+Sunny Jay Sabuero
I'm afraid I can't disagree more. No need for competition? Competition is the reason that we have Google+, that new features are added to any social network. Facebook's reactions to Google+ is a prime example of this. Not even a week after Google+ was introduced, Facebook announced some site redesigns, the Skype integration, and group chat.
The only benefit to only having one social network is exactly the problem that already exists. If there were only one social network, then all of your friends would be on that one network.
The whole point of the concept of network interoperability is it removes the need
for having all of your friends on one site. Once that need is removed, it allows real competition to take place. Too much of the current competition is purely based on how many of your friends are on one site or another. This has absolutely nothing to do with the quality or features of the social networks in question. It becomes a matter of seniority.
A lot of focus has been placed on how quickly networking sites get to the big numbers of users, with Google+ outpacing all previous networks. But at the same time, every person I have talked to about Google+ that does not
want to switch gives the excuse that none of their friends are there.
That is not a refusal to switch based on any good Facebook features. It's just because of seniority. So if they could still openly communicate with their Facebook or Twitter friends from Google+ - not through reposting but with real, native integration and collaboration between them - then you would see far more people switching.
And what would be the only real solution to that? Facebook would have to really
innovate and improve itself. That is the purpose of competition. That is the benefit of competition. Without competition, we'd still be rating each other's hotness between one and ten.