Facebook's value isn't going to vary any unless there is some migration from Facebook to Buzz.
It has been done before. Do you remember Prodigy? CompuServe? AOL? MySpace?
For that matter, how often do you use the search engines Excite, Lycos, AltaVista, or whatever Microsoft's search engine was before Bing?
Users go where the user experience is pleasant. Advertisers look for click-throughs, and try to estimate eyeball-minutes for the major sites, and Google has a fair chance of beating Facebook with Buzz. Not overnight, but steadily. Many of my Facebook friends haven't seen the Google Buzz roll-out yet, but they have seen the new Facebook homepage roll-out, and they don't like it.
AFTER EDIT: And it occurs to me that Calacanis's main statement, that Facebook lost value, is hard to test while Facebook is not publicly traded. But Google's value is easy to track in the stock market. If this move looks stupid to Google investors, their behavior will show that.
The cost of leaving facebook is higher than it was for leaving any of those other platforms. People have their social graphs well-established on Facebook now. Not a bad guess at their desired graph, as Buzz provides, but a graph they've shaped themselves over the course of a year or more.
Me-too or even evolutionary won't cut it for draining Facebook of its users. It's got to provide signficantly more value immediately upon signing up. So far, it doesn't.
I think you have to think of this utility in terms of how the two social graphs are different.
The Facebook social graph is established by people you meet in person and who decide later to send you a friend invite, or people you knew at some point who saw your picture on someone else's friends list. The strength of the connection is determined by Facebook based on how often you interact with or stalk that person.
The Gmail social graph is people you actually communicate with, and is more dynamic in the sense that you probably communicate with more people on a day-to-day basis then you interact/stalk with on Fb.
The question is, which of these makes for a more relevant following system, and for what kind of user?
Perhaps one way to think of it is that people who are all about sharing pictures will prefer Fb, but those who are all about sharing ideas will prefer Buzz. Which target demographic has more income?
Perhaps one way to think of it is that people who are all about sharing pictures will prefer Fb, but those who are all about sharing ideas will prefer Buzz. Which target demographic has more income?
A very good question. That's about what I'm thinking as I consider making Buzz my primary channel for interacting with my friends. I'm considering "ideas" more than "income," but I'm not looking for games or cute pictures.
AFTER EDIT:
As I just posted on Facebook, in a thread discussing the New York Times article about Buzz, "rebuilding a whole social graph is a bother. But MIGRATING a social graph to a site that is at least as useful and less annoying might be something much easier to do. I am glad to see some thoughtful competition in this space, the better to kee Facebook honest."
I see some other comments on my Facebook threads and here on HN along the lines of using Facebook to first establish a network of friends, and then using the Next Great Thing in Social Networking to winnow that group of friends to get a dense network of closest friends. That might work for me.
That's an interesting way of looking at it, but you're still talking about "preference" of one over the other. Unless there's a new tool out there that can integrate everything for me, (even if I prefer FB/Buzz/Twitter/etc.) I'll still probably use all of them for those precise separate reasons.
I think it'd be interesting to see how many NEW social network users Buzz will bring in, just because of the simple fact that it makes setting up a brand new network easy as pie (vs FB and having to build up to a nice little community of friends).
"It has been done before. Do you remember Prodigy? CompuServe? AOL? MySpace?"
Yeah. Or Friendster. Of course it could happen, but my point is that it is too early to tell what impact Buzz will have.
"Google has a fair chance of beating Facebook with Buzz"
Agreed. But that time is not now and the hyperbole is unwarranted. As you say, steady gains are a possible -- and most likely -- way for Buzz to unseat Facebook.
I am trying to migrate from Facebook to Buzz. From the look of things it suits me better. I never enjoyed Facebook that much as it seems there is a race to get the most friends and I find all the photo sharing a little disturbing.
i wish there was a way to send calacanis a virtual slap in the face for this one. So wrong.
To answer his questions:
1. Have you used Google Buzz? Yes, I think I'm perceived as a target user. Tried it, quit it.
2. How is Google Buzz better than Facebook? It's not.
3. What advantages does Google Buzz have over Facebook? That it lives in Gmail, but that's still not compelling.
4. What advantages does Facebook have over Google? My friends/social graph algorithms/news feed
5. Did you see this coming? Sure, why wouldn't Google try this. They have 20,000 employees. This maybe took 5 weeks and 3 dev guys to hack up.
6. What do you attribute Google’s recent string of AMAZING products
including: Chrome, Android, Nexus One and Buzz? Nexus One has a nice screen resolution. That's about the only good thing.
I dunno, I feel like you're being a bit overly critical here. In my mind, Buzz isn't competing with Facebook, it's competing with Twitter. Buzz is Twitter for the masses. And personally, I know that due to Gmail integration, I'm going to be using it - unlike Twitter or Facebook.
People seem to want Buzz to fail for some reason. I feel like people saw Wave, decided "Oh, Google failed, they can't possibly make a new product right", and are now trying to pin that on Buzz too.
Anyway, I'm using it, as are a bunch of my friends. People are already using it in my social friend graph, and enthusiastically, too - which is much more than could be said for Wave. I'm not saying it's going to be a huge success, but I think it's silly to just brush it off as crap so quickly.
> I know that due to Gmail integration, I'm going to be using it - unlike Twitter or Facebook.
Funny - due to gmail integration, I'll never use it.
It feels to me like an issue of kool-aid. If you accept the assertion that everyone uses gmail, and that everyone loves the gmail interface, and that people keep gmail open all day (or at least check it fairly often), then Google Buzz seems like a great idea - a social network tied into all the services you use every day.
It breaks down when you start breaking those assertions. If you're not in Gmail every day (e.g. if you use an IMAP client), or if you don't like the interface (but you have to use it, e.g. Google Apps), or if you don't use gmail at all, then Google Buzz becomes a huge hassle to use.
I'd love to love Buzz, because I like awesome things, but it seems to me that the Buzz team just assumes everyone loves Gmail as much as Google does, and that's not going to pan out. They might think Buzz will be a draw to Gmail, but in reality Gmail will be a barrier to Buzz.
I love Buzz (and Reader). Wave was oversold and seems just like realtime message boarding. There is an intense amount of hate being generated for Buzz. <anecdotal>It seems a lot of people seem to dislike the intrusion into Gmail, maybe.</anecdotal>
God I feel like I'm being trolled here, but I'll bite.
Let's assume Google Buzz is undeniably better than Facebook.
Let's also assume no one is really invested in the 90% of Facebook functionality that Google Buzz doesn't address.
Hell, let's assume any user who tries Google Buzz will instantly declare eternal allegiance to Larry and Sergey and immediately delete their Facebook account.
Even with all those dramatically dubious flamebait claims, how the hell is Google going to get everyone to try Buzz. Since when do better products automatically win in the tech marketplace? If Calacanis is going for pageviews then I say well-played, but if he actually believes this tripe then he's dumber than he is arrogant.
Judging from my group of friends, most people who use Facebook do not use Gmail. I'm not sure how well this transfers to the rest of the world, but for almost all of my Facebook friends, none of them will hear of Buzz through Gmail.
Locking it to the gmail account is a bad idea. It might make business sense for Google but for becoming a Facebook or Twitter killer, it is not with that limitation.
I presume they'll have a standalone Buzz application at the 2.0 or something similar. That will let an established gmail-only social graph generate lots of activity and use, seeming enticing to yahoo and hotmail (and all third-party email account providers) users that can now join/be invited in on the social-web-2.0-sharing fun.
Doesn't hold over in my group of friends. We're on the young end of the spectrum (16-19 years old), but among people our age in our area (east coast, near DC but in Maryland), I feel like two assumptions that are commonly made and are usually right are a) everyone has a Facebook account and b) everyone has a Gmail account, except for the 1 out of 100 people with a Yahoo account.
I mean, I might be exaggerating, but among my friends I can name at max 10 people who don't have a Gmail and a Facebook. I'm guessing that the true proportion lies somewhere between the extreme situations we're in.
There is a significant portion of twitter though who probably would see value here, seems to make sense for a lot of the tech stuff on twitter.
Your right about facebook though, it doesn't seem the kind of thing that will pull in the less tech inclined. Although some people would have said that about facebook, with it's plain unchanging layout compared to all the things people could do on myspace.
well alerts are one thing, but having your address book become your social networking instantly AND having your social network updates threaded into email?!?! that's hot.
I also fail to see the value add in networking threads being updated in email. The gmail/email interface sucks for that type of interaction. That's pretty much why the social network sites exist, because email threads just aren't the right face for those types of interactions. Especially when you have tens of general purpose messages interspersed with your social stuff.
"quality people" is the problem. Facebook has already broken out of the insiderish valley echo chamber and has mass appeal. That's a really tough thing to overcome.
I really can't agree with your assessment. You and Scoble - and I like you both a lot - are in a vastly different position than the people Google made Buzz for.
You guys are pundits (not in a bad sense - you're thought leaders).
Google made Buzz for end users and enterprise. I really don't think it's useful for end users at this point. Too many are reporting problems and dissatisfaction with the UI. As for enterprise, we'll have to see what they end up rolling out.
I appreciate that Buzz has worked well for you so far, but I feel you're being overly enthusiastic about the product.
Look at the sick amount on activity on this thread.... and this is day one of Buzz.
Right. The day when every bored geek in the valley gives it a spin.
Mark my words, a year from today Facebook will be in no weaker position than it is today, and Buzz may or may not be relevant, but it certainly won't be dwarfing Facebook—not by a long shot. If you disagree name your metrics, and I'll do a writeup a year from today and whore it up here on Hacker News.
Typically I don't consider you to be as much of a koolaid-drinker as Scoble, but man you really went off the deep-end this time.
"Since when do better products automatically win in the tech marketplace?"
Of course they don't always win, but this is what everyone said when MySpace was on top of the world. If Buzz is genuinely better then Facebook needs to be worried. Google has every other ingredient necessary to win.
I've tried Buzz, and it doesn't look like anything special to me. Google are going to need to do more work if they're hoping to take on the likes of Facebook with this.
Why the hell does anyone still read anything that this guy writes. More often than not he's full of shit. Why risk your time trying to figure out which is the case for any single piece of his writing.
I think Buzz's most fatal flaw is that it relies to heavily on Gmail. Anybody who hasn't used gmail until now will probably not start using Buzz.
Another thing (but that's very imho) is that Google applications still look and feel like Excel. They are certainly very good, but also feel like work.
I use "Flock" to handle all of my Gmail and social networking needs.as well as for a host of other net trolling and data mining tasks...can get a bit cluttered though So why do I want to learn all the new BUZZ particulars ..imho google's a day late and a buck short.... who am I kidding I'll try it when I get bored w/ FLOCK...
Perhaps Buzz will prove to have enduring value, but so far my experience is like this: I'm 'following' people I never followed, some of whom I don't even know but who I apparently emailed at some point; and they're clogging up my Google Reader feeds to boot. It sure seems like Google doesn't understand social behavior very well...
I may be wrong about Buzz, but my first impression was not good.
When you're trying to displace a competitor that has a complete hold on the market, it's not enough to have something with a few added features (mathematically expressed as x + 1), you need to have a revolutionary product (x^2).
56 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 109 ms ] threadWhat exactly does Buzz offer that Facebook doesn't? What kind of recognition will it have?
This is all very interesting, but it's _far_ too early for this kind of hyperbole.
It has been done before. Do you remember Prodigy? CompuServe? AOL? MySpace?
For that matter, how often do you use the search engines Excite, Lycos, AltaVista, or whatever Microsoft's search engine was before Bing?
Users go where the user experience is pleasant. Advertisers look for click-throughs, and try to estimate eyeball-minutes for the major sites, and Google has a fair chance of beating Facebook with Buzz. Not overnight, but steadily. Many of my Facebook friends haven't seen the Google Buzz roll-out yet, but they have seen the new Facebook homepage roll-out, and they don't like it.
AFTER EDIT: And it occurs to me that Calacanis's main statement, that Facebook lost value, is hard to test while Facebook is not publicly traded. But Google's value is easy to track in the stock market. If this move looks stupid to Google investors, their behavior will show that.
Me-too or even evolutionary won't cut it for draining Facebook of its users. It's got to provide signficantly more value immediately upon signing up. So far, it doesn't.
The Facebook social graph is established by people you meet in person and who decide later to send you a friend invite, or people you knew at some point who saw your picture on someone else's friends list. The strength of the connection is determined by Facebook based on how often you interact with or stalk that person.
The Gmail social graph is people you actually communicate with, and is more dynamic in the sense that you probably communicate with more people on a day-to-day basis then you interact/stalk with on Fb.
The question is, which of these makes for a more relevant following system, and for what kind of user?
Perhaps one way to think of it is that people who are all about sharing pictures will prefer Fb, but those who are all about sharing ideas will prefer Buzz. Which target demographic has more income?
A very good question. That's about what I'm thinking as I consider making Buzz my primary channel for interacting with my friends. I'm considering "ideas" more than "income," but I'm not looking for games or cute pictures.
AFTER EDIT:
As I just posted on Facebook, in a thread discussing the New York Times article about Buzz, "rebuilding a whole social graph is a bother. But MIGRATING a social graph to a site that is at least as useful and less annoying might be something much easier to do. I am glad to see some thoughtful competition in this space, the better to kee Facebook honest."
I see some other comments on my Facebook threads and here on HN along the lines of using Facebook to first establish a network of friends, and then using the Next Great Thing in Social Networking to winnow that group of friends to get a dense network of closest friends. That might work for me.
I think it'd be interesting to see how many NEW social network users Buzz will bring in, just because of the simple fact that it makes setting up a brand new network easy as pie (vs FB and having to build up to a nice little community of friends).
Also, in general, no one ever likes facebook UI updates, yet they never leave.
Yeah. Or Friendster. Of course it could happen, but my point is that it is too early to tell what impact Buzz will have.
"Google has a fair chance of beating Facebook with Buzz"
Agreed. But that time is not now and the hyperbole is unwarranted. As you say, steady gains are a possible -- and most likely -- way for Buzz to unseat Facebook.
To answer his questions:
1. Have you used Google Buzz? Yes, I think I'm perceived as a target user. Tried it, quit it. 2. How is Google Buzz better than Facebook? It's not. 3. What advantages does Google Buzz have over Facebook? That it lives in Gmail, but that's still not compelling. 4. What advantages does Facebook have over Google? My friends/social graph algorithms/news feed 5. Did you see this coming? Sure, why wouldn't Google try this. They have 20,000 employees. This maybe took 5 weeks and 3 dev guys to hack up. 6. What do you attribute Google’s recent string of AMAZING products including: Chrome, Android, Nexus One and Buzz? Nexus One has a nice screen resolution. That's about the only good thing.
People seem to want Buzz to fail for some reason. I feel like people saw Wave, decided "Oh, Google failed, they can't possibly make a new product right", and are now trying to pin that on Buzz too.
Anyway, I'm using it, as are a bunch of my friends. People are already using it in my social friend graph, and enthusiastically, too - which is much more than could be said for Wave. I'm not saying it's going to be a huge success, but I think it's silly to just brush it off as crap so quickly.
Funny - due to gmail integration, I'll never use it.
It feels to me like an issue of kool-aid. If you accept the assertion that everyone uses gmail, and that everyone loves the gmail interface, and that people keep gmail open all day (or at least check it fairly often), then Google Buzz seems like a great idea - a social network tied into all the services you use every day.
It breaks down when you start breaking those assertions. If you're not in Gmail every day (e.g. if you use an IMAP client), or if you don't like the interface (but you have to use it, e.g. Google Apps), or if you don't use gmail at all, then Google Buzz becomes a huge hassle to use.
I'd love to love Buzz, because I like awesome things, but it seems to me that the Buzz team just assumes everyone loves Gmail as much as Google does, and that's not going to pan out. They might think Buzz will be a draw to Gmail, but in reality Gmail will be a barrier to Buzz.
Let's assume Google Buzz is undeniably better than Facebook.
Let's also assume no one is really invested in the 90% of Facebook functionality that Google Buzz doesn't address.
Hell, let's assume any user who tries Google Buzz will instantly declare eternal allegiance to Larry and Sergey and immediately delete their Facebook account.
Even with all those dramatically dubious flamebait claims, how the hell is Google going to get everyone to try Buzz. Since when do better products automatically win in the tech marketplace? If Calacanis is going for pageviews then I say well-played, but if he actually believes this tripe then he's dumber than he is arrogant.
I presume they'll have a standalone Buzz application at the 2.0 or something similar. That will let an established gmail-only social graph generate lots of activity and use, seeming enticing to yahoo and hotmail (and all third-party email account providers) users that can now join/be invited in on the social-web-2.0-sharing fun.
I mean, I might be exaggerating, but among my friends I can name at max 10 people who don't have a Gmail and a Facebook. I'm guessing that the true proportion lies somewhere between the extreme situations we're in.
Most people associate facebook with procrastination\lols.
More people prefer to procrastinate\lol than to work.
Therefore more people will prefer to Facebook than to Buzz.
http://bit.ly/daBl66
100+ people like it. ~200 comments from quality people.
This is game over for Facebook for everyone who doesn't play Farmville.
I've never seen pickup like that, and that is with just 2,000 followers.
I have 25k followers on my fanpage on Facebook and 5k on my normal facebook page.
in fact, i've never seen pickup like that on my blog with 250k uniques a month.
the only thing close to that i've seen is Twitter, but those responses are limited to the 90k followers i have and 140 characters each.
Also, it's not just this thread... scoble is having the same experience: more activity than ever.
it's a targeted network: people you've spoken to + 100% reach for your comments with that network since they HAVE TO go to their inbox.
this really is unprecedented: the reach of email with the power of social networking.
But that's not the same niche as Twitter, and it's certainly not the same niche as Facebook.
Your right about facebook though, it doesn't seem the kind of thing that will pull in the less tech inclined. Although some people would have said that about facebook, with it's plain unchanging layout compared to all the things people could do on myspace.
My Android phone email alerts me every time someone comments, likes, or writes on my page on FB. This is not unprecedented.
don't know of anyone ever doing that...
I really can't agree with your assessment. You and Scoble - and I like you both a lot - are in a vastly different position than the people Google made Buzz for.
You guys are pundits (not in a bad sense - you're thought leaders).
Google made Buzz for end users and enterprise. I really don't think it's useful for end users at this point. Too many are reporting problems and dissatisfaction with the UI. As for enterprise, we'll have to see what they end up rolling out.
I appreciate that Buzz has worked well for you so far, but I feel you're being overly enthusiastic about the product.
Right. The day when every bored geek in the valley gives it a spin.
Mark my words, a year from today Facebook will be in no weaker position than it is today, and Buzz may or may not be relevant, but it certainly won't be dwarfing Facebook—not by a long shot. If you disagree name your metrics, and I'll do a writeup a year from today and whore it up here on Hacker News.
Typically I don't consider you to be as much of a koolaid-drinker as Scoble, but man you really went off the deep-end this time.
Of course they don't always win, but this is what everyone said when MySpace was on top of the world. If Buzz is genuinely better then Facebook needs to be worried. Google has every other ingredient necessary to win.
Another thing (but that's very imho) is that Google applications still look and feel like Excel. They are certainly very good, but also feel like work.
I may be wrong about Buzz, but my first impression was not good.