homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.20.220.79
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Community Building and User Generated Content
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: rogerd

Community Building and User Generated Content Forum

This 60 message thread spans 2 pages: 60 ( [1] 2 > >     
Wired: Facebook's Plan to Dominate The Net, And Keep Google Out
engine




msg:3938915
 5:18 pm on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Wired: Facebook's Plan to Dominate The Net, And Keep Google Out [wired.com]
Today, the Google-Facebook rivalry isn't just going strong, it has evolved into a full-blown battle over the future of the Internetóits structure, design, and utility. For the last decade or so, the Web has been defined by Google's algorithmsórigorous and efficient equations that parse practically every byte of online activity to build a dispassionate atlas of the online world. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline. In Zuckerberg's vision, users will query this "social graph" to find a doctor, the best camera, or someone to hireórather than tapping the cold mathematics of a Google search. It is a complete rethinking of how we navigate the online world, one that places Facebook right at the center. In other words, right where Google is now.

There's an interesting piece on Wired that I thought you'd appreciate.

Google would love to get some of Facebook's data, and, as long as Facebook keeps Google at arms length, under those terms, perhaps, it has a chance of remaining dominant.

Where are your bets going?

 

BillyS




msg:3938918
 5:28 pm on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Facebook is the latest fad in the social network space. Look at MySpace, there is no long term loyalty.

Google will still be standing when people are reminiscing about Facebook.

yaix2




msg:3938924
 5:39 pm on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Maybe Zuckerberg has not noticed, but Google has become quite a Social Network already. Bookmarks that influence search results(?), shared RSS, all the Google office applications, Picasa fotos, etc. Only that it is centered around the different services, rather than each user's profile.

bwnbwn




msg:3938925
 5:41 pm on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

BillyS I am of a different view as myspace became a nightmare, slow sluggish and plain stupid.

Facebook on the other hand appeals to a older crowd much safer to use and is more private.

My view of facebook is continued growth and expansion.

maximillianos




msg:3938943
 5:51 pm on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

I rarely use Facebook anymore due to how slow the pages load. Sometimes they never load.

Plus whenever you type a response or email in FB, some script is monitoring your every keystroke. It makes typing essentially as slow as a turtle. I usually get frustrated and go to my gmail instead to send the message I'm trying to send.

ponyboy96




msg:3938959
 6:18 pm on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

My bet is still on Google. You type in something and get results. Facebook is just a fad, just like Twitter.

carguy84




msg:3938963
 6:23 pm on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Google in the short term, Google in the long term. The last place I want to get info from is my list of friends on facebook.

mfishy




msg:3938966
 6:40 pm on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information

ummmm...no thanks. I hear from them enough :)

Bentler




msg:3938992
 7:44 pm on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

I'm sure Google Wave will give Facebook a run for its money. 100 million gmail accounts that can tap in vs. 200 million facebook accounts, many overlapping.

G also has patents in place to monetize the social network, with higher ad rates needed to display to well-connected members.

It will be interesting to see how it all works out.

NoLimits




msg:3939019
 8:24 pm on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Hahaha - is this a joke?

Have any of you used Facebook's self serve ad platform? They aren't even in the same league and I'll give you 3 reasons to back it up.

1) Traffic Value. Facebook traffic is garbage at best. They probably do 1/20th of the CPM that Google does on average.

2) Technology. Facebook has proven themselves to be completely impotent with regards to ad serving technology. Specific examples include... a double-click literally charges you twice; current fraud click rate exceeds 25% for most demographic.

3) Social Trends. Social networks of magnificent scale are trends, period. There will (for years to come) always be something new that people will jump ship to. People don't have enough time in their lives to keep up with 8 different social networks, all consisting of mostly the same people.

farmboy




msg:3939030
 8:49 pm on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline. In Zuckerberg's vision, users will query this "social graph" to find a doctor, the best camera, or someone to hireórather than tapping the cold mathematics of a Google search.

25 years ago, there was a Presidential election in the U.S. where the winner carried 49 of the 50 states. There is a story about a woman who lived in Manhattan at the time and remarked that she didn't understand how that winning candidate won because none of her friends voted for him. She was evidently under the impression that her circle of friends was representative of the country as a whole - or worse, she was under the impression that her circle of friends WAS the country.

Either way, this Zuckerberg guy reminds me of that woman. Kinda' "tone deaf" so to speak.

Sorry Mr. Zuckerberg. Someone among my friends, colleagues, peers, and family might be able to tell me who is winning on American Idol if that were to be important to me, but I don't think they will be able to help me find a replacement part for my widget at 3 AM on Sunday like Google will.

