Shared publicly  - 
Mark Zuckerberg's first public response to Google+ -

Today at the Facebook news conference, +Ben Parr had the stones to ask Mark what he thought of Google+. (He was polite about it. I approve.) Zuckerberg responded by saying that lots of companies are going to build things like video chat, but FB competitors also have to build up their social graph first. Facebook's job is to just keep innovating. Perfectly reasonable response, and of course, he's exactly right--the challenge is to get the userbase, and make it easy for them to use. Done and done for Facebook. The integration looks great.

Some pundits are complaining that the technology is not new, but that's besides the point. Case in point: at MySpace we launched what Zuckerberg is announcing in 2007 (try googling "myspace skype partnership"), and MySpace also had one-on-one video chat back in 2004. The point is that people weren't really ready for it back then--now is the time, and FB has the userbase. The large userbase (750 million) paired with a simple integration of the arguably the best voice/video tech (Skype) is what makes this news.

Zuckerberg also pointed out in his response to the Hangout question, that one-on-one video chat will be the more common use case (Google+ has "Hangout" which allows 10 users to video chat at once). Again, perfectly reasonable, and probably right. Many sites have group video chat, Google+ is not the first, nor is Hangout a game-changer. What you need here is the userbase, which currently only Facebook has, and people will more likely talk one on one (like we do on the phone, duh).

The more interesting part of his announcement, I think, was the implicit response to Google+ in his intro leading up the Skype integration. What he said is that Groups on Facebook are actively used by half of the 750 million user base. And "Groups" is really Facebook's second attempt at "Friends Lists," which Zuckerberg admitted months ago, were not getting traction (people didn't want to do the work of putting people into lists).

The Facebook Groups feature is designed in a way so that users who do care to do the work, can. Someone invites you, and you're in the group without you having to take any action. (In fact, you have to do some work to get out of the Group!) Zuckerberg points out that this is how friend requests work as well--there's always a select few who do all the friending, and the rest of us just follow along, with a much easier "approval." Facebook's Groups were designed in a way to overcome the friend list problem. They've grown quickly, even if 95% of the userbase can't be bothered to make their own groups.

And if you think about it, that's the smart way Facebook has approached many things: build an app platform, and let the developer community do the heavy lifting. Create a translation platform, and let users translate Facebook in every language known to man. Create a Group feature, and let the 5% create the groups for the other 95%. It's like Mechanical Turk, but we're not getting paid. (Unless you're Zynga! ;-)

What remains to be seen, is which model will users prefer in the long run--Facebook "Groups"--which function more like an old-school Yahoo Group with a Forum built-in). Or Google+ "Circles"--which is more like an email distribution list-meets Twitter with better commenting. The two are actually very similar, but each probably does certain things better than the other. Thinking about what each model does better is probably the key to unlocking what "model" is going to "win."
Preeti Shrivastava's profile photoColin Bruce Milne's profile photoCody Mchardy's profile photoEmily Chang's profile photo
Duuude, what is with the blog post as a G+ status?? :)
I agree, was nice to see him be polite about it
i love how it was the very first question.
I joked that the Facebook skype integration has a special technology that allows one to speak to more women.
lol yea zucker is a good guy it seems just so egotistical
I don't like the idea of facebook groups, as it has the potential to put compiled knowledge inside a walled garden.
haha I'm trying to get setup, but having trouble integrating facebook comments with it. seriously .. haha..
They innovated the Microsoft way... That announcement was a Skype Funeral...Skype will be laid to rest inside Facebook for all to enjoy. Funeral paid for by Microsoft. Zuck even said..we paid nothing..LOL
Amen Tom. Great summary, and I agree.
Exactly. Facebook is to social web apps what Microsoft is to desktop apps.
only 5% of FB users currently know how to use circles..
+Tom Anderson Just to clarify, G+ has one-on-one chat too. Just click on a user in the left side chat and click the video button. Just like it has been on gmail for the last several years.
+Ryan Malkes I was wondering that myself. I suppose they think people will start buying Skype credits. Not really sure as I've never tried the paid options on Skype
The other 95% just spin in them :)
UM UM UM right UM UM UM 78 year old DUDE um um um Very little time on google

All of what you've said +Tom Anderson is reasonable...
But FB's new video chat is way buggier... and you have to install something which is annoying... and it feels like it takes WAY longer..

You can use HANGOUTS to have 1 on 1 convos... can't you only invite 1 person and only 1 on 1 chats can be had? Or once you start a HANGOUT -- it's open to all in your circles?

