[Daniel14]

> I'd rather that Facebook dominate the space completely than give Google any more of my personal information.

I feel differently, but see quite a few (mostly non-technical) people agreeing with you - at least, here in Europe. Google already owns most of the data you've given facebook, and treats it a lot better than fb imho (e.g. allowing export/deletion). I don't see why giving Google access to a bit more of your personal data will somehow decrease your quality of life.

The reason people are foaming at the mouth, as you call it, isn't the exceptionally good technical execution, but rather how Google handles consumers (giving them more rights over their data) and developers (they're the underdog, they have to). This is another reason I like Google entering social - Facebook has been behaving rather arrogantly, and it does seem like they really own the social web [1]. But with Google acting as a threat, perhaps Facebook will be forced to soften up on some of its policies. Competition is a good thing, and I really doubt it will result in the rest of us getting squashed - In fact, I really believe we'll profit from those giants having to compete. For other reasons why G+ is anticipated highly, try http://www.pcworld.com/article/234825/9_reasons_to_switch_fr...

Lastly, IANAL, but I doubt promoting one of your products on one of your products is in any way illegal. The Google homepage has been showing us links to Docs, Reader, Gmail etc. for a long time without anyone getting upset about it.

[1] http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/13/its-a-facebook-world-other-...

[BvS]

I totally agree. Google has pretty much all my private and professionell emails already so there is little left they could find out about me through Google+ that I'm worried about. Giving much of the same data to fb as well on the other hand doubles my risk (or even worse since I have less trust in fb).

Besides competition can only be a good think. Just imagine the mobile space without Android...

[adimitrov]

> Google has pretty much all my private and professionell emails already so there is little left they could find out about me through Google+ that I'm worried about.

That's the point: why is Google interested in the social graph? They already have GMail, they can scrape twitter… what do they need G+ for?

To me, the conclusion is that they do this to crush FB, which they might perceive as a threat. Or, the other idea is that they might just want to extend their brand to encompass more of the consumer market. More adspace, and the likes…

[sidman]

I think google is well aware of their roots. They entered a market where there was already market saturation and everyone thought they were going to be crushed "who needs another search engine". Everyone got complacent and as a result google managed to grow and make a better product. Eventually they move into other areas which then allowed them to dominate the web.

Coming from those roots you know full well that its better to crush/compete or acquire companies that can do to you what you did to others many years ago, its safer then thinking your to big for anyone to catchup and become complacent (and far cheaper if you nip it in the bud).

If i was the CEO at google i could name a few companies that would make it hard for me to sleep at night and facebook is high on that list. Look at the trend, buzz - (because they couldn't acquire twitter), originally orkut ( friendster fell through and to atleast have some form of social networking product), google offers (either cause groupon's model wasnt to their liking or groupon reject the offer. Irrespective of this groupon still perceived as a threat) along with countless other startups that made cool things that could have potentially competed with googles flagship products.

I think its simply cause google knows the web game well, they know that any of these startups (and other hot web properties) can bring them down if they are not careful and its better to acquire or if not keep building competing products so they still stay the dominate power.

Now trying to compete with a product such as google+ that could in time be comparable to the currently dominating player is I guess just good for future business :)

[name_censored_]

>Lastly, IANAL, but I doubt promoting one of your products on one of your products is in any way illegal.

Wasn't that the whole issue with the Microsoft anti-trust suit - that Microsoft bundled ("promoted") IE with its other product (Windows)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

[timr]

Yes, that's exactly right. This kind of bundling isn't illegal until you're using a monopoly in one market to crush competitors in another market.

Microsoft used its desktop OS monopoly to ensure that IE was far and away the most dominant browser on the internet. It's a great example of how these sorts of otherwise-legal tactics, when taken to the extreme, can lead to situations that are bad for consumers -- which is why the anti-trust laws exist.

[Daniel14]

Sorry for not specifying that, thanks for the correction. The exception to promoting being legal of course is, when the product in question has a monopoly on the market. However, I doubt that's the case with Google Search. Again, IANAL, but a) the barriers to enter the industry are pretty small, b) there are plenty of alternatives, c) you can switch to them extremely easy, and d) Google would go out of business if they tried raising prices (i.e., they don't control the market).

Also, my point still stands - Google has been promoting other products on their homepage for a long time without getting sued. I don't understand how Plus would be different from, say, Reader.