Facebook and Google+ Comparison

facebook-vs-google-plusIf you need a good search engine, use Google.
If you need a good social media tool, use Facebook.

This month I was invited by a friend to join Google+ as a Beta User. So I made a comparison:

1. Whereas Facebook is a social media tool for connecting with other people, Google+ is a social media tool for connecting with other people.

Wait… isn’t that the same?

2. Whereas Facebook requires you to use your real name or be banned, Google+ requires you to use your real name or be banned.

Wait… isn’t that the same?

3. Whereas Facebook uses your real name to sell advertising and make money, Google+ uses your real name to sell advertising and make money.

Um…

4. Whereas Facebook has 750 Million Active Users, Google+ has 10 Million Test Users.

So…

Facebook is an established, recognized, service with 100 times more users and #1 social media name recognition.
Google+ is a Facebook Wannabe claiming technical advantages. And Google has #1 search engine name recognition.

But…

a) To non-technophiles, technical advantages are irrelevant. Google+ is just another complicated thing to learn to use. They already got a Facebook Thingie to please their friends and family. Why add another, thank you very much?

b) To technophiles, the Google+ technical advantages are nice. But technophiles often use online names to network online, which Google+ bans. And, while technophiles understand how to use Google+, why bother when they already have Facebook for their non-technophile networks, and tools like LinkedIn for their professional networks?

c) To all of us, who already get flooded with ads on search engines and email services, why encourage more?

Conclusions?

If you need a good search engine, use Google.
If you need a good social media tool, use Facebook.

Perspective of non-technophile users courtesy, my aunt. “I had to use Facebook to see pictures of my grandchildren!”
Facebook vs. Google+ image courtesy, The Social Media Today
Perspective of technophile users courtesy, Gwyneth Llewelyn

Advertisements
Posted in Notes. 3 Comments »

3 Responses to “Facebook and Google+ Comparison”

  1. Gwyneth Llewelyn Says:

    You know, Sitearm, my biggest disappointment was when I first saw that Google was reversing all their privacy policies with Google Plus, to make them more aligned with Facebook’s. This is the most stupid move I ever heard about.

    After half a decade or more of using Google’s products (like Google Docs!) for all sorts of things, even to get a tiny income from ads (very marginal, but that’s not the point), now I’m reading reports where people started to lose access to those services just because they refused to publicly post the name on their ID card/passport/driver’s license on their Google Profiles.

    Note that Google does have my private data on file (since they do bank transfers from ad revenue, for instance!). It’s not as if they don’t have that information already; they do. But, so far, they have been happy to keep it private. Now they are starting to behave more and more Facebook-y and force me to publish my private information for everybody to see.

    Obviously I’m not happy with that attitude, which runs contrary to each and every other privacy policy that Google has been upholding for the past decade or so.

    To make matters worse, Google Plus is not even a finished product. It’s an early Beta, with semi-closed access. So, by being willing to participate in the evaluation of a unfinished product, I have to forfeit my privacy — or stop using Google’s other services.

    This is simply outrageous!

  2. sitearm Says:

    @Gwyneth; I’ve been thinking a bit on what Google+ is really aiming at and I think it’s aiming at being a paid Google service for enterprises with, say, about 100 people or more. That is, it is aimed at organizations that are large enough to need a private “intranetworking” tool, but not large enough to afford an in-house or premium data center service.

    What Google+ is NOT is a public service like Google Search or Google Mail.

    I recently joined a project that used a Paid Google Mail Service for a custom mail url, and that was my first exposure to “the private side of Google.” Lord knows the company makes plenty of ad revenue from large-scale use of its public services, that are “cost-free but not ad-free”. And they make additional revenue from private versions of Search and Mail.

    So I think the company got itself into trouble by implying that Google+ would be another cost-but-not-ad-free public service, especially because they used the big buzz method of going after independent early adopters to sign up for it, just like they did for Google Mail. THEN we found out about the forced-use-of-private-information to use the service and not be banned.

    I would call what happened intentional “Bait and Switch” if I thought they did it on purpose. The alternative is that they didn’t think it through enough, ahead of time, about what they were doing, who they were aiming at, and how it would be received.

    After all, enterprise users are NOT going to sign up for Google+ for organization use unless their organizations have adopted it. So why was it ever made public to independent users?

  3. nettedthoughts Says:

    Hi Sitearm! I loved your comparison!

    I still think Google Plus has a chance… It all depends on how Google and Facebook play their match, but it might be too early to say who is going to win.

    Here are my two cents:

    http://nettedthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/google-and-social-networking-the-fight-with-facebook/

    Bye bye!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: