Cutting Edge Privacy: Facebook and Google
May 17, 2010
What’s going on? The Europeans take umbrage at Google’s alleged collection of personal data whilst Wi-Fi sniffing. Read about the latest Math Club folly in “Google Data Admission Angers Europe.” Now flip to “Can You Quit Facebook?” These two outfits seem to be doing pretty much what they want and then scurrying in different directions to make their behavior somewhat PR-friendly.
In my opinion, the fact that both companies are acting in their own interests is standard operating procedure. The more interesting question is, “Which company is likely to emerge as the victor?”
I found “Ignore The Screams–Facebook’s Aggressive Approach Is Why It Will Soon Become The Most Popular Site In The World” edging toward Facebook’s side of the field. Here’s the passage I found thought provoking:
From a business perspective, in other words, Facebook’s approach to innovation is smart. It’s not always popular, but it works. And if Facebook wants to maintain its competitive edge, it will do what it has to do to smooth over the latest blow-up, and then go forth with the same approach and attitude it has had all along. Step back and think about what Facebook is doing here. It is pioneering an entirely new kind of service, one that most of its users have never seen before, one with no established practices or rules. It is innovating in an area–the fine line between public and private–that has always freaked people out. It is allowing people to communicate and share information in ways they never have before. It is making decisions that affect hundreds of millions of people. And it is trying to stay a step ahead of competitors that would like nothing better than to see it get scared and conservative and thus leave itself open to getting knocked off.
Google’s methods are, if the above analysis is accurate, old school. Facebook is new school. What happens when one old fashioned Soviet leader is replaced with an adjutant to a former Soviet leader? Old methods in a slightly updated package? I do not have an answer, but I think the Facebook frivolity requires close, close observation. It is new in a number of ways.
Stephen E Arnold, May 17, 2010
Freebie
Finding Books
May 17, 2010
You can’t live on good ideas alone and Booshaka may find out the hard way. A recent Killer Startup review, “Booshaka – A Search Engine for Facebook,” details how this social search engine provides excellent tools for users. Booshaka functions like web-based search engines, but only shows Facebook postings. Users can type in a topic to search, click the most popular search topics or choose one of the “fun” topic listings. The results look just like Facebook wall postings, but from all different people. The problem is, there is now “Wow” factor. Nothing about this program made us sit up straight and say, I wish I’d thought of that. While Booshaka provides something helpful and unique, it reminds us that if you aren’t spinning heads, you’re spinning your wheels. Maybe the mud tires will get a grip? We hope so.
Patrick Roland, May 17, 2010
Freebie.
Social Networking, Like a Red, Red Rose
May 17, 2010
In the 9th grade, an English teacher jumped all over me for pointing out that Robert Burns’s poem with the memorable line “my love is like a red, red rose” was about a sailor in port. Anyone who has spent a weekend in San Diego when the fleet is in knows that a sailor’s love last about as long as a red, red rose. Not Ms. Sperling. She did not agree. I am not sure if I buy into the argument in “Social Networking Is Losing Direction, Pioneer Bill Liao Says.” Unlike my English teacher, I am going to take a “wait and see” approach. The premise is that social networking is no longer focused on “core values”. I am not sure what this phrase means, but I know that Facebook’s big wheels are trying to figure out “privacy.” We know that the Google Buzz service wandered into a swamp. Lots of people are waving flags and shouting that social networks have some lightning bolts within their cloud touched surfaces. For me the key passage was:
Liao [social networking pioneer at Xing] believes that today’s leading social networking giants are obsessed with subscriber numbers and care less about values. This, he warns, could be their Achilles heel. He also believes social networking sites are still too complicated for users to feel entirely comfortable and safe with. “I think the idea that there are special users that you somehow own is going to be obsolete very quickly. If you look at the number of mobile phones on the planet and the sophistication of the mobile phones people have, the need to go to a specific website to get some of the stuff done, that whole interface is likely to become obsolete quickly.
I see some meat in this assertion. I also noted this passage:
In order to achieve re-forestation people need to be empowered, in order to be empowered people need to be able to make declarations about what they’re doing. Go to Neo.org and you’ll see its about personal empowerment. We really have to give up nationalism as the petty little game that it is. It’s stupid and is no longer serving people.”
Hmm.
Stephen E Arnold, May 17, 2010
Freebie.
YourOpenBook: Hurry
May 16, 2010
Short honk: A happy quack to the reader who alerted me to a Facebook centric “finding” service. If you have some Facebook skeletons in your closet, you may want to gobble a Rennie before navigating to YourOpenBook. I ran some interesting queries but the goose will not reproduce those results. Fascinating body of content and a basic search engine. Powerful and thought provoking. Know your child’s Facebook name? Azure chip consultant under 30? Coworker? Enjoy before the service suffers an unexpected outage. Note: queries are now returning different results with each refresh.
Stephen E Arnold, May 16, 2010
Freebie.
Social Networks, Testosterone, and Facebook
May 13, 2010
In my Information Today column which will run in the next hard copy issue, I talk about the advantage social networks have in identifying sites members perceive as useful. Examples are Delicious.com (owned by Yahoo) and StumbleUpon.com (once eBay and now back in private hands).