FarmBoy

ddogg




msg:3939069
 9:31 pm on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Google makes billions of dollars a year in profits. Facebook loses tens of millions of dollars a year. That pretty much sums it up.

(And the bigger Facebook gets the more money they lose. Traffic from most foreign countries isn't worth anything, but it still costs them just as much to host the users as it does in the US. The math doesn't work out for them.)

bordering




msg:3939090
 10:06 pm on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

I'm mystified that Facebook can remain online. I mean where do the $$s come from? None from myself... though I'd pay 15 or 20 GBP a year for it.

Google have been refining out the search engine act for a while with a wide-ranging and rigorous approach. Others can surmise how it works and make something with a passing resemblance but only G has huge long term data right now.

My take on Facebook is that it's doing what webmail should have been doing all along. I never used webmail, but FB is that and some more, and has helped me hive off personal communications in a way which seems worthwhile.

Just can't see it rivalling Google anytime soon. My list of friends hardly ever post links (I'm the only one who does and as a publisher I'm definitely not a typical web user) and the ads never grab me enough for a click.

However it could be a generational thing and I've missed the point?

rocco




msg:3939104
 10:22 pm on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

gmail, hotmail, etc - these are pretty much social networks already, the nodes (email addresses) exist, it is just not so obvious. the real interesting data is stored on the free email service servers, like the confirmation mails of amazon purchases or memberships to adult websites. dont let me mention the search data or the browsing behaviour which they have. facebook is even in its core miles away from microsoft or google.

weeks




msg:3939120
 10:41 pm on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

I found myself standing around with a very savvy former Wall Street media analyst (a lot former analysts around now) who casually shared with me that Facebook really needed to find a way to make money. And this person had no idea what that might be.

This person said that we have to keep in mind that the economics that were in place that drove Facebook's investors five years ago are gone and nothing has replaced it. N-o-t-h-i-n-g. Zippo.

Forget Google/Facebook. Which job would you rather have: the CEO chair at Yahoo or at Facebook? For me, it would be Yahoo. I honestly don't know what anyone can do with Facebook to make the kind of money they need to make.

Ozymandias




msg:3939142
 11:29 pm on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

"Google makes billions of dollars a year in profits. Facebook loses tens of millions of dollars a year. That pretty much sums it up. "

That comment from DDog exactly sums up my point of view.

I also think if Google wanted to compete head-on with Facebook as a social network site, Facebook has no damned chance. Google's user feedback and optimization process and performance far exceeds Facebook's.

I expect Facebook to eventually be bought out in several years time when it is just a thread within the social web, who knows, maybe by Google?

Let's face it, most social networking sites aren't profitable for large organizations yet. When it is, which I suspect in the next few years, prepare for some big time acquisitions.

Google saw YouTube's value and took it, I think they may be waiting for social networking to have more measurable results before acquiring.

[edited by: Ozymandias at 11:33 pm (utc) on June 23, 2009]

shri




msg:3939169
 12:50 am on Jun 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

>> Facebook traffic is garbage at best. They probably do 1/20th of the CPM that Google does on average.

CPM and ROI are key to Facebook's success. At the end of the day, what use are 100 million users if they are so obsessed about themselves and their friend's pretty photos that they ignore all advertising.

From an advertisers perspective, it is almost impossible to use Facebook for intention based marketing. Its ok for branding, events and viral campaigns.

At some point investors will figure this out, no matter what Facebook management keeps repeating. GeoCities, MySpace, Friendster .... Facebook.

GrendelKhan TSU




msg:3939195
 2:36 am on Jun 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Google would love to get some of Facebook's data, and, as long as Facebook keeps Google at arms length, under those terms, perhaps, it has a chance of remaining dominant.

I think THAT is the key to everything one way or another.

* Simply put: if they let google crawl their data. No way they'll win.
* If they keep G shut out... they got a shot.

That's a big factor in why Google Korea is still only 3% of the Korean search market as opposed to 65% for homegrown local Naver. Naver has the best results (Knowledge search results--what Yahoo copied and made into Answers, as well as blogs) and blocks google from crawling it. People want Answers style results.. .google can't give it. As such, there is no real incentive to use Google.

Bottomline:
It then just becomes a factor or what USERS end up wanting more. If people WANT social graph or crowdsourcing info... and google can't give it to them via search.

Game over.

Slow loading etc is a technical issue (ie: eventually will /can be solved). But you can't make ppl want webpages if they really want to know what 100 of their buddies say is teh best computer to buy. They will probably need webpages to just act as backup research for such recommendations.

If I were fb... I'd block google to my last breath. and pump up there search type features as much as possible in the meantime.