Anyways Hangouts are more innovative b/c who needs to talk to their friends 1 on 1 via video when they can call or text or maybe use APPLE'S
Wondering when video chat, etc will be accessible through desktop..
I agree he did a great job of politely avoiding the question. Do you think that Facebook has a good enough infrastructure to allow for these innovations? The video for some reason doesn't seem too integrated.
Google Voice works splendidly for the same functions that Skype does as far as telephony, and with damn good rates, too. Beyond that simple answer, I don't see why G+ can't integrate groups at a later date.
Question for anybody here: Can currently private one on one Video chats be accomplished with Google+ (I honestly don't know).
Ciro, yes Google does private video chats too
+Ciro Villa sure, you just have to invite someone to the hangout individually. Problem is Hangouts isnt good for that, Google Talk is good for that. Hangouts wasn't made for 1on1 chatting, but Google Talk was.
+Tom Anderson Are you referring to the GTalk video engine? or also able to do within G+ Hangouts?
+Tom Anderson Both Google+'s Hangout and Facebook's video call is needed! They are for different reasons!
Btw, for those who haven't noticed yet, I'm not a Facebook hater. I love both FB and Google+ and I'm just trying to get at the underlying issues here. I think both companies are going to push each other to be better, and that's better for us all.
For 1-on-1 video chat, simply start a video chat using the normal chat interface.
won't there be a third kind of group/circle once g+ opens up for apps/edu etc.
The competition is good; and the innovation is on..for the benefit of all
I think Facebook friends lists would of gained more traction if they had more features than filtering your steam. 
I keep losing my EDIT COMMENT... ++bug heh

HANGOUTS is the only place I know of where you can chat with up to 10 people... including google people, high end tech people, rappers, celebs, etc. --- That is VERY COOL and more personal than say USTREAM which is a broadcast.. not so much a GROUP CHAT!

Lady Gaga is not having 1 on 1s or group video chats when they come on fb.. not that she'll do a hangout... ok so bad example but soulja boy hehe
+Ramakanth Dorai and I'm sure both FB and Google+ will have both models of simple, effective group and one on one chat. was just given you Fb's answer :)
+Tom Anderson If most of G+ is inspired from FB , why don't FB get inspiration from Hangout .. Its like tit for tat .. but 1 on 1 video chatting in not a cool idea .. I hope FB will include group video chat soon .. After that , do we need to stay at G+ .. Few differences between FB & G+ .. & i think in future , it will be VERY Few .. If both things are same .. Who want to stay at both place ? I mean , i dont want ..
+Tom Anderson Doesn't get better than this. Getting views on the latest social networking efforts from some one with as much experience as you in the area. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us! Keep 'em coming.
+Tom Anderson You should probably wait until the Blogger redesign and Google+ integration next month. Also, I don't agree with much of what you're saying in the post. If Groups were a good way to group people inside Facebook, they would've worked already. But they are not an elegant solution at all. And that's key here. The fact that they are "similar" in some way, doesn't mean they work the same.

Facebook/Skype integration is nothing different than having MSN video chat or Yahoo video chat. I don't see it as a game changer at all, and it doesn't change how videochatting between 2 people is a bit awkward.

On the other hand, Hangout does have the potential to be a game-changer, not only because you can video-chat with many people in the same time, and it can be less awkward not having the big camera showing you all the time, but also because of its serendipity. You start a hangout in your circle of Friends, and anyone can join at any time. If you want yo have fun, you can even do it in your public stream. Now that's social!
This post is not possible on facebook
Will skype integrate facebook into the exisitng platform...Or will it pretend to be 2 seperate companies under 1 umbrella like Sirius XM? time will tell.
Honestly the only reason I use Groups in Facebook is to put all the Zynga gaming friends in. Since those games you need a ton of friends to get anywhere :P
+Tom Anderson yeah i think all hav realised u r not a fb hater. rather u r just sharing ur views, pros n cons, suggestions with us
you know... you have a lot of middle-aged users on Facebook who are not at all techie savvy and still struggle to figure it out. I doubt they will be changing over to Google+ anytime soon. A lot of them never even tried twitter.
Totally liking your posts, always very honest - personal - insightful. Thanks.
Google+ is good because it has a better interface ( notifications ) and circles work better than groups and lists. In facebook I have people who I don't see for years. In circles I put them in a circle and leave them there.
Its clear from this interaction that +Tom Anderson is still everyone's friend. :-)

One everyone has to keep in mind is that - as the end of the day - its really hard to get any work done on FB - unless you're just schmoozing or networking.

Meanwhile - ever heard of Gmail? How 'bout Maps or Search? Then there's this thing calls Docs and Apps and Sites and oh yah - YouTube.

