|
|
|
|
|
|
by mik3y
4498 days ago
|
|
|
> Makes me wonder how Larry Page was convinced
> that Facebook was a threat.
Larry wasn't the only one. I don't think it was hard to see how Facebook posed (and still poses) a threat to Google:Their site generates (a) more content behind a walled garden, and can produce (b) better demographic targeting for ad sales, which together pose a pretty serious threat to Google's core business (of selling targeted ads against public content). Couple this with exponential MAU growth and a very "sticky" property and you better get worried. The comment you linked to is a bit ranty; IMO it confuses the execution flaws with G+ the product/business unit (of which there are many) with the overall decision to make a huge, concerted effort to compete head on in social. Half-assed efforts like OpenSocial and Buzz were not going to get anywhere close to Facebook-style data and ads. (And I don't mean to disparage those teams; the half-assed part regards the company's priorities.) In hindsight maybe the walled garden of Facebook isn't such an existential threat to Google's business, but in 2010 it was still very hard to tell. Larry would have been negligent not to act. |
|
|
Does Facebook really produce better demographic targetting? Facebook has more explicit knowledge about me, in that I've filled in stuff like my age and gender on my Facebook profile; but Google knows enough about my web habits that it ought to be able to work out that information and more besides (Facebook obviously also knows stuff implicitly about me from tracking Like buttons and so on, but it's not in any better position than Google in terms of implicit knowledge). Google viewing Facebook as a threat strikes me as Google having a lack of faith in its distinctive advantage (big data rather than conventional explicit demographics).