have very much to fear, indeed.

[deleted]

Re: Google+ is Awesome. Facebook Maimed, Twitter Mortally Wounded?

#35

Post by jasonlotito » Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 3:51 PM UTC

pmichaud wrote: post #20

raganwald wrote: post #15

The Google+ circles concept is powerful and easy to use. It represents the defining, foundational difference between Google´s and Facebook´s vision for social networking. If this new model takes off with users, then Facebook will find itself in the uncomfortable position of having to replicate these features within its own platform. Unfortunately for Facebook, moving to this new paradigm will not be possible overnigh…

Facebook has "circles" but they are called "groups." I have sources that say, unofficially that: 1) They were not blindsided at all. They worked hard to compete on major features before g+ ever came out. 2) "Groups" has more or less similar functionality, and the feature is known to have a poor UI right now. The point though is that FB thought about this and even though they aren't up to the same polish with that fea…

Is it Groups or Lists?

Re: Google+ is Awesome. Facebook Maimed, Twitter Mortally Wounded?

#36

Post by yalogin » Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 3:53 PM UTC

Leaving the emotion of Google+ being awesome out - what is preventing facebook from copying this? They have a huge number of users who are not going to leave overnight. Facebook we all know can turn on a dime to get products/features out. If these features are really that sought after and good they could just implement them and give it to their users. Why won't that work?

Also facebook is a platform as much as a social network. People play games on there probably more than post pictures or tag their friends. That is what sustained facebook and made them utterly dominant. That is not going to change with G+.

I agree G+ is a good service but why is everyone making the grave ready for facebook?

Re: Google+ is Awesome. Facebook Maimed, Twitter Mortally Wounded?

#37

Post by icebraining » Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 3:53 PM UTC

boredguy8 wrote: post #24

camtarn wrote: post #21

"Each of us on average has hundreds of friends on Facebook. When you share things on Facebook, you have to share it with all of them! How stupid is that?" It would be stupid ... if it were actually true. Facebook's privacy controls are actually pretty sophisticated now: by default I have anything I post shown to friends of friends, but excluding certain people. For potentially controversial status updates I restrict…

I actually like Facebook's privacy better. Except for chat's online/offline status, it seems to follow a 'most restrictive permission applies" policy, which is nice. Using Google's example: If I have a biking group and a work group, there's probably someone in the intersection of those two groups. I might want to share something with my biking group but not share it with my work group. There's not a mechanism to do t…

I don't get it, if they are in your biking group, why would you want to not share something with them just because they happen to be in the work group too?

Re: Google+ is Awesome. Facebook Maimed, Twitter Mortally Wounded?

#38

Post by icebraining » Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 3:55 PM UTC

quanticle wrote: post #9

nickik wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He talked about features not the situation NOW.

In that case, shouldn't the author put his money where his mouth is and put the article on a site that has a +1 button?

Why? How does that affect the author's arguments? Tu quoque is a fallacy, you know.

Re: Google+ is Awesome. Facebook Maimed, Twitter Mortally Wounded?

#39

Post by nextparadigms » Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 3:57 PM UTC

mrshoe wrote: post #25

raganwald wrote: post #15

The Google+ circles concept is powerful and easy to use. It represents the defining, foundational difference between Google´s and Facebook´s vision for social networking. If this new model takes off with users, then Facebook will find itself in the uncomfortable position of having to replicate these features within its own platform. Unfortunately for Facebook, moving to this new paradigm will not be possible overnigh…

In fact, Facebook lists already do everything he praises Circles for in this article. They might even do a little more (e.g. share with List A, excluding anyone in List B). As he correctly notes later in the article, the lists feature is not prominent on Facebook, and therefore few use it (or maybe few people actually want it?). But it definitely will not require a major architectural overhaul by Facebook.

Yes, it would because Google+ following system is asynchronous, kind of like Twitter (though not quit). Facebook doesn't work like that, and it would be a MAJOR change if they implemented it. I think a lot of users that are used to how Facebook currently works would be very upset about it.

Re: Google+ is Awesome. Facebook Maimed, Twitter Mortally Wounded?

#40

Post by prostoalex » Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 3:58 PM UTC

ern wrote: post #22

pmichaud wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook has "circles" but they are called "groups." I have sources that say, unofficially that: 1) They were not blindsided at all. They worked hard to compete on major features before g+ ever came out. 2) "Groups" has more or less similar functionality, and the feature is known to have a poor UI right now. The point though is that FB thought about this and even though they aren't up to the same polish with that fea…

Facebook has "circles" but they are called "groups." I think Friend Lists is what you may be referring to. They need to make the feature easier to use/find, and they need to make the News Feed more sensitive to these.

One could argue that it's a chicken-and-egg problem, but a year ago friend lists were easier to find, allowed filtered per-list access to your News Feed and ...

"Tonight at a Facebook Developer’s Garage meeting at Facebook’s headquarters in Palo Alto, Zuckerberg fielded a question about the service’s privacy controls. He said that the ideal solution for sharing different things with different people is to make a friend list. “But guess what? Nobody wants to make lists,” Zuckerberg admitted."

http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/26/facebook-friend-lists/