So I really gotta say - I'd rather be open and G+ then closed and FB.

But WAIT! G+ hasn't shown us all their cards - yet! This game ain't done - yet.
I really like the neutral, inquisitive approach you've taken in your posts about Google+ since it launched. Your insights are thought-provoking and valuable, and I appreciate you taking the time to provide us with them.
I think it would be smarter for facebook to give the option to do a group video chat imo.
Nice read Tom but until groups gets easier to interact with on FB, Circles are my way to go. Groups wasn't hard to work with on FB they were just tiring and always required movement . FB app for andoid is horrific and Google+ is making headway, sure needs features and reshares but it's simpler to use, FB i might a well use

Groups was more a forum for facebook and Circles is more a twitter style with comments. I love feedback and conversation.
+Barbi Neth Indeed...Facebook for me is only for family and close friends, but now with the Skype integration, I might actually try the Video Calling feature, but it is still going to be a hard curve for the older folks...
I for one have been communicating via "video calling' with MSN messenger for the longest time, all I can say is the more choice the better for me anyway...
+Ryan Malkes Facebook is already partially integrated into Skype to my knowledge (it has been for a while now), in fact you can have a Facebook tab in the Skype desktop GUI to follow Facebook updates from within Skype (if that is what you were asking)...
Tip for all (out of subject): Slow down when you type + and the user name you want to respond to. I found the fetch engine being slow, so if you type slowly it'll find the user, but if you type the + and the username too fast, it will get confused and not fetch the user. Little tip... :-)
somebody please post something on my feed so his face can get off my G+!
+Barbi Neth is spot on, a lot of people I know are only just dipping their toes in the water with Twitter. For some people facebook IS the internet.
with the money mark z made off facebook you would think he could use a better camera to take his picture!!
Is there a way to do private messaging in G+, I've tried to post to a circles and then select just one person of that circle, but still the post goes to everyone in the circle, sorry English is not my native language =)
+Tom Anderson i think the issue of groups vs. circles is not a big deal, really. The problem with groups, like you said, is that it requires work, and are difficult to leave. Also, groups came at a time when FB was getting a lot of negative press because of +Mark Zuckerberg constantly changing the terms of use at FB. Circles, on the other hand, seem be be being interpreted a bit differently than the way groups are. Circles make sense on many levels. Firstly, it is an exact replica of how people live in the real world...We all travel in different social circles. The whole phrasing of 'Social Circles' is familiar to people, whereas groups often carry negative groups, aa groups, na groups, group meetings, etc (not that I am saying people who attend these group meetings are negative. More power to them for finding the help and strength they need!).
Google does have a limited window with which to catch peoples' attention on G+ though. I think they need to go stones to the wall with every feature, full and proper privacy, and be very in-your-face to gain a lasting amount of attention until it catches on.

The differences are few between the two, so anything google does is basically already being done by facebook. Google needs to do it better. Facebook has notes, Google has Google Blogs (soon.) Facebook has one on one video, Google has Hangouts AND Google Talk, Facebook has if anything finally been seen as showing up late to the party by just having now announced skype, while google has already had google talk and hangouts.

As long as google stays a step ahead, they are fine.
+Hillel Fuld I think G+ will probably start blurring the lines of what needs to be a status/blog post/note, etc. What's the difference between a status that's 1000+ characters with part hidden and a "read more" button, and a blog post with 1000+ characters, part hidden, and a "read more" button?
have u noticed that small video camera button in the top left corner of the chat window when u chat with your friend ?
i think its a 1on1 videocall...tried it with my friend...but i could only see myself... :/
and he had a plain profile picture ...
I was just reading this. What I shame! I am a half a decade linux user. This means android will not have facebook video chat.
Nice post, really enjoyed it, thanks for sharing!
+Hillel Fuld : who said it's a status update? This is not Facebook. ;)
Zuckerberg is a smart competitor. He's not like politicians that seek to denigrate the rivals, he'll just acknowledge the competition and promote his company after. Regarding the new Facebook improvements, I'd dare compare FB to Microsoft and G+ to Apple. FB is for the masses, whereas G+ is for those that want the most out of the product they use, but have to spend a bit more time on learning how-to's. Luckily they're both free and easily accessible... let the battle of the titans begin! :)
I do think Hangouts are going to be used more then 1 on 1 video chat.. I've spent 5 hours in a hangout, and I just hopped in to try it out. While I never skyped for more then a couple of minutes. When you video chat with a whole bunch of people t doesn't feel weird like when it's 1 on 1. If I wanted to chat 1 on 1 with somebody I'd rather just phone them..
Well there's two issues here - one I haven't pointed out in this article, but maybe will talk more about later. And that's that the Google+ circle concept is obviously more flexible -- my post above is about a battle which model wins the "private sharing" but the Google+ circle concept also is flexible enough to do what Facebook's Pages and Twitter does. So that's a whole different level where we have two competing ideas. (Or Three with Twitter.)
The fact is google+ when it becomes public will have a large user base because of the huge number of google users.Building social graph won't be too much of a problem.
lol not bias @ all .. good luck with ur fb job search ;)
Also it has been pointed out that video chat will cause people to spend more time on facebook but the fact is when once starts a video call on facebook,the rest of the screen blanks out which effectively means it won't be of much use(people spending more time-will certainly not generate revenue).
I think you're off the mark in your analysis of FB versus g+. Google already has a huge userbase, and they've got a lot of buzz. All they have to do is let people join and the g+ membership will skyrocket. It probably won't get to FB levels anytime this year, but it'll go way up.
when i scroll up just far enough at this angle on my laptop his eyes go negative and he looks like the devil...just sayin
Joe Ward
frankly i feel that the biggest loser in this 3 way race will be twitter...and the fact that the founders recently announced that they were basically leaving to work on another project tells me that they may have seen the writing on that wall. Twitter is clearly the most limited experience of the three.

Ultimately, +Tom Anderson , not to contradict you, but i think there are 2 battles primarily occurring simutaneously here: 1) Google versus facebook, and 2) Facebook vs. Facebook. In the first race, it is not about google losing to facebook...its about google maintaining what they already have by combining all of their collective properties into what has become google plus. If you think about it, G+ could just as easily be referred to as "The Google Experience" They are literally intermingling almost every one of their most popular services/offerings under a G+ umbrella. I dont think that facebook will ever have the power to compete with google on all of those fronts.

The second race, Facebook vs. Facebook, is a bit more simple. If Facebook can get out of its own way it will continue to grow. They need to start looking at things differently if they expect to keep up with the Brins & Pages. It has always seemed to me that Zuckerberg has entirely too much going on up in that head at one time to actually be able to settle on one idea for very long (add?) As a result, Facebook does a lot of flip-flopping which lends instability to the user experience, and the users' level of comfort. Every time you get used to something, they switch it around.

Bottom Line: Can Facebook and google peacefully coexist? YES because no matter how alike they are, they are equally different.
+Berk Gökden Android already has Skype video chat though so can you Skype to Facebook? 
on the blog post as status thing, that's a natural usecase here, G+ doesn't have 'status' it has 'share'. You can share your status, a short thought, an essay a link, its all good.
I don't agree that 1 on 1 video is whats important. I know almost no one who isn't a tech that uses it(not that I'm all that popular :p ). Group video I could see taking off for distant family communication, online meetings, high school friends at disparate locations, etc.

However, I thought 1 on 1 video chat would do well >.>
I don't care about video chat at all, I never used
Gah!! Facebook had me download something for videochat that totally messed up my Mac. Just awful.
Great post here +Tom Anderson - I'm really enjoying your thought-provoking and generous sharing on Google+. That's probably one of the primary advantages of G+ I see so far: unprecedented conversational access to leaders in tech like yourself.

Regards Facebook Groups vs. Google+ Circles, for me, there is such a very clear distinction when I am posting and conversing in several of my Facebook Secret Groups vs. posting on my wall to Friend Lists or everyone, for example. The feeling inside the Group is that of being inside a totally closed-door environment where members feel safe to share, brainstorm, etc. I can easily scroll through past posts and know that ALL posts and ALL comments are only ever made by approved members of that specific Group.

Whereas on Google+, the distinctions are extremely blurry to me: I read the aggregate stream of a circle and the posts are a mix of public and private (limited), I can't see where to just view my own past posts shared with just a certain circle, or my contacts' posts just with a circle - others' circles are inherently not visible anyway.

Circles are not like Facebook Groups at all. Not even close. I do agree, G+ is like an email distribution list + Twitter combo with commenting. G+ is like speed-blogging. :)

As for the circles, they seem to be mostly good for segregating specific people to observe what they post and not so much for posting certain content to them, imho. I'd just assume make all G+ posts public for optimal resharing (a la Twitter!) and keep anything private for Facebook Groups; and anything truly private for offline! :)
Really good post - some really good comments here. Facebook is certainly adapting and moulding as and when competition arises and it can do, because it has the traction. Will G+ be the social network of the media/tech/startup world?
He should take public speaking course.. seriously!
I could not agree more with @mari smith here. I never really 'got' twitter, but reading, hearing, listening to and "following" such "leaders in tech" as Tom seems to make a lot more sense and is much more logical (to me anyway) here on G+.. and made all the better by the unrelenting interesting and thought provoking commentary from people like +Tom Anderson
All I say G+ and Facebook is just like Android and iOS battle who cares. innovation is what we need so this is what drives it bring it on.
I disagree with @Joe Ward for the very reason that I can't tag him in this post. There are many Joe Ward's on G+ right now, versus twitter where there can be no duplicate user names.

Twitter serves a very specific purpose and provides a very specific user experience that is not duplicated elsewhere... Although g+ has borrowed some things, the capability to engage in public discourse with someone who you have not been "approved" by... something that's very difficult to do to do on Facebook. Also with Twitter's very loyal following (no pun intended) I don't see it going away anytime very soon.

The weaknesses of g+ in my opinion are "stream" noise... which of course can be muted, but then you may miss out on rich conversation that is going on (such as this one) but with Twitter this is not an issue, the user is forced to be concise... get to the point in 140 characters or less or bust... This poses as a fun challenge to the user and really limits noise thereby making the experience and conversations more consumable.

At least for now, I think Twitter is safe.
It is true that Facebook is having a userbase of 750M, but that has not come in a day. It is just a start up of Google+ and just like a Beta version has been launched. We are now talking about the Hangout or Spark or Circle just because we have not made our Friend Circle, and after a start up we all tech-savvy are likely to talk about the tech and G+ only.

But people are waiting to join in G+, those people who are not getting invitation from anyone or not getting invitation mail or not getting in to G+ due to some error message, but they are discussing about G+, talking about G+, commenting on the comment about G+, in FACEBOOK. When we start a business, we are not sure about the future of the business, do not know the future market of the products, unknown whether our product can beat the best product of the market or not. But we definitely know the detail of the product running in the market and similar to ours. So we make our product better than that, and it is not possible to make it better, we make a hype in the market and start supplying, very few and create an initial demand. Those few purchasers of the new product do the advertisement to the purchasers of the common famous brand and make an illusion about the new product. And when the new product becomes available in the market, all start purchasing it, and the old famous brand becomes No. 2 leaving the new product the seat of No. 1.

Google did the same with GMail, and now Google has taken the same strategy for Google+; and see, it is already working.
I just wish they would remove this age limit. I had to make a new email just to join...
I use Fedora, so the FB video-chat is useless, since the app is only for windows, G+ video-chat support Linux
+David Hathiramani It shouldn't be too hard to prepopulate circles based on domains. They're already going in that direction with Google Apps, right? I think if they tried to prepopulate based on the actual e-mail content, that would freak people out too much, so I doubt they'd go in that direction. Not after the black eye they sustained with Buzz.
Google+'s cross-platform integration is what really gives it an advantage. The one thing I dislike during my day-to-day tasks is logging into all the online communities and accounts that I have. what Google has done is brought it all under one roof. The only question now is can they overcome Facebook's choke-hold of social media or will Facebook start build integrated platforms to compete with Google's various sites like finance, maps, e-mail, Facebook mobile device, Facebook OS etc... +Marc Canter
+***** "As for the circles, they seem to be mostly good for segregating specific people to observe what they post and not so much for posting certain content to them, imho. I'd just assume make all G+ posts public for optimal resharing (a la Twitter!) and keep anything private for Facebook Groups; and anything truly private for offline! :)"

I bet that for an extroverted social media person like yourself that all your posts will be public and you'll use circles to sort incoming streams into topical interests for easier perusal. But for an introverted writer like myself, I use circles primarily to target specific audience in order to share what I think is most interesting to them. Some of my posts are targeted (Limited release), some are public (like spot blogging or tweeting), and some are private (like email).

The great thing about G+ is that it let's me do all three. I can choose how I want to share very easily on a conversation-by-conversation basis. I don't have to use three different tools. And G+ is adaptable to both our communication styles. You're not forced by the tool to communicate my way; nor am I forced to communicate your way. It let's us both be comfortable with our own styles and even enables us to meet here in the middle sometimes.
Rob K
G+ is way more thought over than Buzz or Wave was. It looks to become a real good product IF and I have to emphasize IF people use it... Why? Let's just the above mentioned 2 for example, and look beyond Wave being full of bugs and not really running, and Buzz not asking if we wanted it. Both of those products where hot for about two weeks, and people stopped using them, and never bothered checking back. Something was missing...
Tom you talk about user base. So true, and Google has that, I think even more than FB or Twitter. Google will capitalize on that and spread it though it's network.
FB is like crack, because it has all those products that people love and use (email, chat, pictures, videos, status updates) AND it's social at the same time. Google has all those products but they where not linked in a proper way, I agree with you totally that G+ is this tie.

