![In Defense of Root [Android]](http://tbottle.com/tb/wp-content/themes/suffusion/timthumb.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Ftbottle.com%2Ftb%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F08%2Froot-150x150.gif&w=80&h=80&zc=1&quality=75&type=m)
![Droid 2 Specs Confirmed [Android/Verizon]](http://tbottle.com/tb/wp-content/themes/suffusion/timthumb.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Ftbottle.com%2Ftb%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F11%2Fandroid-300x300.gif&w=80&h=80&zc=1&quality=75&type=m)
There’s a lot of buzz and chatter in the blogosphere about Google’s upcoming social features. Starting with Kevin Rose’s infamous tweet, we’ve been referring to an amorphous “Google Me” platform. Presumably, Google Me will be designed to go toe-to-toe with Facebook. We’ve seen rumors about Zynga bringing social gaming aboard, along with a recent acquisition that suggests Google Me is indeed a reality. While some might feel that Google Me has been blogged ad nauseum,I will speculate what this service will look like.
Google has many very social properties that exist as islands. The core properties are Picasa, Gmail, Voice, Chat (and Video), Reader, Blogger, YouTube, and Orkut. Buzz was an attempt to bring together many of these properties and connect them. Think of Buzz as a hub and the other properties as spokes. However, Buzz did not gain widespread adoption. For some, it was the privacy missteps in the first few days of operation that kept them away. I believe there are more obvious and compelling reasons why people aren’t using Buzz in large numbers right now. First, people want to interact with their existing associates, many of whom they communicate with on Facebook. Second, the Buzz interface is somewhat confusing. Facebook and Twitter primarily operate on a chronological model. Buzz doesn’t. Back to the point, Buzz was a failed attempt to create a widely adopted hub linking Google’s social properties, the islands.
I believe Google Me will connect the islands in a very similar way that iGoogle can be used to connect all of Google’s services. In fact, iGoogle has long had some social features unique among all of Google’s properties, including rudimentary social gaming. I actually think Google Me will, in fact, look quite a bit like iGoogle. We will design our own social networks. We may choose a box for YouTube, a stream of Buzz, some Picasa albums, Gmail previews, Chat pane, etc. which would all appear in some integrated fashion on one page (or a group of tabbed pages). Unlike Buzz, Wave and other Google properties that have “fixed” UIs, Google Me may have a more “dynamic” user-customizable look and feel. Drop and drag a feed of friends on the left, maybe another for co-workers in the middle and keep Chat on the right. Or, maybe have it the other way around. Oh, and the top will likely have a search bar and a status update-like field (not too dissimilar from Facebook). Oddly, if I’m correct about the user-customizable look and feel, Google Me may be somewhat similar to *gasp* MySpace in some respects. (Don’t get too discouraged. MySpace was once wildly successful and there may be some elements worth salvaging.)
Will Google Me succeed where Buzz has failed? I’m sure Google will control the rollout and check, double check and triple check to make sure there aren’t serious privacy concerns. Well, this alone won’t assure it’s success. As I pondered above, many people’s existing social networks exist on Facebook. Zynga could help lure massive numbers of virtual farmers, mafia wannabes and others from Facebook to Google, particularly if Zynga and Facebook completely part ways. There is also an enormous installed base of Gmail users. If there is a way to convert them into Google Me users, Google should find it. Also, consider that Google could leverage its upcoming Google TV, Google Music and Google Books properties. Another angle Google could play is integrating Google Me with Apps. Enterprise might be more likely to permit employees to use Google Me, if there were dedicated business streams and corporate discussions. Whereas, Facebook is practically a complete suck on employee productivity.
In any event, I’m straying want into the “will it work?” topic and I intended to merely write about what it will look like. My bets are on a user-customizable iGoogle-like platform. I don’t have a shred of evidence to support this but, as I titled the post, this is my best guess.
Google is dumping Google Wave. Here’s the official quote:
Wave has not seen the user adoption we would have liked. We don’t plan to continue developing Wave as a standalone product, but we will maintain the site at least through the end of the year and extend the technology for use in other Google projects.
This news came as a complete surprise to me and many others. It seems like just yesterday Wave was released and it was the buzz of the internet. It was a trending topic on twitter for nearly a week and many people were scurrying to get invitations to the beta. Nonetheless, Wave failed for very good reasons.
