Eric Schmidt’s comments that Google+ is primarily an identity service seem to have caught many by surprise as though the launch of the social network/layer was a purely benign act for the anti-Facebook crowd.

The biggest criticism of Google in recent times has been that they don’t get social. The failure of Wave, privacy row over Buzz, inability of Orkut to take hold on a global scale have all led some to argue that the search giant just doesn’t understand. Even now, when Google appears to have a service that can realistically compete with the likes of Facebook, detractors are saying that the real names policy shows company still doesn’t get it.

Wrong. Google understands social perfectly.

Looking back over my posts from last year when rumour swayed between Google releasing a social network or a social layer I could see the benefits of the social layer approach as a means of promoting and expanding the use of their existing stable of products. Various acquisitions meant that Google had a sprawling service base with little connection between them. The growth of competitors introducing social aspects (either in-house or by linking to other services such as Twitter) also meant that something was needed to stop users migrating away.

As I have mentioned with the changes Facebook have implemented recently, providers need to offer just enough to retain their users. Google has done this and more. It understands that social is a massive driver and, if they are to compete, adding a compelling social component to their services is a must.

Eric Schmidt’s comments that the social network side of Google+ is ‘bait’ are easy to understand. The impact of social cannot be underestimated and the search giant has realised that they can no longer exist outside of the social bubble and still exert the same influence.

So why is Google+ an identity provider?

To use social effectively we must look for connections, patterns, trends; as I said in April last year our relationships on the web are the real social currency - by identifying our likes and interests we can be better targeted by services. By integrating this with an identity provider that knowledge can be used to expand the reach to third parties.

As I have posted before, the overriding factor with identity provision is trust – this is why we have passports and driving licences; we need to be able to prove who we are to reap the benefits in life. Using real names (and rolling out an identity verification scheme) on the social web is a way to build that level of trust.

Facebook may not have begun with the same aspirations but, as I’ve mentioned before, it was always intended that it should be used with real names. How many of those complaining about the real names policy on Google+ are actively using Facebook I wonder?

Fred Wilson wrote that it “begs the question of whom Google built this service for” but, in my mind, there is no question. Google are building Google+ because they need it to compete and stay relevant. They need it to retain the users they already have, they need it to attract new users and they need it to be able to better monetise those users both internally and by establishing trust with other parties who can leverage the data they are collecting (for a fee).

Chattel

Social networks may give us a way to expand our connections, strengthen those we already have and allow us to interact in new ways but, in reality, we are becoming social chattel for the networks. Our continued interaction is of value to the networks in order to establish these patterns and trends – we are, after all, the sources of the data they are mining.

If you are not happy being used in this manner then don’t be social; if you are not happy giving your real name don’t use Google+ or Facebook.

Image by Archigeek

Google+ may still be in limited trial and potentially never go mainstream but, for the first time, Facebook is having to consider the possibility of a viable competitor.

A lot has been said about the changes Facebook have made to their sharing options. Some have argued they are a direct copy of Google+ inferring that Facebook is now dancing to Google’s tune. Others have correctly pointed out that the functionality itself already existed but was tucked away within a confusing UI.

When Google+ launched I remarked that, whether it succeeds or not, it was much-needed as the social web had stagnated. The likes of Twitter and Facebook were existing almost in a vacuum with little need for change.

It’s not just stealing

PC v Mac, Android v iPhone, the browser wars – it’s not just about stealing features from the competition. Once a feature exists on one platform the consumer comes to expect it no matter what they are using. Popular functionality becomes the de facto industry standard by virtue of demand – if your platform doesn’t have it your customers will want to know why.

Developers must then look at how that feature can be adopted within the existing design in order to appease the user. It doesn’t have to be exactly the same or even quite as good – just as long as it is enough to keep them happy and prevent them from switching to the competition (just as I said when Facebook launched Skype video chat in response to Hangouts).

You don’t need to kill the competition, just stop your user base from migrating away by giving them what they think they want.