Talking about products... Google OWNS all of their stuff. Tom you mentioned FB having the community doing the heavy lifting, creating a platform that everyone could tie into. That's brilliant and great.. BUT there is a catch... think about this for a sec... What if Google stared advertising G+ on their OWN product?
Well duh! - you say- They will!
Of course they will! And what product will that be?
Oh yes my friends, putting +1-s on Youtube videos is coming and there is not a thing FB can do about that but ban all Youtube videos from it's network...

I don't think FB has to fear in the short term though, it will still remain nbr 1. in social media, Twitter however can count it's days...

In the long run G+ will be the go-to share method for Android users world wide, there is no way around that. It will be on your phone by default so you will use it, if only once but you will use it. FB will never be able to compete with Google's world wide dominance, and I don't think it even needs to. Tom you are also right in that regard that there can be a lot of networks in parallel and users will choose what they prefer.
I really think services that will allow you to post simultaneously on all those networks will make the most bucks with the least amount of effort...

Peace :D
Dude, of course Google+ has the user base! Woopi - facebook has the social graph. Hundreds of millions of people are on Google, Gmail, blogger, picassa, iGoogle, etc. and will be able to post to their stream in the header from any of those locations.

If you ask me, Google+ is makes Facebook look like MySpace!
Seems pretty simple to me. Facebook is trying to bring everything on the internet into Facebook and Google is trying to get into everything on the internet.
Tom, wishing u more great success in life... God bless u
+Tom Anderson Fair enough about the groups being the Facebook equivalent to Circles on G+, but the problem of separation between groups still exists on Facebook. People in the group one Facebook would be able to access my information, and pictures of me going out, for example, which isn't appropriate in a work environment. On Google+ however we get Circles which completely splits up your profile into different user groups, so everyone in my work circle will never see pictures of me going out, even if we're friends here, because I've chosen to put them in the work circle, and that's all they'll ever see.
Well said, Tom. I am a huge fan of groups on Facebook. It feeds my OCD and rage for order. I get a charge out of Circles on G+ ... seems like a logical extension of groups and honestly, I hope Facebook will take the time to refine groups to more closely match them with G+ Circles.
I love how on Tech Crunch you say "a reporter asked Mark Zuckerberg what he thought of Google+" and here you reference Ben Parr (of Mashable). I understand there's a rivalry between TC and Mashable, but really....that's just sad. I'm sure you editor made you do it though...
It's not that people "didn't want to do the work" of putting people into lists, it's that Facebook made the interface so clumsy and hard to use that even hardcore users had to give up. That's exactly the kind of myopia that market leaders are vulnerable to, blaming things on universal user behavior when it's actually their own poor design.
Ahh the great MySpace Skype Integration i remember linking my accounts up on MySpace before heading back to China, I lived in China for 2 years and the whole time the only Social Networking Site available was MySpace so of course i used it.

But i was in China, so i created many accounts and profiles under different names just so i could send messages to you +Tom Anderson and well other people on the site.

I use both Facebook, and Youtube and G+ and Twitter and MySpace as well as Badoo and Posterous and Tumblr and Yahoo and Gmail and Windows Live.

In my mind they all have benefits, different ways of sharing information, different ways of being able to connect with people you do know and people you may not normally "Hang" with but due to the wonders of the Internet, we can.

I for one like the idea of the Circles, as my experience on Facebook is not many people i know like it when i use the Group function.
definitely love Circles than FB Groups... I think I am one of those 5% who love to manage myself :) btw... I bet one day G+ will allow one to one video chat just like in Gmail... for the moment just use Gmail :)
Circles just seem more useful than groups to me. First of all, people have to join groups in Facebook (unless you're going to be rude and just include them in your group without asking). Circles are just an organizational structure on your end -- a distribution list. And people can choose whether or not to see your message.

It just seems like a much more granular way of doing things, and one that doesn't impose on your friends (or acquaintances or followers, for that matter).
I've been reading a lot of posts, and one thing has struck me. There seems to be only one way that comments are displayed and that is the original post plus the most recent comment. I'd really like to be able to order my comments in some other fashion. In particular, I'd like to be able to sort by +1. Then I would see the most liked comment(s) instead of just the most recent.
The Facebook model is better at combating abuse. Anyone think about what's coming up next for g+? The second wave of adopters is essentially going to be a giant swarm of professional marketing gurus, pr0n vendors, and teeth whitening spammers. Watch them arrive on this scene like a giant swarm of locusts. That is, if locusts were good at spamming the bejesus out of each other. Hehe.
does anyone else here love how surreal it is to be reading +Tom Anderson writing about +Mark Zuckerberg commenting on Google+ ?