While I was initially jazzed about Wave, just like many at Google according to the official blog, I was blinded by the fact that it was new and shiny. I blogged about it several times and even created a Google Wave category for the blog. However, when I began Waving with friends, they quickly pointed out reasons why they didn’t like it. It was difficult to use. It was launched without full features like email notifications. It was another mode of communication that was redundant with our existing modes. In short, they felt it was a waste of their time and apparently many people felt that way. They just didn’t “get” Wave.
I haven’t read the other commentary in the blogosphere on the failure of Wave but I think many will be discussing Google Buzz and the rumored Google Me project. I suspect that Wave will be replaced with Google Me and if Google Me gains tractions we may see Google Buzz fall by the wayside too. While I would be sad to see Buzz go, I would welcome a better replacement that achieves more widespread adoption. Frankly, I can’t convince anyone in my social circles to get active on Buzz. Hopefully, Google has a recipe for marketing a service that will compete with Facebook which is now 500 million strong. I’d like to see a superior replacement for Facebook with better governance.
Miio is a mixture of every hot property on the web right now. It is a little like Facebook, Twitter, Buzz and FriendFeed. In other words, it is a social networking site. Do we really need another? The answer appears to be a resounding YES. Miio brings in the best of each of the hot properties and it is really gaining traction. The service is so polished that TheNextWeb entitled a post “Early adopted alert: miio is here, and it’s looking really slick.”
I’m a big fan of Google Buzz and I’ve been vocal about it. The CEO of miio, Richard Lusk, is also a Google Buzz fan. I’m not alone in saying that I plan to shift some of my social networking time to miio.
I’m not going to attempt to reinvent the wheel. There’s an excellent review of miio in the blogosphere entitled, “Why miio isn’t Twitter or Facebook: And why this is a good thing.” The post contains a video demo and a terrific overview of the service. It’s recommended reading.
If you check out miio, add my profile to your network. It’s at http://miio.com/jon.
File this rumor in the “quite possible” folder. It comes by way of Kevin Rose, co-founder and CEO of Digg. He tweeted to his 1.1 million followers:
Ok, umm, huge rumor: Google to launch facebook competitor very soon “Google Me”, very credible source
TechMiso picked up the tweet and the rumor is gaining steam on Google Buzz.
I believe there is room in the Google ecosystem for a new social network. While Buzz is still fresh out of the box, it really isn’t ideal for keeping up with friends and family. Buzz is somewhat more like Twitter in terms of the relationships between users, although discussions tend to be more fulsome than those on Twitter. Google does already have a Facebook like service, Orkut. However, Orkut is significantly behind Facebook in terms of features and it never really caught on outside of Brazil and India. Some point to Wave as a social network of sorts but it’s really a different animal. Wave is more like a collaboration service that better suits business purposes than social purposes.
If there really is a Google Me, I’m really curious what the service will look like. Surely, it will incorporate many Facebook features but I would expect some significant departures from the mold, and not just better privacy settings. Surely, there’s room for improvement upon the Facebook format.
I believe the biggest obstacle to any Facebook competitor is that many Facebook users have invested significant time amassing their group of Facebook friends. Even if an large group decided to defect from Facebook, it’s not easy to export Facebook contacts to Google. It actually requires a Yahoo! account to pull from Facebook and export to CSV file. From there, the CSV file can be imported into Gmail. Instructions can be found here.
I’m hoping Kevin is right. It’s about time someone shakes things up and competes meaningfully with Facebook.
When it comes to privacy, Facebook just doesn’t get it. Today Facebook held a press conference where CEO Mark Zuckerberg laid out Facebook’s position on privacy, apologized for some mix-ups and offered up some bandaids that will be rolled out in the next few weeks. I am going to focus on the most important point of this entire debate which centers around whether public sharing should be opt-in or opt-out.
I’ve been thinking critically about the latest Facebook changes, writing posts about them (here and here), reading other opinions, and participating in debates on Google Buzz with some tech enthusiasts. I’ve come to the following conclusion: Facebook accounts should have an option to only share information with friends and that should be the default selection. Changes that permit the broader sharing of information should be implemented in a opt-in fashion, not foisted upon the masses.
