If it is not obvious yet,
Google+ is being "beaten" Facebook capable when it comes to game development platform and transactions. Instead of a 30% cut of all Farmville seeds (or buy what ever the people), Google will be able to take a smaller percentage for themselves. You can even do anything. And when it comes to the "monetization" of G + is the "Site" Google trumps against Facebook is that we may never even see an ad on G +. Google has a lot to show, without ever placed an ad and easy to win, Google does not need the money. Facebook has to know this, and it must have just a little worried.
This week, the WSJ reported that FB is testing a "real time" feed (in contrast to current standard-Facebook "Top News" over-algorithm). Presumably, the new feed would become the new standard for users. Although I would like to believe
Facebook has listened to me when I critique their top news algorithm, what really moves hand Facebook here (after the WSJ) are complaints from advertisers and app developers. It seems that the "Top News" is the killing power of virality of the advertisers 'content' and applications that try to find new members.
If it is true that FB is considering these changes because of complaints developers and advertisers, this is a real bad sign for FB. Facebook has made some defensive movements since the introduction of the G +, which in itself is unusual for them. But this is the first sign that they can complain to third parties kowtow. (Hey, is the IPO coming ... competition is tougher, it has to happen, right?) Decision by the concern that third party does not inform automatically be fatal, of course. But Facebook is so damn well think so long because of their refusal, IPO, their refusal to go beyond the short term, and their refusal, a party needs to overshadow the general health of the service. The difficult thing for Facebook, is that the bigger you get and the more you have to consider competing interests, the more difficult it will become your choice.
FB anger may seem like a positive for G + appear, but it is not so simple. It is almost certain that Google will launch a platform (and not just a gaming platform), but how they do this is crucial. We do not want a repeat of the Facebook-cycle, where FB of the world promised to developers, gave them a free hand to build the hype, then cut their marketing channels and destroyed their shops (an oversimplification, yes, but read this harrowing story of Paul Allen), then G + must carefully balance the needs of developers with the health of the entire community.
Of that I can say, are the brains of G + aware the delicate balance that is needed here. Although they are the way they have done, gaffed,
Google displays business accounts, the decision block that understands they need a real Google map here. Frankly, I'm surprised that no "normal users" have to say, they do not want to talk to G + brands. Maybe that's just because 80% of active users in the G + work "internet industry" (at least according to my unscientific survey), and thus a bit too, can win by "Company" in the service. Would the "normal user" so happy? As Matt Hogan argues, it may not be the best idea to companies in and muck about to discover the place at the very beginning.
That is what we see here is a general development of brand interaction with the user to the point that confidence of users that it is "working" just may (like Twitter, where you can follow manufacturers, but they can not really bug you).
Because of poor planning on my part, the regular user / business relationship on MySpace was not quite right. Company wanted to be able to walk around and add people on MySpace, and it was hard to tell them "no" because they are so MySpace has developed over time. Facebook was smart, it's impossible to add "pages" People & commentary for the first few years. But she recently reversed this decision. Whether that turns out to be a good thing remains to be seen. (It is easier to make a step for Facebook now if the "true" user base is already established, and Facebook has years of refinement anti-spam algorithms on the clock.)
But whatever the case, both Google and Facebook, some difficult decisions ahead of you: how do they balance what is best for the regular guy (you & me) to spend, advertisers (big brands), small, local companies (the never be able to afford the large), platform developers with non-competing services (games and music, it seems, FB will not get into) and platform developers with potentially competitive services (like business networking and dating, the FB / G + may want to get yourself one day).
In the long term (5-10 years), the company that the right decisions in these areas make only win in the end.
