[dasil003]

We often criticize companies for being blind-sided by an innovator coming up behind (ie. Microsoft with the web), but in this case I think we have the opposite problem of Google dropping everything to try to become Facebook.

Your reasoning about the potential threat of Facebook is of course totally cogent, and indeed Facebook could be a threat to Google's business. The only problem is that they haven't proven there's a way to monetize that word-of-mouth that Facebook technologizes so well (because of course it's always existed). In fact there's a strong argument to be made that it is impossible to monetize this phenomenon without destroying it. Facebook is throwing everything they have at this problem, but they have still not crossed the chasm. The state of play today is that AdWords are expensive because of the ROI they can drive, and Facebook tend to be cheap, yet still overpriced due to a wave of hype that has crested but still hasn't washed away back to sanity yet. And when the smoke clears will Facebook's model be more valuable than Google's? I think that's anything but a foregone conclusion.

Given the uncertainty of the winning model, I'd rather see Google stay true to their DNA rather than chase after the Facebook hype with the G+ strategy. Some good has come out of it in terms of improving their authentication across properties, but by and large it appears as an impotent move to recreate a second-class implementation of Facebook that no one gives a shit about. Meanwhile, Google actually has tons of properties that Facebook can't touch. So why are they chasing after an upstart? I consider it a sign of weakness and ultimately detrimental to try to shift your company culture like this. If you're on top with a certain strategy, do your best to ride that wave instead of running scared and trying to compete with someone else on their terms. It's a sign of weakness, and only should be pursued when the company is in real trouble, not based on attempted clairvoyance.

[waterlesscloud]

You make a good point that perhaps facebook can't monetize word of mouth on the valuable keywords without also destroying the word of mouth. It's easy to see how that could happen. People would stop asking if it just resulted in their friends getting quoted in ads.

But does it have to be monetized to hurt Google? What if Facebook just promoted the idea that you should ask your friends for advice on these things? Maybe something like yelp, but limited to reviews and comments from your circle. Or even just highlighting the conversations when they naturally occur.

Probably wouldn't get to a level that it was a threat to Google, but it might shave some edges off here and there, at little to no cost to facebook.

[dasil003]

But that would be even less reason to change strategy. Look, there are an infinite number of things that could kill Google in the future. The only real certainty of life is death. But they can't be speculatively jumping on every potential future threat just because Goldman Sachs said you should buy; it makes them look foolish. Successful companies should stay true to themselves and give their own DNA a chance to win with full commitment, if they lose they lose but at least they won't have suffered a fear-based implosion.

[mark_l_watson]

re: ""second-class implementation of Facebook that no one gives a shit about""

I don't get this. I spend 10 minutes a week on FB and probably a little over 20 minutes a week on G+ (even more time than time spent on Twitter).