Facebook has routinely moved the privacy goal posts. Every time changes take effect, Facebook “mandates by update” sharing beyond one’s circle of friends. This is not what many of us signed up for. I joined Facebook about three years ago when users had better control over their information and Facebook didn’t regularly flip switches to make banter among friends public to the world. We have shared opinions, jokes, links and pictures within this framework in a controlled fashion. Flash forward. Beginning in December and then later with the Open Graph API, Facebook opened up practically everything to everyone. Users needed to toggle switches to maintain the same level of sharing as they enjoyed before. This is plainly absurd, as I observed before. It would be akin to Google or Microsoft taking your email and publishing it without you affirmatively electing to do so. Now, I wouldn’t have a problem if Google or Microsoft permitted users to publish emails provided that the option were accompanied by adequate instruction. Facebook just does what it wants when it wants and without adequate instruction, control or warning.
Super kudos to the French reporter who asked Zuckerberg why Facebook doesn’t follow the OPT-IN model for sharing. It was probably the single-most important question to ask and it was completely fumbled in a very laughable way. This is the exchange:
Q (French press agency): Why not make the default the most restricted possible privacy setting?
A (Zuckerberg): We want to give people control over their privacy. Really restrictive settings make it hard for people to find each other.
Are you kidding me? First, making the model opt-in does not interfere with a user’s control over privacy settings. You could have all the same choices but the default would always be the most restrictive settings. Accordingly, when Facebook makes changes that allow broader dissemination of previously private or semi-private information, the changes wouldn’t just be sprung upon unsuspecting users. Second, why would an opt-in model make it difficult for people to find each other? Users are identified by names and a thumbnail picture, if they so choose. Friends in common are also displayed. Why does publishing someone’s news feed make it easier “for people to find each other”? It doesn’t. Someone really should have followed up on the French reporter’s question.
Some might argue that you opt-in when you sign up for Facebook. Not when I signed up. We created our own sharing circles. Sure privacy policies can and do change but I made an erroneous and naive assumption that the service was run by responsible adults. Instead, we’re being forced into the public sharing model to (1) “give people control over their privacy” and (2) “make it [easier] for people to find each other.” #FAIL.
P.S. Leo Laporte of TWiG is promoting Google Orkut as a Facebook alternative like many of us on Buzz. While it needs some fixin’ and some polishing, Orkut really is a decent platform. More importantly, Orkut is backed by Google, a company run by adults who have proven themselves over a long period to time to be responsible.
I budget most of my social networking time for Google Buzz. Here’s my long-winded why…
Facebook support waivers and A list bloggers like Mashable speculate about the fate of MySpace, but nobody seems to be reporting on Google Buzz. Sure, it faltered out of the gate with a privacy misstep. To briefly recap: users were set to auto-follow their Gmail contacts and those auto-follows could be seen by other Buzz users. However, this was done inadvertently and the problem was patched faster than a speeding bullet. This issue was addressed quite well at SXSW. Google apologized. (It differs significantly from Facebook intentionally taking what was previously private and unapologetically broadcasting it to the entire 400 million plus Facebook community but that’s another post altogether.) Now, in case you were wondering, Buzz doesn’t have any known privacy bugs. You can buzz publicly or privately. You can show or hide your list of people you follow and people who follow you. Has anyone in the media or blogosphere been reporting on this?
To me, this is what makes Google Buzz appealing and more so than competing social networks:
- Building a Buzz environment to your liking: It is easy to build followers and to reciprocate follows. My Google Buzz followers are largely active Buzz users. I have more Google Buzz followers than Twitter followers and I joined Twitter ages ago. I enjoy both reading and writing on Buzz.
- Twitter falls short: Twitter is often difficult to follow. Conversations, which rarely develop, need to be decrypted because of the 140 character limit and the lack of meaningful organization of Tweets. It doesn’t help matters that many active Twitter users tend to be get-rich-quick schemes and pure follow-back whores.
- Facebook is a different animal: Facebook isn’t really about expanding horizons. Sure, I like keeping in touch with people and Facebook makes that easy. I suggest you ask yourself these questions if you think Facebook is the be-all-end-all of social networks: How many new people have you met on Facebook? How many real conversations have you engaged in on Facebook? What is the signal to noise ratio on Facebook? Are you content with Facebook governance and frequent changes in policy?
