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
-