I love this place :D
+Michael Duff - on FB to create a friend list it's 3 clicks - Friends > Manage Friends > Create New List. Then to add new friends to that list it's one-click on the add dialog. It's a bit less slick than Circles but I really don't think it's "so clumsy and hard to use", really.
+Ben Sizer That's only the first part of the problem. After you make a list, try using it. Try swapping between them, try sharing a status update or a post selectively. You'll get all the way into the custom share dialog before you realize it's impossible. You can share by adding individual people or blocking individual people, but your lists are nowhere to be found. What normal user is going to try typing the name of his list in the "specific people" dialog?
+Justin DeYoung amen, was just laughing about this myself
It's fairly easy to exclude a person from a post, but the only way I've found to include specific people is one at a time. Facebook doesn't let you include a specific list, even in the "Custom" field.
Has anyone here used Skype recently? If not, it is t e r r i b l e. Why are people so stoked about the integration of a feature that is dying on the vine?
first thing they have to do is..........remove fake profiles.........only keep those profiles which are registered with the mobile nos
Facebook is reacting not acting -.-" and why we can not see animated gifs on fb till now :/ doesn't do things quickly, this time his surprised by g+ -to push him to add the video calling
+Tom Anderson Thanks for the kind words. FYI, the only reason I have those stones is because Zuck and I go way back, even before I joined Mashable.
+Ben Parr haha nice. I liked the way you asked. It's a pet peeve of mine when journalist act as if the people they're writing about aren't people. Nice one Ben!
seems Zuck likes to answer like the CIA...very vaguely. I am part of several groups on FB, but I see them more like inclusive units whereas lists/circles are filtered content.

They're not innovating if a day after Google+ launches, they're beta testing video chat as 1:1. Innovation is ahead of the norm.
You think the boy'd put up a little better pic. I'm mean for a bazillionaire, you think he'd smile. But that might be a bit over the top. Oh, and maybe he's NOT HAPPY about Google+.
That was the main thing that stood out to me today in the FB announcement as utter BS: I don't know of a single person who uses and likes FB groups. The only thing I hear about it are complaints of being included against the users will. 750MM use it? Probably 749MM hate it as well. 
+Michael Duff "What normal user is going to try typing the name of his list in the "specific people" dialog?" The same people who know that you can enter specific people into the Circles dialog when all it shows are lists? ;) Of course, both G+ and FB can solve these problems with a trivial UI/UX fix, so I don't see this being the game-changer in any way.
+Ben Sizer It should be easy, right? Facebook should be able to steal Circles before Google can steal their users. How hard can it be to improve the Lists interface? The functionality is already there, they've just chosen to hide it behind a bad UI. That's how we'll know if Facebook is taking this threat seriously. A quiet little redesign that steals the Circles concept could defuse Google's hype and keep the risk-averse majority from leaving. Is Facebook smart enough to do that, or will they stick to this "people don't use lists" excuse and bet the farm on lame crap like video chat?
It seems to me that the internet could be becoming the auto-associative memory part of an emergent general AI, crouching somewhere on the horizon of our not too distant future; a self recursive semantic network analogous to Theory of Mind. G+ appears as a more efficient way of achieving this to me.
Last time I checked, Facebook doesn't innovate, they practically just take ideas that already work and implement them together. Facebook is just literally twitter and Myspace with a hint of Google.
So far, I'm digging Google+ Circles a heck of a lot more than Facebook Groups. Time will tell, but for me Circles is what I will use a lot more.
Maybe Facebook has 750 million users in the db, but... I really think more people uses Google than Facebook, and since Google+ is integrated with Google, many Google users can have Google+ with only one click. How many Google+ users they would get with that? :) Lots.
I heard that one of the biggest problems Facebook had working with MS/Skype was how to fill the code with the most bugs and how to come out with new versions to fix the bugs and add new bugs.
Chris B
I actually hope all the whiny little people stay over on Facebook, and keep G+ something of a productive social network that doesn't take itself to serious.
At the end of the post you talk about which technology with 'win'. I'd be interested in which metrics you define a 'win'.
Most popular? Most used? Most liked? How about most influential or most world changing?
Just wait till mighty Google integrates everything into a seamless SNS, that is perfect for teens to adults. Google approach is very good so far slowly but surely tweaking while the public waits. With all the products of Google, this is one good competition. Docs? Youtube? Sparks? Email? Cloud? Webapps? so much more from Google. Facebook?? As far as I know i can save lotsa pics hehe
Facebook currently has more leverage but Google+ has so much potential.
I mostly use groups on facebook because my friends list is filled with people i barely know and sharing publicly can be awkward. i still see a problem with groups, for example, if i add a group of people to a group on facebook and one person doesn't want to be apart of the group may find it a little rude to just leave. Similarly ignoring friend requests, I can't ignore a friend request from my neighbor.
I think Facebook should put its main focus on groups to improve the experience. Plus it's so laggy which is very annoying.
i honestly prefer circles but i think Facebook can do so much to improve groups.
I'm sorry but Facebook has had PLENTY of time to "innovate" and yet they fail to keep up to date. Video chat is optional and maybe video chat will be the reason why a user joins a certain social network in the first place but it won't impede the growth of a user base because if a user doesn't want to use that feature then they don't have to. The future is all about having options. Innovating is another way of saying "we've added some new (optional) features." Facebook should have added video chat years ago if they knew what they were doing.
I don't think the reason people didn't adopt lists in FB is because they were too lazy, but because it just isn't useful. It is a feature that is built for consumption. I can segment my friends to read their posts, but I can't post to those friends. And, they hide the navigation, requiring a number of clicks to get to any list of friends.
What a creep Smuckergerg !
Tom the problem that will really damage Facebook is the constant changes and all the broken/badly-programmed coding. The day all my friends are on Google+ or FaceRave will be the day I pull my plug on my Facebook account. The site has become a shadow of it's former self.
@ Tom maybe you should just build another social network, but make it better than the two of them ehh?
I would be really interested in seeing everyone commenting check in on this question every six months, like the Up documentary series ( +Tom Anderson has probably posted a zillion more times since - this is the first I've come across. He's going into the circles shortly.