- The Buzz platform is well designed. Sharing information from Google Reader, YouTube and by URL has never been easier. We are expecting to see the Buzz API opened up at Google I/O which should benefit the platform and accelerate Buzz growth.
- Community support and mobilization: We’ve taught each other how to use Buzz and some conventions for Buzz use have developed. We’ve mobilized to support Buzz and provided feedback to the Google Buzz Team. The Google Buzz Team has responded with improvements and is currently privately beta testing new features.
- Buzz is a community. I have met new people near and far (very far) and joked, shared opinions and debated. Buzz users have engaged and thoroughly discussed many topics. My posts and ideas have generated more discussion on Google Buzz than any other platform. I’m not alone in this regard; other people report the same. It’s nice to have feedback every once in a while from a diverse group of people.
Buzz is social media at its finest! If you were scared off by the privacy glitch and haven’t experienced Buzz recently, you’re doing yourself a disservice. Give Buzz a second chance.
Some notable blogs are setting up a false dichotomy between “social” and “search” for finding and consuming information. They suggest that Facebook is the “social” alternative to Google’s “search.” This is fundamentally wrong, I argue below. Instead, what we have is a war between two “platforms” neither one of which really fits purely into one of those categories. Both want to attract your eyeballs to their advertisements.
What is Google?
It’s a conduit through which advertisers reach people who have shared their personal preferences with Google. While Google was initially purely a search engine, that is no longer true today. As I wrote yesterday, Google wants to know everything it can about each and every person. Reiterating yesterday’s musings:
Whom do you phone? Google Voice.
To whom do you write? Gmail, Google Wave and Google Buzz.
What do you buy? Google Checkout and Google Product Search.
What do you watch on television? Google TV, which is anticipated to launch with Sony next month.
What do you read? Google Reader and Google Scholar, despite some bumps in the road.
Where do you eat? Google Maps, 800-GOOG-411, Google Places.
What ailments do you have? Google Health, although it appears to be a flop.
Where do you work? Google Profiles.
Where do you live? Google Maps.
What do you look like? Google Profiles and Google Visual Search, perhaps tied together one day.
Where are you? Latitude, Google Buzz and Google Places.
Where did you go and where will you go? Google Calendar.
While the search business fits into this overall picture, it is important to note that very little of the preference harvesting today relies heavily on it.
What is Facebook?
Similar to Google in a sense. Facebook is a conduit through which advertisers reach people who have shared their personal preferences with Facebook. This really begs the question, what do we share with Facebook? Not much when compared to Google. Facebook is far less efficient at harvesting information and has fewer tentacles. These are the questions Facebook may be able to answer about a particular user:
What is your name?
What do you look like?
What is your birthday?
And so on. Facebook also knows what social games you enjoy playing and what you “Like.” Facebook cannot answer most of the questions above that Google can answer. Facebook doesn’t have an email client, a calendar, mapping software, voice transmission, video transmission, etc. Google is much more efficient at harvesting information because it has many more web properties and, not surprisingly, they happen to be the best in most areas.
As an aside, this is where Facebook has truly gone off the deep end: Facebook is giving away the crown jewels. It is now divulging your preferences (“Likes” cannot be made private, for example) to third parties who can archive them indefinitely. This is contrary to the Google platform that seeks to obtain everything tidbit of information about you but tries to lock down that information for Google’s use only. (Buzz was a notable, accidental exception but that mistake was remedied within a couple of days.)
Implications
Search vs. Social is bullshit. Google is social. Google services allow me to communicate with friends and family by Gmail, Wave, Buzz, Voice, etc. I can read their thoughts in emails, hear their voices, see their faces, etc. What makes Facebook more “social” than Google? The fact that someone I went to elementary school with posted about her breakfast food and that she spilled orange juice on her new shoes? Now, there’s the “search” issue. This deserves emphasis:
Facebook does not have a map of the entire internet; Google does.
Google is a better platform for other reasons. It is better organized. I know where to find information I seek. My appointments are on my calendar, my emails are in my inbox, etc. I can archive everything. Facebook provides us, primarily, with a stream of crap that tells me about my friends’ virtual farms, mafias, fish, etc. I see a bunch of happy birthday posts too. The Facebook stream is entirely disorganized and it is not archived in a useful way.
