The Battle Between Google and Facebook

A story at Wired delves into the ongoing struggle between Google and Facebook to establish their competing visions for the future of the internet. "For the last decade or so, the Web has been defined by Google's algorithms — rigorous 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 hire — rather 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." A related article at ReadWriteWeb suggests that while Facebook's member base is enormous, the company hasn't taken advantage of its influence as well as it should have, though the capability for it to do so still exists.

Comments

Why not have both?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Seriously. Why one way or the other. Why not both?

Re:Why not have both?

[multisync]

My "vision" for the future of the Internet:

One where there is room for Zuckerberg version, Google's, Microsofts and Richard Stallmans. And anyone else who wants to put something up for consideration.

As long as we have network neutrality, all of these visionaries are free to do as they please.

This "one version will overtake all the rest" mentality is a meat-space concept and has no place on the Internet.

Re:Why not have both?

[Angostura]

Precisely. My friends may be good at recommending a pub that I would like. But I don't think my network of friends would be particularly trustworthy for recommending with digital SLR to buy.

Re:Why not have both?

[dtzitz]

"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." These groups can aggregate information but they are not really a primary information source. As an idea it sounds a bit like digg but in practice digg doesn't exactly function that way.

Re:Why not have both?

[Futile Rhetoric]

And besides, Google is already making forays into just this sort of thing with Wave. Holy false dichotomy, batman.

Re:Why not have both?

[multisync]

The problem with your vision is that Stallman, like Trotsky and other orthodox Marxists is exclusionary

Actually, I would consider Stallman an "inclusionary." He has fought hardest and loudest to ensure that users - who normally have no say whatsoever in how the software they use works, will have the choice to use "something else" if that's what they want. And the beauty of it is, you are free to choose to use Microsoft's offering instead.

It's kind of the same thing as net neutrality. It's all about having choices. And that scares some people who's world view won't allow them to see a market place of ideas in terms of anything but "winner takes it all."

I'm sorry you feel so oppressed by the bearded one, but don't worry. Last time I checked there was plenty of opportunity for you to stay inside the silo and continue to be locked in by vendors like Microsoft. I honestly don't think that's going to change any time soon.

I'm just glad that my choice isn't limited to you narrow vision.

A step back perhaps?

[TofuMatt]

I thought the magic of Google is that it's not (as) personalized, and I can get information outside my group of friends/peers. Frankly, my friends are great, but I don't go to them for advice on, say, programming; I go to Google. What's more, I couldn't get a lot of the info I get from search engines from my friends, because they just don't know. Social networking is awesome, but using Facebook in place of Google sounds like many steps back, at least the way it's being presented here.

Google will always have an advantage for me

[Anonymous Coward]

I can get useful information without signing up for anything. Facebook needs me to join and create a profile.

I am not a joiner.

Well I for one

[Nerdfest]

Do not want to have searches, research, news exposure, etc, mainly recommended by my friends and social network contacts. It's way too limiting. And it's not just because I don't have any friends. People don't even necessarily have the same interests as their friends. Peoples opinions have value, but so does objectivity. Think about buying a camera. If you only base your decision on your friends recommendations, you would never look at anything 'new'. Somebody needs to do that.

Re:Facebook will begin to fade just like myspace d

[dsavi]

Seems to me it's just the opposite; I can easily see it being mainstream for the next few years at least. And anyway, MySpace never grew at the same pace as facebook at any point, did it? Also, MySpace seems to have more of a reputation for being for 13-17 year-olds and pedophiles, while facebook has more of an aura of an "Every-man's social network".

Give Me Dispassionate Information Any Day

[Quothz]

Friends, family, colleagues, and peers as my primary offline information sources? Only if I want gossip, urban legends, extemporaneous answers to avoid admissions of ignorance, and rambling anecdotes. If I need actual information offline, I use reference works. I don't want "passion" in my information; I'd rather have facts and data. Thanks just the same, Zuck, but please go back to your tea party and let the grownups deal with information systems.

Re:Give Me Dispassionate Information Any Day

[Quothz]

Google weakness is their scope. When it comes to information, they are the GM of the 60's. In house, vertical, total control.

I don't understand this statement, I'm afraid. In what way is information gleaned from pages returned from Googling in-house, vertical, or totally controlled with respect to Google?

Social networks should not be flat but holistic.

Again, no clue here. Flat in what way? Holistic how? They should be looked at as a whole network rather than as individual people? I can dig that, but "flat" doesn't seem to be the contrary case. I'm also not certain what "good design of social networks" has to do with "getting information".

Facebook banks on that a groups people that exchange information that they find _useful_.