Those of you who think Twitter is going away are committing two errors. 1) The future of social media is much too volatile to speculate that far into the future. 2) Twitter is incredible - and accomplishes a great deal that G+ & FB don't (at least not yet): accessibility to the otherwise inaccessible; breaking news in real-time from those experiencing it, anywhere in the world; the ability to observe reactions to phenomena on a macro level in real-time; a relatively simple, engaging system of conventions. Twitter may end up becoming obsolete, but there's no evidence to suggest that.

But perhaps I'm just thinking too short-term? Maybe,

I agree w/ what seems to be the majority of commenters that G+ is superior to FB, but in my case, my friends are entirely inactive here. You can have the best platform in the world, but without scale, you got nothing.

Time to see what other more recent posts there are, and how unnecessary this was.
I just think all this is all timing and that some social media sites like myspace had bad timing. I think that the reason facebook and twitter works now is mainly because of the simple clean text based post. Which really doesn't require as much bandwith and hardware. (Cost of online business). Myspace tried to integrate media rich content too fast too soon. I quit myspace for #1 reason, couldn't even log on. Probably because the servers were overloaded with all those users(with media rich content). Google doesn't have a problem with this mainly because they got enough funds to maintain the servers and expand more if needed. Think of youtube. In 10 years forget about commenting, typing or what not. What kind of social interaction will be out there? Think of integration of google goggles, youtube, and google plus. This will be social media on steriods, where you will stream what your doing right at this moment with the goggles or contacts with a push of a button. Hardware will be fast and small enough where you don't need access to a computer (I mean computers you think of today laptops). One button push start on your goggles to upload your daily activities to your accounts on youtube or google plus (instantanously).

And as far as video chatting is concerned. Technology of video chatting has been out for over 10 years.. I can say this because i'm korean. I'v seen video chat rooms with conference capibilities since the mighty days of aol. Not in the US, but in korea. Of course these websites based in korea are not accessible unless you have a korean citizenship. I couldn't access them either because i'm a US citizen, but i've seen many korean friends use them because many of them still maintained the korean citizenship. I think that because korea is a smaller country they are able to develop infrastracture at lower cost. LTE 4G is nothing new. It's been in korea for a while. Which is probably why smaller countries like korea are able to have video conference without many people without clogging the bandwidth. I don't think facebook is worth $100 billion unless they use much of the new found money to invest in new tech. Like google is doing. I think google is already looking at the future and they will won't let up anytime soon. Again facebook and twitter good right now because it doesn't clog up bandwidth right now. But in the future bandwidth will be less of a issue.
Add a comment...