The argument that Facebook will somehow whip Google in the near future baffles me. Google is way out of Facebook’s league in so many different areas. It harvests information better. It protects information it harvests better. It offers utility to its users. If provides us with services that Facebook cannot even come close to providing any time soon. So, this Facebook > Google argument that is being tossed around the internet seems like nonsense to me. I put my money where my brain is. I’m holding my GOOG stock and maybe building the position especially since some people were recently fooled by the blogosphere into believing that Facebook is a serious threat to Google. It isn’t right now and couldn’t become one for a very, very long time.
Chances are good that you (1) use Facebook and (2) have no idea what the new Facebook Open-Graph API is all about. It’s basically a behind-the-scenes way for Facebook to share your personal information with the entire world; the sharing is default, although you can opt out, which isn’t an easy task. Want to know whether Facebook is telling the entire world that you like Fruity Pebbles cereal? Ka-Ping Yee created a tool which allows you to find out what any Facebook user is sharing. You can find it here: http://zesty.ca/facebook/. All you have to do is type in a Facebook ID or user name and it does the rest. It can report a user’s real name, birth date, location, “Likes” (formerly pages you were a “fan” of), photos, etc. This begs the question, “where exactly did we sign up for this shit?”
That’s the question being asked by many, including many of the top Googler celebrities who have deactivated their Facebook accounts. Four Senators have sent a letter to Facebook complaining about this issue. (Perhaps they didn’t use the word “shit” but, anyways…) Chuck Schumer, D-NY, has spearheaded this effort and even lobbed a complaint in with the Federal Trade Commission.
I have been contemplating suspending my Facebook account but ultimately decided against it. I just won’t “Like” anything and I will monitor my information to make sure that it doesn’t get shared with the public (again). The real solution: A turn-this-shit-off-forever button. I’d “Like” that.
[via GigaOM]
What’s Facebook up to with all this “like” stuff? I’ll begin by assuming that you are as confused as I was about this idea. Basically, Facebook is attempting to get every website to implement a Facebook “Like” button. When you click a Like button, your Facebook profile will be updated to include your new Like. If this catches on, then the entire internet can be ranked, in a sense, by Facebook users. This information about Likes is relevant in two ways. First, the data can be used on the micro level to target advertisements to you on Facebook, the stickiest and most popular website on the internet. Second, the data can be used on the macro level to perform a popularity ranking of the internet.
Crowdsourcing is the outsourcing of tasks to a large community. An example of crowdsourcing is a cellphone app that reports gasoline prices and asks users of the app to report back prices they observe. Facebook is attempting to crowdsource the internet. Instead of crawling the internet with sophisticated spiders that follow every link, they shift the task to the website owners who must install a “Like” button and to the Facebook populance who must click the buttons to make the system work.
This fundamentally differs from Google’s approach to indexing the web in a few ways. Google spiders the web to detect new content. This approach is changing somewhat through advancements like PubSubHubBub (say that ten times fast) which allow content providers to push their updates to Google and burn real-time RSS feeds. Google also crowdsources the internet in a way but it does so seamlessly and, more importantly, privately. When you search for pages on Google and click links, Google learns both what you like (without clicking a button) and also uses this information to target advertisements and even rank pages in your own search results. In the aggregate, this information (your clicks) is used to rank pages.
So, what’s the difference? Facebook has slowly chipped away at users’ privacy. For example, Facebook updates are now public by default. Perhaps Twitter paved the way for that change but it was not a welcomed change by many. Now, Facebook users are being asked to essentially display their internet preferences and browsing history to their “friends” and the general public. The privacy implications of this scheme are profound. Imagine if Google’s Chrome browser or Google.com asked users to opt-in and make their browsing history public (even on a per-click basis). People would be, rightfully so, outraged. Facebook is being raked over the coals by privacy groups and many people who actually understand what is being proposed. However, the cuteness of “Like” concept and the appeal of the Facebook brand have blinded some people from questioning the entire concept. Frankly, I don’t plan on clicking Like buttons and I believe that people should really think critically about the system that is being implemented.