Alas, when information is passed primarily through the hands of the masses, what people seem to find useful is that pop-rocks and Coke are deadly, that newts mean water's good to drink, that accepting Jesus is the road to eternal life, and that B1gd1ck5432234 is sooooo drunk. Asking around on a social network is a terrific way to collect anecdotes, recommendations, and more mindless lolling than you can wince at, but is not a good basis for even the lightest and most trivial of research. No, give me a solid search engine paired with critical thinking any day.

Apples and Oranges

[Xistenz99]

It doesn't make sense at all to compare these two sites because I don't think I have ever mistaken Google for facebook. Facebook will never be a place for looking up statistics unless those statistics consist of "Who is going to my party tonight", Facebook influence is small and limited

This is CREEPY sounding.

[ae1294]

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

I'm sorry but honestly I like cold logic.. This sounds like some sort of RIAA / Government control the flow of information justification and creeps me the hell out.

I donno sort of like this...
"why do you need to look at books Timmy? Why not just ask grandpa about it? What do you have to hide from your dear old grandpa timmy?" Why don't you trust that we know best.

It just sounds creepy but maybe I just have less faith in my family's wisdom than most? Anyhow I really don't see a battle here... There is more than one way to skin a search request....

The Wired heuristic

[jfengel]

A good general heuristic: plans exposed on Wired never come to fruition. Wired is where you go when you want to gain exposure for a plan that can't get traction.

So no, Facebook isn't going to challenge Google with any success. If they're lucky, they'll continue to be an interesting niche player, like blogs. More likely, they'll let their success go to their heads and they'll become MySpace, which people abandon in droves for the next flashy thing.

In this case I also RTFA and I think their plan is dumb: I use google precisely to find out what I don't already know. But even without RTFA, the Wired heuristic tells me it's a bad idea. That heuristic has served me well.

Bad crowd

[Faux_Pseudo]

One of the problems with the internet is that it gives people a chance to self select themselves into a tiny little corner of interstes that creates an echo chamber. I don't want recomendations from people I know to be prone to confermation bias. I want recomendations from a large body of evidance showing both pro's and con's. Nothing against Facebook, its just their users I have an issue with.

It's the Economics! (Like the 60's)

[StCredZero]

The big problem facing Facebook is difficulty of monetization. There are societal and cultural sensitivities around companies monetizing one's "circle of friends." This has been true since the early 90's with MCI's campaigns.

Cold mathematics (Google's way) doesn't have this problem.

I am reminded of a quote from the PBS documentary about the 60's. A woman was lamenting that so many of the movements had powerful societal traction, but no economic basis. So in the end, they faded away.

facebook==AOL

[saleenS281]

Zuckerberg wants to create a walled internet where everything goes through facebook. We've seen it once before, back when it actually had a small chance of succeeding because a lot of the general public didn't know any better.

Not happening, get over yourself. It didn't work the first time, it won't work this time.

Facebook cannot replace the internet

[Serious Callers Only]

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 hire - rather 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."

Translation from Wired corporate shilling:

Facebook CEO envisions a walled garden controlled by Facebook, where your identity, network of friends, colleagues, peers and family belongs to FaceBook, and where Facebook is the primary source of all information, just as they've always dreamed of being. In Zuckerberg's vision, users will query FaceBook to find anything, rather than using the far more useful and wide-ranging Google search, which might lead you to sites which are not hosted by Facebook. 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 the real internet is now.

I've never liked sites like Facebook since they started off by trying to make everyone join their site before they can actually access content. Visit their front page, and all you see is an exhortation to give them your email address and some personal details - that tells you everything you need to know about their intentions and the utility of their site. Joining them means being data-mined by Facebook for every ounce of your worth as a consumer. Thankfully Facebook's vision of the future of the internet is about as relevant as Wired magazine is nowadays.

Does nobody see a privacy issue?

[moore.dustin]

I am certainly in the minority here, but I cannot be the only one who does not want there whole social network knowing so much about them. Call me old-fashioned I suppose... but I much rather be a mystery than a well-read novel. I just cant help but think about how many people in business will be bit in the ass by things posted online! You know HR depts. look at these things if they can. If they have a FB dev account in IT somewhere, then maybe the phone interview can get replaced by a FB profile browsing. ;)

Re:Where is the Wikipedia of social networking?

[Trepidity]

I think he means just in terms of being organized by a mostly-benevolent non-profit organization, which collects some donations to run the servers and implement incremental software upgrades, and doesn't spend all its time trying to sell users' data to advertisers and otherwise "monetize" them.

I think we're fairly lucky that Wikipedia got to its particular niche first; for Wikipedia's many faults, if some corporation had gotten to the idea of "crowdsourced encyclopedia" first, and owned the results, I think the web would be a much worse place. In social networking, a large company did get there first, and I think the web is a worse place for it.