Quick, what existing social network is Google+ most likely to displace in terms of people’s time?
Another Try by Google to Take On Facebook
Claire Cain Miller, New York Times
This isn’t a Facebook-killer, it’s a Twitter-killer.
Yishan Wong, Google+ post
A hearty congrats to Google for creating an offering that manages to be compared to both Facebook and Twitter. The initial press focused on Google+ as a Facebook competitor. But as people have gotten to play with it, more and more they are realizing that it’s just as much a Twitter competitor.
I wanted to understand how that’s possible. How is it Google+ competes with both of those services? To do so, I plotted Google+’s features against comparable features in both Facebook and Twitter. The objective was to understand:
- Why are people thinking of Google+ as competitor to both existing social networks?
- How did the Google team make use of the best of both services?
The chart below is shows where Google+ is more like Facebook or Twitter. The red check marks (√) and gray shading highlight which service a Google+ feature is more like.
A few notes about the chart.
Circles for tracking: Twitter has a very comparable feature with its Lists. Facebook also lets you put connections into lists; I know because I’ve put connections into lists (e.g. Family, High School, etc.). But I had a hard time figuring out where those lists are. in the Facebook UI. Seriously, where are they for accessing? They may be available somewhere, but it’s not readily accessible. So I didn’t consider Facebook as offering this as a core experience.
+1 voting on posts: Both Google+ and Facebook allow up votes on people’s posts.Twitter has the ‘favorite’ feature. Which is sort of like up voting. But not really. It’s not visible to others, and it’s more a bookmarking feature.
Posts in web search results: Google+ posts, the public ones, show up in Google search results. Not surprising there. Tweets do as well. Facebook posts for the most part do not. I understand some posts on public pages can. But the vast majority of Wall posts never show up in web search results.
Google+ One-Way Following Defines Its Experience
When you look at the chart above, on a strict feature count, Google+ is more like Facebook. It’s got comment threading, video chat, inline media, and limited sharing.
But for me, the core defining design of Google+ is the one-way following. I can follow anyone on Google+. They may not follow back (er…put me in a circle), but I can see their public posts. This one-way following is what makes the experience more like Twitter for me. Knowing your public posts are out there for anyone to find and read is both boon and caution. For instance, I’ll post pics of my kids on Facebook, because I know who can see those pics – the people I’ve connected with. I don’t tend to post their pics on Twitter. Call me an old fashioned protective parent.
That’s my initial impression. Now as Google+ circles gain ground in terms of usage, they will become the Facebook equivalent of two-way following. Things like sharing and +mentions are issues that are hazy to me right now. Can someone reshare my “circle-only” post to others outside my circle? Do I have to turn off reshare every time? Does +mentioning someone outside my circle make them aware of the post?
Google has created quite a powerful platform here. While most features are not new innovations per se, Google+ benefits from the experience of both Twitter and Facebook. They’re off to a good start.
Related articles
- Google social net is about preserving leadership (seattlepi.com)
- What The Google+ Social Network Is All About (huffingtonpost.com)
- Why Google+ Won’t ‘Kill’ Twitter (techland.time.com)
- Going in Google+ Circles (online.wsj.com)
(Cross-posted @ I’m Not Actually a Geek)
First of all, great post Hutch!
I love the visual comparison you’ve provided and the thorough breakdown.
There are a few things, however, that may be overlooked.
Although Google+ has more features in common with Facebook than Twitter, Facebook as a service has a lot more features than Twitter period. Therefore, it would make sense, based on the sheer amount of features that both Google+ and Facebook have, for them to have more features in common.
Twitter is a very rudimentary service and its really a cave man version of Google+. You can do one-way following, like in Google+ but the lists in Twitter aren’t as robust. You are limited to the number of characters you can write and although you can post Tweet Pics, they are not implemented very well and usually not worth it.
Other than, Twitter doesn’t really have any features that Google+ doesn’t. It just has more of a user base, but I’ve heard that activity on Twitter has dropped more than activity on Facebook since Google+ was released.
The other thing that I think may help Facebook survive more than Twitter, is the emotional attachment its users have. Facebook users have hundreds of pictures, friends that they’ve built up over years, family relationships listed, their favorite activies, movies, books and everything “liked”. Each Facebook user has gigantic investment in their profile and network of friends.
Although the same can be said for some Twitter users, I think the overall majority would be able to just pick and go much easier than Facebook users.
From a complete logical and scientific perspective I think your article hit the nail on the head. I personally think Google+ or a similar service will take down both Facebook and Twitter if those services don’t implement serious upgrades.
Again, great article, I’m just taking it from a slightly different angle.
I’ll be looking out for your future articles!
Thanks Anson. I’m seeing people on Google+ declaring they’re winding down their Twitter activity, and ramping up Google+. It’s amazing, really. Another good point I’ve seen made is that on Facebook, things like Farmville will keep people there. I do like the way you outlines the things that will keep people there: photos, prior posts, and most importantly, their existing social networks.
Twitter is more ephemeral in terms of relationships, making it easier to leave there than it would be to depart Facebook.
Good points.
Hutch