Somewhat uncomfortably, this website has a Facebook button in the upper right. This enables those who click to see posts in their Facebook stream. This button was created long before we were asked to rank the entire internet. It was intended to serve an entirely different purpose and it wouldn’t bother me one bit if you choose to unlike Tech Bottle but follow the posts another way (by e-mail, Buzz, Twitter, RSS readers, etc.). While on the topic of unliking, I have read that unliking something might pluck the logo off of your profile but there will be other ways to determine a user’s past likes. So, if you Liked Coke last week but want a job at Pepsi this week, you might have sunk yourself.
P.S. Another major issue with the Facebook scheme involves sharing your personal information with other Facebook partners across the web. You probably saw a small box about this at the top of your Facebook stream. This is another somewhat confusing change to Facebook and I have opted out of it. I don’t think it is clear what data will be shared and exactly how it will be used. Perhaps I will become more comfortable with a personalized internet and opt-in at some point but for now, I prefer the internet the way it is.
UPDATE: Matt Cutts, a high profile Google employee, just suspended his Facebook account. http://searchengineland.com/matt-cutts-deactivates-facebook-account-40543
The Facebook app “Who’s Stalking My Profile?” and similar variants do not actually tell you who viewed your profile, according to The Register. They’re scams intended to line the pockets of the app developers by making the apps go viral. The app developers stand to profit from sharing advertising revenue on their apps’ pages.
Rik Ferguson, a senior security consultant at Trend Micro, explains: “The app itself is designed to look convincing enough, but none of the many ‘Continue’ buttons it offers will activate some under-the-counter profile checking functionality – they will just push you into another Facebook app earning the scammer advertising revenue in the process.” He reports that Facebook is removing the offending apps.
Everyone is buzzing about how to use Google Buzz and whether it will succeed. Some are still tweeting about privacy concerns. Everyone wants to know whether Facebook, Twitter and Google Buzz can coexist. In this post, I take a different approach. I begin with the assumption that Google Buzz will succeed and consider what effects that will have on the world of blogging and on more mainstream digital media. I conclude that Google Buzz will have profound effects that significantly differ from effects of any other social networking site that currently exists.
If you haven’t jumped on the bandwagon and played around on Google Buzz, you haven’t missed much. I’ll tell you what’s been going on the past few days. It seems like almost all of the buzz is about Buzz. This isn’t exactly a bad thing, however; Google employees have been working around the clock to respond to user feedback with improvements, according to the Official Gmail blog. Many of the improvements relate to online privacy and the auto-follow feature (which is now an auto-suggest feature).
I believe that Google Buzz is primarily aimed at attracting Twitter content right now, not Facebook content. This is a follow up post to the video I recently posted.
Here I gripe about Google Buzz…
I believe that Google Buzz has a lot of potential and I’m digging it. However, it has some kinks that need to be worked out:
- Notifications should skip the Gmail inbox by default. We can see the notifications in the left-hand pane and don’t need to intermingle buzz with email. Filters can be used to route the buzz to archives and skip the inbox (instructions courtesy of LifeHacker at http://goo.gl/3Iyt) but it would make more sense to have a toggle whether the user wants buzz in the inbox.
- Kudos to Google for making responses to buzzes (which work like comments on a blog) editable. However, it would be really nifty if the buzz responses were (a) nested and (b) could be hidden. Many popular buzzes have so many comments that it’s almost impossible to follow the conversation. The clutter on the page is overwhelming too.
- The “Mute” button doesn’t work. Be warned: If you mute a buzz you commented on, then new replies will all show up in your new buzz count. Because the mute button doesn’t work, long discussions like the ones Mashable started are to be avoided.
- The “Mute” button is dangerously close to the “Unfollow” button.
- Let us harvest our Facebook friends list and add them in buzz. While I appreciate the efforts to avoid mentioning Facebook anywhere and not link to it, the ability to draw in our existing social networks would be helpful. Pulling in Twitter followers simply doesn’t cut it for many of us.
I’m actually kind of digging buzz but the issues I identified above need to be addressed ( at least 1 through 4) or this ship won’t sail.
P.S. Mini-Gripe: Couldn’t Google add some more background/color themes to Gmail? The existing ones get mighty boring.
The Wall Street Journal and Mashable are reporting that Google will soon roll out a “status update” feature to Gmail similar to Facebook and Twitter. This is BIG news and “Make Gmail Social” (which appears in the Mashable headline) is now a trending topic on Twitter.
