I don't think google will ever win at social, every site that started small changed and adapted to what the users wanted, google can't do that, they launch a new site and bam millions of users instantly; yet all these users want different things, so instead of shaping the experience around what they need to get users (what Facebook did) they're catering to what they think will retain users. They have to find out what users want without the access to "organic" information, market research is proven time and time again to be worthless.
The problem of getting users is often one that defines a site, when you don't have that problem it becomes a battle to stop users leaving to better more "mature" pastures. I think the next big social site (if there ever is one) will be a no-name small-gone-big site, but even then with how everyone (users) is about social now (they want to be instantly in on the next big thing) I doubt that can happen. I think that maybe Facebook is the end of social sites, which feels strange and ridiculous to say, but maybe.
Google will never "get" social, there is nothing to get.
Edit: in fact I think a great example of this is Google Wave. It was a fantastic product for a variety of tasks, project management was one, yet Google pitched it as the "next big thing" to users so they all joined with ridiculous expectations of what it was and wasn't and now look what happened... Tumblr is another great example in the other direction, what the site is now is very community orientated, yet from the interviews I've seen with the founder (David something) it didn't seem as if this was intention from the get go, yet users used the site like that and so they adapted and enabled users to use it like that. Now look, they're huge. Does anyone know of any products launched by big companies (Google, Microsoft etc.) that did go big? I can't think of any off hand, would be interesting to look at how they grew and developed.
In terms of product development, perhaps Google would be better off implementing a Y-Combinator based model where 2 to 5 people work on products by themselves -- away from Google's offices. They'd do this anywhere they'd want -- living together in a house/apartment, working from coffee shops, etc. They'd have access to Google's resources if/when they'd need them (kind of like how YC now has significant resources to help out its companies -- e.g. TechCrunch for initial distribution), but would not be required to use them.
The ultimate metric for a web property is getting repeat users at scale, so that's the #1 goal.
But as you say, Google doesn't really suffer from this problem at least initially (they can always get a substantial amount of immediate users for any new product).
The problem is, are they products people want? Are they products that'll generate repeat users at scale?
I wonder if the people building products at Google are building things for themselves, or for what they think people want.
The best products are made with one user in mind, and that user is the maker.
That is a pretty silly thing to say. My buddies business failed, and they used computers, so therefore nobody should use any computers to start a business anymore.
The problem with Wave wasn't that it missed its target as much as it was that the folks who "got" what Wave was about were largely the same folks who were already using Lotus Notes/Domino to its full advantage. I've worked in shops where people lived in Notes, and in shops where people lived in email in Notes, and there's a vast difference between using an integrated collaboration environment and messaging links and attachments back and forth.
It's funny, in a way, that people have a hard time putting the pieces together. They seem to "get" email, instant messaging, publicly editable documents, wikis, blogs, "related links" sidebars and so on...
Often times, I think the best products have an objective feel to them. So in the case of Wave, I'd say that its creator didn't have a clear understanding of what they wanted, or they were "commissioned" by Google to make it, in which case Google was the maker and should have been very closely involved in its development.
For Microsoft, X-box comes to mind as something they started after they were already huge, which was, eventually, a success. It took them a while to get it right though. Perhaps it's easier for big companies to do well with new hardware because it's harder for new, little companies to do hardware at all.
(I've never used an X-box; by "get it right" I mean "get popular.")
The important point there is that in a lot of cases the product doesn't actually matter. What matters is the community and social expectations that emerge around the product, and it's pretty difficult to nurture those with a huge launch day dump of unrelated people.
In 2003, Google offered to purchase the social network Friendster, but the offer was declined by that company. Google then internally commissioned Orkut Büyükkökten to work on a competing independent project. The result was Orkut. The product launched on January 24, 2004.
>> Google will never "get" social, there is nothing to get.
yeah on Google's every attempt to be social they didn't success well, but UX researcher (Paul Adams) at Google have some good thoughts on online social hubs. seems very interesting. would we ever see such Real Life Social Network from Google or any others?
Why did Google give up so quickly with Wave? If Wave were an independent company, would they have given up so quickly? How can Google win if they give up so quickly?
As someone who has implemented operational transformation, I believe Google dropped it because it consumes a lot of network resources. If it became popular, Google would have to dedicate a fair chunk of infrastructure to it. Could they do it? Yes. But I believe they ran a little cost/benefit analysis on it at scale and probably decided they didn't want to continue with the wave model.
I am aware that some operational transformation is used in docs, however the usage scenario is different: collaboration is not the default use case and the number of collaborators would be smaller than in a wave, where the default use case is many waves with many participants.
How much infrastructure did it take for Google to run wave? They could put adwords on it like every other product they've done.
They may have used some of their technology in Google Docs. However, they could have refined the Google wave model more. Instead, they hyped it up, and then quickly dumped it.
while you might be right, i wouldnt be so fast to write off ggl. Google after Yahoo, Gmail after hotmail, android after ios, fb itself after myspace should i continue? Google (and some other big COs) have quite successful track of following/copying/buying/redefining/spin-offs.
I know many ffb users are already feeling frustrated with latest FB initiatives as they simply need place to stay in touch with friends and some of them would be happy to switch to something like "Facebook classic".
Besides that FB is doing great in exploring "what is SOCIAL"(how it works/how to make money out of it etc), but someone yet has to tell me what would REALLY stop other followers to copy all the best results once they approach their maximum(both in terms of product and growth challenges for company). I heard a lot of "Google just dont get it", "why GGL cant build X/Y", "social must be in your DNA" noise but someone has to explain why they absolutely cant do something IF they really need/want it. And I am not taking Wave as a proof, as it just shows me that GGL still has balls for serious decisions(and i count both starting and stopping something BIG as a major achievement)
Something tells me that this is just the beginning...
GMail strikes me as a good example. Google maps. Can't think of any from Microsoft, but that's probably just because I haven't used a Microsoft product in 3 years. Actually Bing seems to be doing decently well.
I find it telling that for a big company, their major successes (as a big company) are typically software that do not need an installed base to add value. Mail and Maps are both applications that stand on their own and it is irrelevant what application your friends are using.
However, the cases where installed base is relevant is a serious failure. Wave and Buzz come to mind.
My understanding is that Google Maps was largely an acquisition: Where 2 Technologies, from Sydney, acquired in Oct. 2004. Its founders were, incidentally, the Rasmussen brothers, more recently known for Wave.
Maps in its present form is basically the fusion of an acquired startup (Where 2) and an internal project (Google Local, done by Bret Taylor and Jim Norris, later of FriendFeed and FaceBook fame).
As I understand it, the original Where 2 product was a desktop app, much like what became Google Earth, and not all that groundbreaking because satellite-imagery desktop mapping apps have been around since the mid-1990s. Google Local, meanwhile, was a search product, much like the current Local Universal search experience.
When Where2 was acquired, there was a flurry of interest in how to get that beautiful satellite imagery and user experience onto the Web, where the rest of Google's products were, and that's how Google Maps was born.
Google could easily do this, all they need to do is remove their branding and not announce it. I think your edit hits it dead on which is expectation management.
The problem of getting users is often one that defines a site, when you don't have that problem it becomes a battle to stop users leaving to better more "mature" pastures. I think the next big social site (if there ever is one) will be a no-name small-gone-big site, but even then with how everyone (users) is about social now (they want to be instantly in on the next big thing) I doubt that can happen. I think that maybe Facebook is the end of social sites, which feels strange and ridiculous to say, but maybe.
Google will never "get" social, there is nothing to get.
Edit: in fact I think a great example of this is Google Wave. It was a fantastic product for a variety of tasks, project management was one, yet Google pitched it as the "next big thing" to users so they all joined with ridiculous expectations of what it was and wasn't and now look what happened... Tumblr is another great example in the other direction, what the site is now is very community orientated, yet from the interviews I've seen with the founder (David something) it didn't seem as if this was intention from the get go, yet users used the site like that and so they adapted and enabled users to use it like that. Now look, they're huge. Does anyone know of any products launched by big companies (Google, Microsoft etc.) that did go big? I can't think of any off hand, would be interesting to look at how they grew and developed.