Does It Matter If Facebook 'Beats' Google+?
Here is a fascinating article written by Jolie O'Dell of VentureBeat. In the article she take s along look at Google+ which over the past few months went from social media darling to everyone's favorite whipping post. O'Dell puts things into perspective when she says Google is all about "compiling the best, most actionable data about consumers to sell to advertisers." And to that end, she says Google will accomplish that "not by orchestrating a Great Migration of users from one social network to another, but by subtly linking all your Google-powered online activity and profiles so advertisers can see a more complete picture of you than Facebook could ever offer."
In essence, she sums, "Plus isn't a social network; it's Google's new way of getting you to use all its web products."
I've been one of Google+'s detractors. So much so that I said it wouldn't be around a year from now. And I'm not alone. But that doesn't seem to bother Google's Bradley Horowitz who told O'Dell, "Nothing I say is going to impact the immense curiosity about our products and the rampant speculation about our imminent success or failure. And that's ok. We have a clear inner compass and long view."
So does it matter that Google+ "beats" Facebook? Or is it more important it adhere to its own Google-defined road-map to success? Everyone loves a good train wreck and, perhaps, that's what we're all looking for when it comes to Google+. But perhaps we should reconsider our need to rubber neck the demise of Google+. Perhaps we should allow it to succeed on its own terms. Heck, Chis Brogan just wrote a book about Google+ so it can't fail, right?
What are you thoughts? Does it matter if Facebook "beats" Google+? Is it more important Google focus on, as it says, using Google+ to better its entire offering? Can we actually drive by without rubber necking in hopes we catch a glimpse of blood?