I read an interview with a record executive a long time ago and he answered the question, "How do you find the next big thing?"
"That's pretty easy," he said, "I just look for something that parents will hate."
That this is a successful strategy is self-evident. (American) kids want to differentiate themselves from their parents and will pay money to do so. They'll probably latch on in some form to anything as long as it fits the criteria that their parents don't like it.
I think it's a safe bet that the social networking site that replaces Facebook will have fewer features, be ugly, be more difficult to use, and have no redeeming qualities other than nobody's parents are going to participate in it, and kids will identify with it as the cool thing for that reason.
> I think it's a safe bet that the social networking site that replaces Facebook will have fewer features, be ugly, be more difficult to use, and have no redeeming qualities other than nobody's parents are going to participate in it, and kids will identify with it as the cool thing for that reason.
Ugly or not, it will happen. Since human time is limited, a smart social strategy is all about identifying the right "circle" of people you want to join, and then performing activities that increase the chances of your interacting with people from that circle while reducing the chances of your interacting with people from outside.
What this means is that even when your social site is small (compared to say Facebook), if you have all the right people in it (meaning people with high social favorability factor), you will succeed.
Some people make the mistake of assuming that the larger their site is, the better off they are. It's not only about quantity, but also about quality. Low quality eventually leads to decline in quantity by driving people away. That's what happened to MySpace and what will happen to Facebook.
Your momma doesn't have to be there to see the grandkid pics. You can add people to circles on Google+ with only an email address (doesn't have to be Gmail) and it will just email them updates/pics.
Exactly! If I told my family that the grandkid photos were moving from Flickr to Google+, that would be the end of it. I'm thinking about doing just that too.
I've always thought that social networks like Friendster, MySpace and Facebook follow a clear and old path laid out by the fashion industry.
Fashionable things are almost by definition meant not to last.
The early adopters will often take up something, be it Facebook, or new clothes, or a new band, largely because it is not (yet) popular. Or because it is exclusive.
Remember when Facebook was for just for ivy leaguers?
I remember when years ago Joel (of Joel on software) wanted a Facebook that really is strictly restricted to college students. Remember that?
The late adopters will often follow the early adopters for no other reason then because the new thing is cool.
And this pattern guarantees there's always something new and nothing is cool for too long.
Now there's been a lot of talk about lock-in, social graphs, walled gardens, etc.. all reason why no one can do to Facebook what Facebook did to MySpace.
But.... I have my doubts. Google+ vs Facebook, I'm going to get some popcorn and enjoy watching this.
This is the most braindead review of the service that I have read. Any social network goes through the ghost town - early adopters - your mom stage, When your mom arrives, you can't say "fuck" anymore, and so you feel the need to move to another service. Add to this the copious amounts of wall-spam generated in Facebook and a lot of people are excited about Plus. Particularly because Circles is central to the service, even when your mom finally arrives, you'll still theoretically be able to let your mouth off. That's why this thing might have legs. Not because some nebulous and self-congratulatory definition of "geek" would theoretically like it.
I don't believe he has the required evidence to make this claim.
(1) I have a lot of non-techie friends that are interested in using this just to try it out -- they are early adopters but consumers instead of creators; they do not have technical ability.
(2) Whether or not Plus gains market traction is dependent on how it fits into the current social application space. 'Hangouts' and 'Circles' will help differentiate them but to gain a foothold the network effect is of greater importance. Google are making a very calculated move by inviting people with higher quality social graphs as this will help them here!
Plus' success will depend on:
(a) whether they can keep non-techie early-adopters interested in the new features they are providing.
(b) how well they manage to cross-pollinate between each of the services in their eco-system: the changes in Gmail, the navigation bar, and UI across their services point towards them realising this.
(c) easing the move in-between other social applications by providing APIs that could be accessed by more generic desktop and mobile applications that users often use to interact with networks: Tweetdeck, etc... As I said, it's all about harnessing network effects and getting the right people on the service. At this point, I don't see any reason to doubt they have momentum and if they're smart they will continue to connect their eco-system together in a way that creates long-term growth long after the buzz dies.
(3) It's quite presumptuous to assume that since many early-adopters are techies that this is how it will remain: does anybody remember when Twitter was only used by techies?
Let's just see how it plays out and avoid creating mindless tech gossip...?
My Mom is already on it. The first thing I thought when I saw hangouts is "My Mom will be on this a lot chatting with relatives." She wanted the group video chat on Skype but it only works if everyone else pays for it. No barrier with Google+
It is a pretty big jump to say that since Google+ is geeky, therefore the masses won't adopt it. We are talking about an online social networking site. No matter how slick and friendly it looks, the early days of any website are bound to be geeky. Sure, Facebook was never really that geeky (you know, as ungeeky as a Harvard social network can be), but Twitter sure as hell was. That is the lifecycle of these sites. More importantly, yo momma may not have much of a choice. Google is making it pretty clear with all of the redesigns that the Google+ tail will be wagging the Google services dog. Once yo momma starts googling her friends and seeing their profile pop up in search results, looks up directions and see recommendations in the area from her friends, and so on, I'll bet she'll start using it.
Now whether that is good or bad is another question, but Google does seem to have it set up so your mom being on there won't hold you back much.
I think he's trying to make his wife what she isn't: an early adopter. The mainstream wants something that their other mainstream (not early adopter) friends are also using. The early adopters are revolutionaries. The mainstream likes status quo. But that's true about every single technology. Facebook has gone through this, too. Twitter, as well. Would your mom or wife use Twitter in the first year after Twitter launched? But I think Google+ transition to mainstream will be pretty smooth, because it's a great and easy to use product, and it's just a matter of having enough early critical mass to get everyone to hear about it.
You raise some good points about Facebook and Twitter going through the same cycle. I can't think of a service that people adopted immediatelyl; strangely, I can think of a few devices.
it's just a matter of ... get[ting] everyone to hear about it.
That's very true as well, but Google+ has something Facebook (and Twitter et al) didn't -- google.com integration and exposure [1].
Nobody in my family uses Facebook. We all have the same sort of privacy concerns. For us, there is no switching cost. At the same time, all of us use gmail. From what I've seen, Google+ looks like it has better privacy features built in (although it's privacy from the public, not private to teh Google). So, I hope my momma will use Google+ because it make sharing things with family a lot easier.
>From what I've seen, Google+ looks like it has better privacy features built in (although it's privacy from the public, not private to teh Google). So, I hope my momma will use Google+ because it make sharing things with family a lot easier.
// Can you expand on that please. What privacy features does G+ have that FB does not (now) have? How did Google make sharing easier?
g+ is going to be like a "grown up" facebook - without the farmville games and the like. It'll be the social network for people who've avoided facebook over perceived privacy slights. It'll be somewhat like a cross between facebook and a friendlier linkedin.
It'll be a lot of things to a lot of people, but it won't be a 'facebook killer' any time soon. G+ is going to be expanding the social network user pie for a while, rather than siphoning off large chunks from facebook.
I think that you're fooling yourself if you don't think that G+ is going to have Farmville on it soon. It's too big of a draw and too big of a money maker for it to not have them.
Why not? Give it time and soon enough, everybody will be in Google+. The video conferencing is a huge attraction. If you want a social network non-geeky types will not go, you go to rstatus.com or identi.ca where they don't have features for mass consumption.
The article isn't bad, and I more or less agree with a lot of it, but I feel like this individual is dramatically underestimating normal people vs. Silicon Valley folk.
Namely: Being a geek doesn't mean you don't have a developed social graph. I've got several friends who don't really mess around with the techy side of anything, who range from 400-1000 friends. Mostly, they're women, but there are one or two men there.
Basically, good article, but presumptuous attitude.
Scoble can come off that way, but he advocates for new and exciting technology and loves to share it with like minded individuals. I met Scoble last week at the 6sight Social Imaging conference in San Jose. He's a talker, and when you get him started he makes sure to leave you with his opinion. Presumptuous is not a word I would describe him with, however I see how that can be interpreted from his blog. I found him to be a nice guy, well informed and willing to talk to anyone about anything.
> Oh, and that’s not even considering the new "Hangout" videochat feature
I've just realized that lots of "normal" FB users browse it from work, where chances are close to 0 that they'd use any videochat service whatsoever (you don't want your boss overhearing your discussion with your best friend about how stupid Rihanna is or about how Mark fucked up his entire life because he married Sue, just to give a few examples). So, yeah, Hangout is cool to power/media-guru users, like Scoble is, but I fail to see how Google is supposed to make a shitload of money on the back of them only.
Since everyone in my department at work managed to get invitations to Google+, we've been using the hangout feature between our offices in different cities.
I can honestly say it just revolutionized the way we connect as a distributed group. We just leave a hangout open, and anytime someone feels like dropping in, they do. It's like a virtual lounge that everyone has access to.
Just wait until Lady Gaga joins Google+. You'll see millions of her fans alone joining Google+. I think she'll do it soon if she's not on it already. I know she likes tech stuff and she's also a fan of Google.
It is best to first ship a product to early adopters and keep a healthy feedback loop as you expand to more people. I am not saying that it will succeed, but they have a good rollout strategy.
Honestly, while the UI looks nice, I don't see any major advanage in switching.
Facebook: Proprietary network without federation
Google Plus: Proprietary network without federation
So great, I can now jump from one locked-in network into another locked-in network.
Personally I think that Google Plus was the worst thing that can happen to networking in general, as it pretty much killed the chance of an open XMPP-based alternative.
One good thing about Google+ might be that I don’t see it getting private messaging that is not email. So at least the messaging will stay open and you won’t be stuck with inboxes that don’t work on your phone etc.
Right, I don't either yet. I've only just started with it but I see nothing in "circles" that is mind-blowing or amazing. I already heavily use Facebook's lists so this is not that much better/different.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Google set up federation, considering that Google Talk started out without federation and they were trying to get Wave to have federation.
To bold text you surround that text with asterisks. Like this* GEEKY ALERT! Italicize? Put underscores around the text. Strikeout? Put hyphens around it.*
Really? The most trivial markdown syntax is for the Geeks only? I don't want to live in that world; that sounds like a nightmare of truly incompetent users.
I can't stand this. Asterisks in the geek world denote actions, not bold. Underlines are frequently used for computing purposes. How is Markdown in any way friendly to geeks?
[+] [-] drblast|14 years ago|reply
"That's pretty easy," he said, "I just look for something that parents will hate."
That this is a successful strategy is self-evident. (American) kids want to differentiate themselves from their parents and will pay money to do so. They'll probably latch on in some form to anything as long as it fits the criteria that their parents don't like it.
I think it's a safe bet that the social networking site that replaces Facebook will have fewer features, be ugly, be more difficult to use, and have no redeeming qualities other than nobody's parents are going to participate in it, and kids will identify with it as the cool thing for that reason.
[+] [-] kragen|14 years ago|reply
Quoting Joshua Ellis's piece on the grim meathook future:
> Feeding poor people is useful tech,
> but it’s not very sexy
> and it won’t get you on the cover of Wired.
> Talk about it too much
> and you sound like an earnest hippie.
> So nobody wants to do that.
> They want to make cell phones
> that can scan your personal measurements
> and send them real-time
> to potential sex partners.
> Because, you know,
> the fucking Japanese teenagers love it,
> and Japanese teenagers
> are clearly the smartest people on the planet.
The full text is at http://zenarchery.com/?page_id=1180. It's short. Read it.
[+] [-] bluekeybox|14 years ago|reply
Ugly or not, it will happen. Since human time is limited, a smart social strategy is all about identifying the right "circle" of people you want to join, and then performing activities that increase the chances of your interacting with people from that circle while reducing the chances of your interacting with people from outside.
What this means is that even when your social site is small (compared to say Facebook), if you have all the right people in it (meaning people with high social favorability factor), you will succeed.
Some people make the mistake of assuming that the larger their site is, the better off they are. It's not only about quantity, but also about quality. Low quality eventually leads to decline in quantity by driving people away. That's what happened to MySpace and what will happen to Facebook.
[+] [-] joelhaus|14 years ago|reply
The idea is that, to the extent their kids are 'hip', you could also seek out the parents who are having a mid-life crisis.
[+] [-] MichaelApproved|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenjackson|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naner|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaysonelliot|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pkulak|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thwarted|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bh42222|14 years ago|reply
Fashionable things are almost by definition meant not to last.
The early adopters will often take up something, be it Facebook, or new clothes, or a new band, largely because it is not (yet) popular. Or because it is exclusive.
Remember when Facebook was for just for ivy leaguers?
I remember when years ago Joel (of Joel on software) wanted a Facebook that really is strictly restricted to college students. Remember that?
The late adopters will often follow the early adopters for no other reason then because the new thing is cool.
And this pattern guarantees there's always something new and nothing is cool for too long.
Now there's been a lot of talk about lock-in, social graphs, walled gardens, etc.. all reason why no one can do to Facebook what Facebook did to MySpace.
But.... I have my doubts. Google+ vs Facebook, I'm going to get some popcorn and enjoy watching this.
[+] [-] spiffworks|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lhnz|14 years ago|reply
(1) I have a lot of non-techie friends that are interested in using this just to try it out -- they are early adopters but consumers instead of creators; they do not have technical ability.
(2) Whether or not Plus gains market traction is dependent on how it fits into the current social application space. 'Hangouts' and 'Circles' will help differentiate them but to gain a foothold the network effect is of greater importance. Google are making a very calculated move by inviting people with higher quality social graphs as this will help them here!
