My Thoughts on Google+

One of the great things about studying the Web is that you can sign up for new social networks and feel like its justified in your quest to understand the Web’s development. I would have signed up for Google+ regardless of whether I was studying Web Science or not, but doing so means that I don’t feel like I’m wasting time trying out something which basically just replicates the features of other services I use, and instead it has got me thinking about the potential disruption it could cause to the current ecosystem of social networks. 

Facebook

The most obvious competition and obstacle to Google+ taking off is Facebook, the world’s largest social network. While it is undoubtedly popular, there have been many news stories over the years of outrage at Facebook’s privacy policies – this possibly being the biggest flaw in an otherwise all-conquering business. I’ve heard people talk of the Circles feature of Google+ being the main revelation in the new service compared to Facebook, as if the ability to limit the visibility of certain posts to certain groups of people is something new. What people seem to be forgetting is that Facebook has had a similar feature for a while now: Lists. Lists allow users to group users into Lists (for example I have a Web Science list), and when wanting to post something to just these people it is easy to just click the privacy padlock next to the ‘Share’ button and customise the exposure.

The hype over Circles given this existing Facebook feature could be down to a number of possible explanations. Maybe the feature isn’t prominent enough on Facebook (which I would personally disagree with - the options for customising a post on each network are both right by the corresponding button to publish something). Alternatively, it’s possible that the majority of people on Facebook just aren’t aware that this is a feature that could actually be useful for them (well, until they post something that they regret after their boss reads it…). It could be a combination of both these points: the subset of people who perhaps do think its useful maybe didn’t realise it was available on Facebook (based on people I’ve spoken to, not many people did!), and are now interested in it enough to consider Google+. I’m 99% certain, however, that there will be far more people who don’t realise the importance of such a feature and will therefore see no reason to change. Coupled with such a large existing user base, I don’t see Google+ replacing Facebook in the same way that Facebook brought about the demise of MySpace. 

Twitter

One of the other advantages of the Circles feature in Google+ is that you can add other users into a Circle of people who you want to follow, but don’t know personally – much in the same way that on Twitter you can follow anyone, regardless of whether they follow you back or not. Where it builds on Twitter’s core feature is that those people you follow can decide to post messages publically (so that you and anyone else who is ‘following’ them can view it, or post them to specific circles – meaning that they can use the network for both publically commenting on something and sharing more sensitive information with just close friends and family.

The other distinctive feature of Twitter is that messages are constrained to 140 characters. This is not so on Google+, allowing a more constructive, meaningful and insightful message to be created. Replies (in the form of comments) and the central “+1” aspect of Google+ show up directly below the original message, rather than the linear timeline displayed by Twitter. While on the one hand this helps to make a discussion more readable at a later date, Twitter’s way has the advantage of offering something closer to a live stream of what people are saying. It’s because of this that I believe Twitter offers something different enough to be unthreatened by Google+, in the same way that Twitter was able to grow in an already Facebook-dominated world. Twitter is a great outlet for news, both professionally and amateurs commenting on events occurring around them. It’s linear timeline, and constrained length messages mean that posts are always short enough to consume quickly, and appear when they are most relevant.

LinkedIn

Unlike Facebook and Twitter, LinkedIn is not a service that I personally use. It is, however, the service I hear everyone use as an example when talking about a non-socially-oriented online network – it is instead a professional network, with the aim of establishing and maintaining professional connections. I think this is something which Google Plus and Circles will also provide a solid solution for – adding colleagues and contacts into one or more specific circles means that people can maintain these connections in the same network that they post updates about their private lives, but prevents them from being read by the wrong people. With this possible, the question of whether a completely detached network for professional contacts is still required is raised.

My view on the future

I’ve heard people claim that Google+ will bring about the end of Facebook. With 750 million active users, I don’t see this happening, but I don’t see any reason why the two services can’t coexist together. Google+ seems to be popular with the early adopters, the tech-savvy crowd who are likely to be a lot of the same people who first joined Twitter – and they succeeded in making that service popular enough to catch on. If enough people realise the advantages that Circles can offer to them, then I can envisage a number of scenarios.

As I said before, I think Facebook will be safe. The users who didn’t know about the Lists feature and who want to be able to share different things with different people may very well migrate to Google+, but with their existing digital presence on Facebook it is likely that they will leave their account intact, and maybe just reduce the time spent on it. I imagine that the users who don’t appreciate the value of a Circles feature will see no reason to even contemplate leaving (unfortunately I think this is the majority of people who are unaware of the repercussions of posting certain things), meaning Facebook’s massive user base will largely be left intact.

I think Twitter will also be safe, but I could see it becoming even more news-oriented – the first outlet for providing information on a developing subject or commenting on a live event before a more thoughtful and detailed post can be created. It is Linkedin that I really think should be most threatened by the introduction of Google+ as I see no reason that a professional network should be separately maintained if you can control who sees what. Obviously LinkedIn has the advantage that it is already established, and Google is playing catch-up, but the way that Google+ is so easily accessible through the same login that millions of people already use for email makes it entirely possible.

So finally, for the following stereotypical personas, here is my take on how the 4 discussed social networks will be used in the near future:

The Tech Community (Technology journalists/reporters, entrepreneurs, programmers etc)

Facebook – reduced usage but still a presence to maintain contact with other friends/family who aren’t ready to abandon ship.

Twitter – continued usage to spread news, follow live blogs of product announcements etc, general commentary of what’s happening

LinkedIn – reduced usage, favouring Google+

Google+ – high level of use, especially to communicate with other like-minded people, and used for professional contacts via separate Circles.

Tech-Savvy Students

Facebook – steady usage, but slowly declining as they convince more and more of their friends to try Google+

Twitter – slightly reduced usage as they favour the stream of posts with comments on Google+ or Facebook, but continue to use Twitter for checking the latest live information

LinkedIn – minor usage from those with some professional experience

Google+   - slow increase of use as more people to decide to try it.

Not so tech-savvy Students

Facebook – continued addiction, with no reason to change

Twitter – some usage as there is currently, but not universal

LinkedIn – minor usage from those with some professional experience

Google+ - minor usage from those with enough signed up friends to convince them. Possible use during coursework where the advantage of having a social network circle and a collaborative document editing suite (Google Docs) under one login could prove advantageous.

Casual Social Network Users (Parents, grandparents etc…)

Facebook – continued casual use to keep up with children and distant friends/family etc, could reduce if this group are convinced to use Google+ instead, especially if these people already use a Google service and have a login.

Twitter – minor usage to follow news etc

LinkedIn – possible use if they’ve ever signed up during their professional career

Google+ - minor usage especially to begin with, possibly increasing if family members convince them to switch for features such as Hangouts (group video chat where for example grandparents could see their grandchildren etc)

This is a scenario that I can imagine happening – but is only my opinion based on some early thoughts and discussions I’ve had about Google+. What does everyone think, will it succeed, and if so will it cause any other sites/networks to decline? Let me know in the comments below.