Not to take away from the article content, but it is posted on "The Unofficial Facebook Resource".
I mean, just compare the time spent on what Google got right, verse what they didn't. And yet the conclusion implies that it doesn't even matter, because people won't bother with three social networks at once.
Yep. The whole 'business model' of his website is based off of Facebook's success. He definitely has a vested interest here.
I also think it is simply too early to define what Google+ is or what niche it serves best. A lot of these criticisms could be said about Facebook when it was in its early stages too (no brand profiles, lack of returning users, etc).
I agree they are biased toward Facebook. They also have valid points. Maybe the future of social networks is like email. Each of us will use platform of choice for communication on a common protocol.
Comments
Not to take away from the article content, but it is posted on "The Unofficial Facebook Resource".
I mean, just compare the time spent on what Google got right, verse what they didn't. And yet the conclusion implies that it doesn't even matter, because people won't bother with three social networks at once.
Yep. The whole 'business model' of his website is based off of Facebook's success. He definitely has a vested interest here.
I also think it is simply too early to define what Google+ is or what niche it serves best. A lot of these criticisms could be said about Facebook when it was in its early stages too (no brand profiles, lack of returning users, etc).
I agree they are biased toward Facebook. They also have valid points. Maybe the future of social networks is like email. Each of us will use platform of choice for communication on a common protocol.