IanCP




msg:3939197
 2:36 am on Jun 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

I am also from the school of thought that Google will, in the much longer term, see Facebook off and whatever number of other fads that will also subsequently come along and go nowhere.

walkman




msg:3939225
 4:46 am on Jun 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

In related news: My Space lays off even more people [online.wsj.com...]

FB will too get boring soon. They are so many ways to connect with peopleand unless you log in there, why would you go there to search ?

gethan




msg:3939237
 5:11 am on Jun 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

I'm mystified that Facebook can remain online. I mean where do the $$s come from? None from myself... though I'd pay 15 or 20 GBP a year for it.

I had the same thought - I'd pay that a year for facebook - but - most of my friends wouldn't - and then it wouldn't be worth 15 cents a year ;)

FB is for some sectors almost replacing email - the zippies for example - check out any internet cafe in Asia and it's facebook on every screen. But there is no obvious revenue stream from them - and with so many other free social networking sites biting at the heels - how could they move to subscription? the audience has no loyalty and will move with the herd.

GrendelKhan TSU




msg:3939247
 5:39 am on Jun 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

I have to go against the general grain here..

everyone is stuck in the adversting text and banners as the only potential revenue model.

And why is FB a fad? That's like saying social networking is fad.

THat's like SNS in general is a fad. Sure, there may another SNS that rises up over FGB... linkedin or whatever, but I don't image social network sites are going anywhere soon.

Google won the SEARCH war.
FB won the SNS war.
Twitter is inbetween with MICRO-blogging.

Are ppl really saying SNS is a fad in general? +_+ I don't see why that would be so.

I'm mystified that Facebook can remain online. I mean where do the $$s come from? None from myself... though I'd pay 15 or 20 GBP a year for it.

FB can make it so many apps have to share profits with FB.
(not too unlike apple with iphone app.... apple gets 30% off the top and DEVs pay it gladly). Maybe they do already.

Few realize many games on FB, for example, are already making millions.... NOW.

No reason FB can't support that community of devs more and get something back for the trouble.

===OR====

do "one-off", micropayments for stuff to jazz up ones profile (FB fast becoming THE default social profile). What is the default blog of choice? wordpress, blogger, other? is blogging a fad? Do people pay for blog skins? or add ons? Sometimes...yes.

So...pay monthly ...yearly... whatever... subscription? Maybe not.

pay 10 cents for 2 weeks where of being able change the background color of your profile or cool SET of default rotating avatars?
Maybe yes.

(Cyworld does similar now in korea to the tunes of millions in profit). I'm sure paypal folks wouldn't complain.

ie: it can make at least a good portion of itself a wall-garden economy.

not saying that is the best way.. just saying there are other options.

check out any internet cafe in Asia and it's facebook on every screen.

actually... no. that's too broad. Its completely not so in Korea (which has a totally wired and has a MASSIVE pc room and cafe economy).

FB (and Google for that matter) is almost non-existent in Korea.

Cyworld dominates with like...over 90% penetration for the Social Network market and 20+ million unique members. Its ranked 3rd overall with 72 penetration for the entire Korean internet market. Google... has less than 3%. Who is the fad in that case?

But there is no obvious revenue stream from them - and with so many other free social networking sites biting at the heels - how could they move to subscription?

So...
Like I said, who said subscriptions was the only option? you said "no obvious revenue" stream. It doesn't HAVE to be obvious.

Again, cyworld is very successful and doesn't have any subscriptions, per se.

Pass the cost off to those that want a piece of the game, not to the players. Monetize those that monetize FB. Let the users site back and benefit.

ie: everyone is only thinking that advertising is the only hope for monetizing.

Its not a 1-to-1 comparison with Google. They are two completely different beasts. IF facebook figures out how to leverage is data and keep google out of it... no reason they can't be the next 500 pound PROFITABLE gorillla in the room.

In contrast, I'd think TWITTER is more a DIRECT competitive threat to google SEARCH. Just look what Skittles did.

The twitter SERP is exactly what google does--but live. And its good.

so sayeth GrendelKhan{TSU}

[edited by: GrendelKhan_TSU at 5:45 am (utc) on June 24, 2009]

GrendelKhan TSU




msg:3939255
 5:57 am on Jun 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

People don't have enough time in their lives to keep up with 8 different social networks, all consisting of mostly the same people.

that's my point...
you imply it yourself... but they ARE keeping up with at least ONE.

its more social networks as an industry VS search as an industry. (

- FB just happens to be the new king of SNS (which has longevity among SNS is the real question at hand)
- google is tops for search.

so the comparison happens.

(I think its probably more likely that SNS and Search will have a nice symbiotic relationship in the end--with more and more cross-over. But BOTH will be around.)

