Ex-Google Engineer Explains Why Google Failed At Social Networking (opens in new tab)

I can't fathom why you linked to some blogspam instead of linking the primary source. (Interesting thread, though.)

http://www.quora.com/Why-havent-major-companies-like-Google-...

Oh come on! In 2005, Facebook was barely out of colleges. Memory's fuzzy, but till about late 2004/early 2005, you could join Facebook only if you had a .EDU address. So expecting Googlers to be Facebook users is a bit disingenuous . Plus, 2005 was over 5 years ago; things have changed since then.

Just because it's an ex-Googler it does not make his (her?) statements the gospel truth.

If there's something to be said, it is that Google underestimated the network effect: that if most of your social circle is on a social network, then you automatically have a large incentive to join it.

I don't think many people understand why Facebook is so popular. I don't think it's status updates or micro-blogging. Facebook simplifies the internet for people who don't want to be using the internet. A one stop shop for people who don't trust the rest of the web or installing software. Photo-sharing, IM, mail messaging, games. It's all there with a simple interface. Even my mum can use it.

Google has a huge range of great tools, all available under a single login, but their presentation is a total mess.

I'd love an opportunity to spend a few months building a better "Google Portal".

Oh, and I don't think anything they make will just grow virally. If they want it, the'll have to buy it. They should spend a bucket-load advertising it in mainstream media.

> I encountered an environment that viewed social networking as a frivolous form of entertainment

I don't think Google to this day actually wants to be in social networking; the problem they have with Facebook is they can't index it, they can't be a gateway to Facebook as they are to everything else; Facebook in many ways is the gateway for its users.

(1) Orkut is not a "failure"—so Google didn't "fail." They just didn't compete well against Facebook. But no one else did, either.

(2) Having just one email address lets you connect with everyone you want to connect with—it doesn't matter which provider you choose. Social Networks aren't like that. If there is one that dominates, you can't get on a competing service and get the same utility—the people you want to connect with aren't there. Being an existing provider of a large network is a HUGE advantage.

(3) Facebook has crushed previously successful networks. Expecting a company to create a NEW network to succeed where EXISTING networks lost ground to Facebook is a ridiculously high bar.

I don't think it's too late at all to get into the game. For a company like Google who experiments and usually learns from its mistakes. I think it has a chance to grab a decent chunk of the social networking market. If that doesn't work, they've also got a lot of cash sitting around to buy a few companies that do have the right idea.