Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

The lowdown on Google+

The introduction of Google+ is by invite only, and since I only have a few friends on Gmail I haven't had the pleasure of receiving one.

The introduction of Google+ is by invite only, and since I only have a few friends on Gmail I haven't had the pleasure of receiving one. And if I did, the fact that I only have a few friends on Gmail to begin with means that I probably won't get much benefit from this technology - although if it's as good as everyone is saying it is, then it may only be a matter of time.

The best description of what Google+ does is social networking - an alternative to Facebook where privacy is relatively easy to maintain. There are several components, like the "Stream" which is basically status updates, links, personal information, Tweets, etc. Then there is "Sparks" which is kind of a hub for your own personal interests where you can find like-minded people and access information specific to your interest.

But I personally think that the biggest selling point of Google+ is "Circles" where you can create circles of friends and acquaintances to share information with. You can have a global circle for all of your contacts and separate circles for best friends, school friends, work friends, family members, teammates, acquaintances, and when you want to share something - a photo, a video, a thought - you can decide what circles to send it to. It's a great way to avoid embarrassment and share information in a more focused way than you can on Twitter or Facebook. It's also a great way to avoid receiving too much information from people you consider casual acquaintances.

Of course, everything is fully integrated with everything else Google does, so you can click on a contact to chat, Google Talk or video conference, link to photos on Picasa, share Google Docs, etc.

The Beta version released last week is only the beginning for the service, and more Google+ features are expected to roll out in the future. They claim to have over 100 new features waiting in the wings that will be rolled out when they are complete and we can also assume that apps for phones, tablets and media devices are on their way.

So what are the prospects for Google+? (And are they any better than the prospects of Google Buzz or Google Wave, which didn't do so well?)

There are a few big things working against Google+ from the get-go. For one, the beauty of Facebook and Twitter is that it doesn't matter what e-mail client you happen to be using, while Google+ requires people to sign up for a Gmail account. People aren't going to switch e-mail clients - or pick up another e-mail account on top of the six that they already have - for a service that right now is not as good as Facebook that only a few of their friends are using.

Another strike against Google+ is the lack of oomph that generally accompanies Google products. When it comes to look and feel, Google is a distant last in the Web 2.0 world. Their online apps look like something from 10 years ago rather than something a cutting edge company worth a couple hundred billion dollars would put out there. The word "austere" comes to mind, which isn't a bad thing when you're talking about productivity - and some people like the clean, sparse look - but I think most people would say Facebook just looks better.

But I wouldn't count Google+ out just yet either. While I don't think high school kids are going to flock to this, it's perfect for businesses, for communities (e.g. a club or non-profit), for hobbyists/enthusiasts, for schools, for projects, for families and other closed loops. And that, in my opinion, is where momentum for this will start - people will sign on because they have to for work or for their class and then they'll start to widen their circles, invite their friends and family members, and so on.

The reality is that you can never count Google out.

 

MySpace vs. Zynga

Once upon a time, when Facebook was just getting moving, MySpace was a big deal with 150 million accounts in 2007 and an estimated value of $12 billion. But it didn't really do anything except hurt your eyes to look at, and Facebook quickly took over.

News Corp paid $580 million for the site in 2005, just before it exploded, and last week sold it for a paltry $35 million to an unknown company called Specific Media. That's literally six cents on the dollar.

In other news, the online game company Zynga was valued at $20 billion in a recent IPO with about $2 billion. While Zynga does well, there's no question that $20 billion is way out of line for a company whose biggest current titles are a free-to-play farming simulator and on online poker game. The company has a lot up its sleeve, and I hope they will be successful, but $20 billion? Activision/Blizzard, which earns billions every month from World of Warcraft alone, to say nothing of Starcraft, Diablo, etc, is only worth about $10 billion. EA, the second-biggest game company in the world, is worth about $8 billion.

Obviously nobody learned anything from the tech bubble of 1999/2000.