The implication that Social Network platforms in-and-of-themselves are a fad is something that.. well... probably only what ppl on search engine, SEO-based forum would say. heh.

Assume you could develop (or already did) a KILLER app for facebookers (that would be VERY popular) and you could sell it a few bucks -- where you get 70% and give 30%... I doubt you would NOT be interested.

At least, I suspect one you start to see a decent biz model in there....somewhere.

Any else download Tap Tap Revenge or the Moron Test? or play MobWars? None are based on advertising models.

hmmm...

MrHard




msg:3939259
 6:11 am on Jun 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

A social internet will eventually replace what Google is now. Have no idea which company will do it better, probably not Google because it's hard to refocus when you become that big.

Social interaction equals more time spent there, friendlier environment, which translates to more effective advertising, and more revenue to expand.

pele




msg:3939261
 6:20 am on Jun 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Since facebook's recent changes I have not been using it as much as before. I think they are their own worst enemy.

Google has nothing to worry about.

incrediBILL




msg:3939285
 7:21 am on Jun 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

If someone like the NY times, CNN or Fox News bought face book and continued that strategy it could be a real threat.

Looking back historically, that's how AOL became a dominant force once upon a time because you could only find that content if you were an AOL member.

It has worked in the past, can it work again?

GrendelKhan TSU




msg:3939323
 9:13 am on Jun 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

If someone like the NY times, CNN or Fox News bought face book and continued that strategy it could be a real threat.
Looking back historically, that's how AOL became a dominant force once upon a time because you could only find that content if you were an AOL member.

It has worked in the past, can it work again?

exactly. Content is still king... we all agree on that right? ~_^;;

FB gets exclusive content and makes its current content more... accessible, searchable, whatever (from within FB).

AND it keeps up its walled garden (successfully blocks google from that content) and additionally starts charging CONTENT PROVIDERS and DEVELOPERS a fee or takes a share of their rev.

-- Its what Cyworld tried to replicate outside of Korea and failed (but most Korean portals successfully do WITHIN Korea to keep Google and others at bay).
-- Its what AOL wishes it did AFTER we all stopped using it as a ISP.
-- Its what MySpace picked up too late on before selling the farm (and didn't do before making its UI bearable).
-- its what Apple is doing now and pwning all in its market (app store).

Its ... not a bad plan.

Its no guarantee...but its not so easily dismissed as so many seem to make it. All the Google fanboys lipservice won't change that.

[edited by: GrendelKhan_TSU at 9:13 am (utc) on June 24, 2009]

Syzygy




msg:3939349
 9:49 am on Jun 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

I've been on Facebook for just about three months now, and you know what? I'm bored with it already.

I've joined a few groups - they have nothing to say. I've taken part in a few of the "Your friend Fred has challenged you to #*$!x", and sure, it's provided a couple of minutes of fun here and there. Invariably though it's without any lasting value. I've already got loads of bookmarks that could take me to such time wasting activities.

I've posted up photos from my recent holiday - but wonder why I should do this when I've had a Flickr account for years (and my images are available to everyone, not just my small network).

I post my Twitter-esque comments ("What's on your mind") every few days - but think to myself "how trite".

I watch as some egos just fill up my home page with endless drivel and outcomes of quizzes that provide the answer to "what kind of animal poop are you?"

I wait, increasingly impatiently, as Facebok pages and applications take an age to load or - has already been pointed out - fail to load.

I hate it that nearly every click I do on Facebook requires me to "Allowing this app access to your Profile information, photos, your friends' info, bank details, DNA and any other content that it requires to work."

And this is the future? I sincerely hope not...

Syzygy

GrendelKhan TSU




msg:3939356
 10:01 am on Jun 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

its not the future...in its current form.

point is... Social network sites aren't going to go away before they get better.

dudibob




msg:3939359
 10:16 am on Jun 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

@Syzygy Sounds to me like your expecting Facebook to entertain you which it won't, Facebook is a communication tool like Twitter will not entertain you, the people you follow do.

I am a fan of Facebook but that could be because I fit quite well into the demographic range for them as all my friends use it. I don't install apps and I ignore all 'so-and-so has challenge you to this' as they're rubbish tbh.

Most of the people I grew up with have moved to new places/gone or to Uni and it can be a great hassle free way to contact them as they don't always have phone credit.

My photos I prefer to add to Facebook as for one, they're more private (for now) and you can tag people in them, effectively sharing them without having to send the photos to the people.

However as much as Facebook is useful to me, it's only useful in a pure 'play' way. I've had no use for it for work or effective use for it anyway.

This 60 message thread spans 2 pages: 60 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Community Building and User Generated Content
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved