Google+ #fails next to Twitter as a backchannel for the Murdoch #hackgate hearing because:
1. Breaking chronology does not work for ongoing news. 2. Without hashtags and search for them, it's impossible to gather around a topic or event (which is key to Twitter's strategy, I learned when I interviewed them for my book).
If Google+ really works, Google will be creating a massive amount of new "conversational media" inventory, the very kind of marketing territory currently under development over at Tumblr and Twitter. Sure, the same could be said of Facebook, but I think that story has been well told. Google+ is a threat to Facebook, but for other reasons. The threat to Tumbrl and Twitter feels more existential in nature.
Let's look at a typical flow for Tumblr, Twitter and Google+.
After failing to strike an agreement to re-up its “firehose” data stream licensing deal with Google, Twitter is now trying to make sure the same thing doesn’t happen to a similar arrangement with Microsoft’s Bing search service, said sources close to the situation.
Yesterday, Google CEO Larry Page dropped some big Google+ numbers during his opening remarks for Google’s earnings call. The biggest one sounded like Google+’s 10 million users were already sharing 1 billion items per day. That sounds insane for a network that is only a couple of weeks old and isn’t yet fully public. But it’s also a bit confusing. What exactly does that mean? And how do we put that into context?
Today, exactly 5 years to the day since they launched, Twitter adds the context. Google+ may be serving up 1 billion items a day, but Twitter is doing 350 billion items a day.
Here is why I think Twitter should be very concerned: - It’s Everywhere Google Is - Google+ Will be a Platform - No artificial character limits
There are lots of other small reasons why I think Google+ could threaten Twitter: built-in photo sharing, for example, the potential for making it a platform for working collaboratively and extending it to every other Google product in some form. Then, there are the mobile apps for the mobile web, Android and iPhone (iPhone is coming soon). Those include a group messaging feature and Foursquare-like check-ins.
Overall score from Charles Arthur: 4/10 Not as bad as Buzz – which ignored privacy altogether – and Circles is a clever idea. But "being social" isn't just about involving lots of people in things. It's also about getting out of the way. The irony is that Google's biggest product, its search page, is a classic of simple design. But everything else it does becomes too complicated. Google+ might work better if it tried to do less, and then built it up.
Time will tell, but if I were offered the choice of this or Facebook, I'd take Facebook. But I'd take Twitter's simplicity and speed over both.
Put it bluntly: if Twitter Is batshit crazy enough to implement even half of the things that Robert Scoble lays out, they will effectively kill their own product. Of course, we can rest-assured knowing that Twitter is very likely not[/i] this foolish. After being in business for a full five years, they must know by now that their strength is not to mimic every just-launched and hot-right-now new social network (in this case, Google+). Their strength is to remain true to what got them to where they are now: simplicity.
For the past few days I’ve been hanging out in Jackson Hole with a bunch of geeks and one thing I’ve noticed over and over is how boring Twitter has gotten when compared to Google+. Why has Twitter turned boring?
I’ve found several areas: 1. First experience. 2. Pictures and videos. 3. Control over content distribution. 4. No API, no auto pushing of content. 5. Signals are visible from who you excited and pissed off. 6. Auto flowing webpage.
Twitter is tweeting out milestones for its 5th birthday; So far we’ve got that there were 224 Tweets sent on July 15, 2006 (it’s launch day) and that now users send that many Tweets in less than a tenth of a second.
Twitter also saw more than 600,000 sign ups yesterday — for comparison it took the company more than 16 months to reach the first 600,000 Twitter accounts.
I don't imagine a scenario where #RIPCelebrity hash tags move from Twitter to Google+. Or Lady Gaga transferring her 11 million followers to Google+. Or Ron Paul internet supporters switching the Ron Paul 2012 Facebook page to Google+. Or college students making friends with fellow Star Wars fans by joining their university's Star Wars Facebook fan page.
The point is that Google+ is Google+, not Facebook or Twitter.
The entire experience is built around its equivalent to Facebook lists: Circles. From the very beginning you have to choose who will be in what circle, and every time you add a friend it automatically pops up your list of circles with little to no effort. To "friend" someone, you don't friend them - you add them to one of your lists. It's that simple.
Google+ take more of a Twitter approach, allowing anyone to "follow" anyone, no matter what. In a sense, this puts Google Circles at a greater risk to putting Twitter out of business, as it takes the Twitter follow model and lists, and adds privacy settings to it, using those lists to make that happen. I bet we'll see Twitter do this in the near future as a response to Google Circles.
The biggest thing Google did right this time around is they did what no other social network was doing. They took privacy, and put it smack in the face of the user to make their own conscious decisions.
There are numerous comparisons between Google’s new Google+ social offering and Facebook, but most of them miss the mark. Twitter’s position as a broadcast platform for 21 million active publishers is a much more achievable goal for Google to reach.
There are two different types of social networks, private and public — each defined by its default privacy setting. Facebook is by default private and meant to connect actual friends. Twitter by default is public and anyone can follow anyone else. Google+ is decidedly in the Twitter camp.
Although Twitter is growing (having just hit 200 million tweets a day), Twitter has left itself open to be displaced with a slow pace of adding features. Even newly returned founder Jack Dorsey has said that it was too difficult for “normal” people to use Twitter.