Plus' success will depend on:
(a) whether they can keep non-techie early-adopters interested in the new features they are providing.
(b) how well they manage to cross-pollinate between each of the services in their eco-system: the changes in Gmail, the navigation bar, and UI across their services point towards them realising this.
(c) easing the move in-between other social applications by providing APIs that could be accessed by more generic desktop and mobile applications that users often use to interact with networks: Tweetdeck, etc... As I said, it's all about harnessing network effects and getting the right people on the service. At this point, I don't see any reason to doubt they have momentum and if they're smart they will continue to connect their eco-system together in a way that creates long-term growth long after the buzz dies.
(3) It's quite presumptuous to assume that since many early-adopters are techies that this is how it will remain: does anybody remember when Twitter was only used by techies?
Let's just see how it plays out and avoid creating mindless tech gossip...?
[+] [-] sonnekki|14 years ago|reply
http://xkcd.com/918/
[+] [-] bennesvig|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yhlasx|14 years ago|reply
Immediately, they will have more than 500M+ users from Skype only, not to mention Gmail.
[+] [-] Kylekramer|14 years ago|reply
Now whether that is good or bad is another question, but Google does seem to have it set up so your mom being on there won't hold you back much.
[+] [-] nextparadigms|14 years ago|reply
http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/product/diffusion/
[+] [-] malbiniak|14 years ago|reply
it's just a matter of ... get[ting] everyone to hear about it.
That's very true as well, but Google+ has something Facebook (and Twitter et al) didn't -- google.com integration and exposure [1].
[1] http://www.allfacebook.com/the-one-google-plus-feature-faceb...
[+] [-] zeemonkee|14 years ago|reply
- Preview ahead of next week to steal FB's thunder about their "big announcement"
- Invites quickly pulled
- Everybody who doesn't have a G+ invite begging around for one, they're even up for sale on eBay - everyone's just waiting to get onto G+
- On same day as the FB announcement, G+ goes public, everyone invited
- Zuck makes his "big announcement" (I dunno, maybe video chat or something) and everyone shrugs.
[+] [-] jimmarq|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|14 years ago|reply
// Can you expand on that please. What privacy features does G+ have that FB does not (now) have? How did Google make sharing easier?
[+] [-] mgkimsal|14 years ago|reply
It'll be a lot of things to a lot of people, but it won't be a 'facebook killer' any time soon. G+ is going to be expanding the social network user pie for a while, rather than siphoning off large chunks from facebook.
[+] [-] kschrader|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yellowredblack|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ninwa|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raniskeet|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] esmevane|14 years ago|reply
Namely: Being a geek doesn't mean you don't have a developed social graph. I've got several friends who don't really mess around with the techy side of anything, who range from 400-1000 friends. Mostly, they're women, but there are one or two men there.
Basically, good article, but presumptuous attitude.
[+] [-] kjames|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gokhan|14 years ago|reply
If non-geeks are using @ to mention people on Twitter, they'll also use * to make text bold.
[+] [-] paganel|14 years ago|reply
I've just realized that lots of "normal" FB users browse it from work, where chances are close to 0 that they'd use any videochat service whatsoever (you don't want your boss overhearing your discussion with your best friend about how stupid Rihanna is or about how Mark fucked up his entire life because he married Sue, just to give a few examples). So, yeah, Hangout is cool to power/media-guru users, like Scoble is, but I fail to see how Google is supposed to make a shitload of money on the back of them only.
[+] [-] jaysonelliot|14 years ago|reply
I can honestly say it just revolutionized the way we connect as a distributed group. We just leave a hangout open, and anytime someone feels like dropping in, they do. It's like a virtual lounge that everyone has access to.
[+] [-] nextparadigms|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skarayan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jknl|14 years ago|reply
"We are announcing these fantastic new features to Facebook users: <copy-paste G+ features here>"
[+] [-] yhlasx|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gst|14 years ago|reply
Facebook: Proprietary network without federation
Google Plus: Proprietary network without federation
So great, I can now jump from one locked-in network into another locked-in network.
Personally I think that Google Plus was the worst thing that can happen to networking in general, as it pretty much killed the chance of an open XMPP-based alternative.
[+] [-] joejohnson|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sjmulder|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ScottWhigham|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] william42|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamdecaf|14 years ago|reply
Really? The most trivial markdown syntax is for the Geeks only? I don't want to live in that world; that sounds like a nightmare of truly incompetent users.
[+] [-] joelmichael|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 5teev|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kragen|14 years ago|reply