The idea is based in economics. Indexing the entire Web and then keeping up with changes is very expensive. With most queries answered by indexing a subset of the total Web universe, only a handful of organizations can tackle this problem. If I put on my gloom hat, the number of companies indexing as many Web pages as possible is Google. If I put on my happy hat, I can name a couple of other outfits. One implication is that Google may find itself spending lots of money to index content and its search traffic starts to go to Facebook. Yikes. Crisis time in Mountain View?
It costs a lot when many identify important sites and the lone person or company has to figure everything out for himself or herself. Image source: http://lensaunders.com/habit/img/peerpressuresmall.jpg
The idea is that when members recommend a Web site as useful, the company getting this Web site url can index that site’s content. Over time, a body of indexed content becomes useful. I routinely run specialized queries on Delicious.com and StumbleUpon.com, among others. I don’t run these queries on Google because the results list require too much work to process. One nagging problem is Google’s failure to make it possible to sort results by time. I can get a better “time sense” from other systems.
When I read “The Big Game, Zuckerberg and Overplaying your Hand”, I interpreted these observations in the context of the information cost advantage. The write up makes the point via some interesting rhetorical touches that Facebook is off the reservation. The idea is that Facebook’s managers are seizing opportunities and creating some real problems for themselves and other companies. The round up of urls in the article is worth reviewing, and I will leave that work to you.
First, it is clear that social networks are traffic magnets because users see benefits. In fact, despite Facebook’s actions and the backlash about privacy, the Facebook system keeps on chugging along. In a sense, Facebook is operating like the captain of an ice breaker in the arctic. Rev the engines and blast forward. Hit a penguin? Well, that’s what happens when a big ship meets a penguin. If – note, the “if” – the Facebook user community continues to grow, the behavior of the firm’s management will be encouraged. This means more ice breaker actions. In a sense, this is how Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo either operated or operated in their youth. The motto is, “It is better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.”
Google Engineers Abandon Facebook
April 26, 2010
Interesting story about Google engineers abandoning their Facebook account: “Google Engineering Gaggle Flees Facebook.” Most people are not aware of the type of information an analysis of relationship data can yield. You can see one type of output by navigating to www.cluuz.com and entering a query for “Eric Schmidt”. With a few clicks you can see a relationship map that connects Mr. Schmidt to Jimmy Kimmel as well as Braeburn Capital. Imagine the fine grained information that could be generated by applying similar technology to the Facebook data. I think that Googlers want to be off the Facebook grid for another reason. Google is taking steps to marginalize Facebook. First, Googlers abandon ship. Then Google downplays Facebook and its Microsoft centric services.
One part of the problem is that Facebook seems to have become the next Google. Google’s math club responses may not be enough. Even with Orkut, Buzz, Wave, and Google’s other technologies, Google seems to be struggling to find an answer to the Facebook challenge. Can Google buy Facebook? Too late? Too expensive? Can Google leap frog Facebook? With each passing day, Google seems to be less agile in the social space. Are there opportunities in social search? Yes, but I don’t see Google delivering a service that will change my present social search behavior. The balance of 2010 will be an interesting series of skirmishes between these two firms in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, April 26, 2010
Two Acquisitions: Divvyshot and Episodic
April 14, 2010
While on travel on Saturday, I read two separate news items about two competitors’ acquisitions. Facebook purchased a photo sharing outfit called Divvyshot. I had never heard of it. To my added goose eye, the Divvyshot service looks like Flickr with the requisite search and social functions that make venture capitalists drool. The service makes it easy to create a collection of images, which Divvyshot calls events. This is in line with the type of thinking I heard described years ago when a Microsoft researcher was explaining how people think about information; for example, the letter I received when I got engaged.” This is the “hook” approach to content organization.
The Google purchase delivered an outfit that is able to stream live video. YouTube.com has its own streaming video technology. Episodic is able to stream and it includes a package of services; that is, instead of an invention, Episodic has a more or less complete service, including a function that makes flash videos work on the Apple iPhone and presumably the iPad. See “Episodic Makes Flash Videos iPhone Friendly”.)
Several observations:
First, the Facebook acquisition goes into the guts of what Facebook users are now doing. Facebook is one of the largest photo repositories in the social media space. Divvyshot is likely to make existing customers happier because Facebook is not particularly good at certain types of content organization. The company is improving, but there are some constraints that madden users like me. The Google acquisition is more a product and people deal. Google can do specific inventions, but Episodic puts different things together in a reasonably coherent package.
Second, the Facebook deal is about addressing a “now” problem. The Google buy seems to be part of a build out strategy for rich media at Google. What strikes me is that Facebook is chugging along and taking steps to “me too” service functions available elsewhere just not within the Facebook walled garden. Google is trying to short cut product development. Which is the better strategy? I don’t know.
Third, both companies are buying as well as investing in their own technologies. Facebook is more of a tactical move. Google seems to be evidencing some impatience with its own line up of video inventions, products, and services. Is Google also buying staff in order to accelerate the company’s role in rich media.
I want to see how these two companies interact. Right now, Facebook seems less pressured in the rich media space that Google. Google, on the other hand, may find itself falling further behind leaders in rich media. Search and text advertising just may be losing their turbo charging capability. Quite a surprise if this assertion is accurate.
You can request a free sample chapter from Google Beyond Text, my new study of Google’s infrastructure, by navigating to http://www.theseed2020.com/gbt/. I explore rich media as an opportunity for Google to grow or for rich media to gum up the Google F 1 race car engine.
Stephen E Arnold, April 14, 2010
No one paid me to write this.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