Tom Anderson describes this as the “social norm” (Google+ link) and uses this as a basis for explaining why Facebook might appear to have taken a U-turn on how data is shared on the site.

Competition is key

Competition works as an incentive both ways – whether someone else comes in and competes in your area or if you launch something which competes with someone else.

By launching Plus Google have been forced to rethink the way it does design which has led to the clean interface we see in Plus and which is now spreading to other apps in the Google stable. Moving into competition with Facebook has demanded this.

Conversely, by having Google launch a realistic competitor in the social space Facebook appears to have been forced to rethink the way it exposes its functionality. Features that have been in Facebook for years but were tucked away and largely unknown have had to be brought to the fore in a move to simplify the operation of the site and its functions.

Has the launch of Google+ convinced Facebook of the value of targeted sharing and the need for this to be easily accessible to the user? Or is it that Facebook must react and comply with the social norm because it is expected of them?

Running scared?

As is apparent from the recent comments about user numbers in relation to the fees applied to social gaming Facebook is not directly scared by Google+ at the moment but it is worried about losing members to the competition so will now do “just enough” to conform to the social norm and retain its users which is something the service has not previously had to do.

Image by Niklas Wikström

Facebook may have dropped traditional check-ins but does this mean other location based services should celebrate? What message does this send to the rest of the social web?

Facebook have announced that they are abandoning their “Places” functionality and the traditional check-in so some are arguing that the likes of Foursquare and Gowalla should now be jumping for joy as their main competition has left the arena.

I disagree.

Facebook hasn’t dropped location, Places isn’t dead; it has grown up and evolved and I believe that location based services should be more worried than ever.

This move sends a massive signal to the competition: if Facebook can’t make traditional check-ins work with a potential catchment of over 750 million users (reports indicate that only 6% of Facebook accounts used Places) then it’s likely no-one can. The reality, however, is that Facebook has realised something the others haven’t: check-ins on their own are of limited use.

Context

For me, check-ins in isolation are too limited – we need context. A check-in is okay as far as it goes but we merely leave a paper trail showing where we have been. There have been countless times I have wanted to check-in somewhere and post an image with to show what I’m doing but have not been able to; usually this has left me not even bothering to check-in at all. Facebook has just changed that.

I have called before for multi-purpose posts on Google+ where we could add a URL and a photo, multiple URLs, in fact any combination of items – a check-in plus a URL or a photo (why not both) would really help to establish the context we need for location based posts/check-ins.

Facebook’s move to switch from a check-in based system to having location available on every item you post provides more value for that item and is the first step to true multi-purpose posts. We will not just be sharing where we are but we will be also be sharing why we are there, what we are doing and, potentially, other supplemental information which others may find of use.

The next level

So, sorry to all those folks who think Facebook has abandoned check-ins, you couldn’t be more wrong. Facebook has taken them to the next level; what they now do with them. however, remains to be seen.

Update:

The Google+ application on Android also allows for location to be attached to any post which can also include images (either taken straight from the camera or from your gallery) and text so the facebook move may have been partially influenced by this. Despite improvements to the app which include the ability to reshare we still cannot share links correctly but both Google and Facebook have their feet placed firmly on the road to posts providing full utility and value.

Google+ presents an interesting, yet potentially confusing, duality between its roles as a social network and social layer while the public/private divide and mixed following model create a situation that some social network users do not recognise and may be uncomfortable with. This does not, however, infer that the service is either dead or dying.

There has been a recent slew of articles pronouncing Google+ a failure but, while nothing could actually be further from the truth, it is easy to see why some may come to this conclusion based of their experiences.

Paul Tassi has written one such scathing article over at Forbes in “A Eulogy for Google Plus” boldly stating “Google Plus is a failure no matter what the numbers may say”.

You’re doing it wrong

Paul also writes: “My profile tells me everything I need to know about Google Plus…” “…I have 26 people who have added me into circles, only 8 of them being people I wanted to add back”.

It seems that the excuse for various issues or failings with Google+ is that it is still in field-trial and there are bugs that will be worked out before it goes live. I will admit to having used this myself but the rapid growth of Plus, combined with the fact that it feels so solid, causes us to forget that it is still a beta and not open for public consumption.

As it is invitation only and there is currently no interest graph one might be forgiven for thinking that it feels like a party “where simply no one has shown up”. Is this a reflection on the user not taking the time to explore the service – Paul admits that not circling or being circled by his “friends” in the recommended list illustrates “just how little we care about this new network” – or is it that the discovery process needs to be improved.

I have mentioned before that discovery will be just as important as normal search for social services so how can this be accomplished? Does Google+ need a public stream like Twitter or, does it need better categorisation and filtering to aid the discovery process?

Whatever method is employed you can’t escape that being social requires a significant investment of time and if you aren’t prepared to make that investment you can’t really criticise the service for failing you.

Moving the mountain

It is, however, understandable that your social circle may not want to migrate from another network if they are already heavily invested leaving you isolated in your new home. This is, no doubt, the main reason Twitter survived during its troubled period.

This, in turn, raises questions about how individuals see the desired use case for Google+. Do they envisage it to be used amongst specific groups meaning we will have to rebuild our connections in the new location or for the discovery of new people and interesting conversations, building a new circle as they go? The perceptions of the service will affect the value received.

There also seems to be a misconception about how circles operate, for example Paul is concerned that he does not know those adding him to circles: ”…for all Plus’s claims of privacy and intimacy, I don’t know most of the others”.

Plus operates a follower model similar to Twitter – you can follow whomever you wish without the need for reciprocation to form a Facebook style “friendship”. Just as with Twitter we are broadcasting to an audience (be it public or determined by specific circles) and we are not restricting those who we may want to hear our public mutterings just as if we were standing on a soapbox in a public space shouting to anyone who walked by.

Google+ Circles are an unusual amalgam of social relationships ranging from the public to the targeted but even when targeting our content there is no obligation for that target to circle us back and create a two-way conversation. While we can approximate the “friending” experience is is not, in fact, actually working like that.

Split personality

Google+ has an issue with its duality: we hear that it is not a social network but the current level of integration does not yet lend itself to being a “social layer”. Yes these are early days and greater integration is no doubt coming down the track but the Plus train is currently stuck at SocNet station. It is easy to see why many are getting the wrong impression. To some if it looks like Facebook, smells like Facebook and acts like Facebook then it must be a Facebook clone.

This causes issues with the public/private divide. When 48% of users have never made a public post Google+ may well appear to look like a ghost town from the outside which is why search and discovery are imperative when approaching Plus as a social network. With a follower model like Twitter the ability to find interesting users is paramount but, for some, this is at odds with the idea that Plus is designed for sharing with select groups based on the content in question.

The reality is that public and private are designed to sit side by side on Plus but the public aspect is not yet as developed as it needs to be.

The disconnect between the two is no more apparent than when being followed by one of the 48%. Within certain circles (pun intended) they may be a hive of activity but from the outside they appear silent and it is, therefore, impossible to decide if you should reciprocate the follow.

Is this a fault with the Plus follower model or with the way people are making use of the service?

It would make sense that if you are going to follow people you don’t know in response to items that they have shared publicly then you should have at least a modicum of information visible but then some may only wish to consume content and not necessarily interact with it or its author.

Just as with those who confuse the Plus with Facebook we also have those who confuse the Plus follower model with that of Twitter but just because we follow someone it doesn’t mean we will see any of their content unless they post to public or follow us back and explicitly choose to share with us by virtue of their circles. It is an interesting, and at the same time, confusing concept and it is easy to understand why some are so underwhelmed with the service depending on who they follow.

A good start

Those who embrace the platform agree that Google are off to a good start but a lot of work still needs to be done. As with any network, the more you put in to it the more you get back but we must always remember that we are still testers in an exceptionally large field-trial.

Image by Jason Means