Tattertech Blog

While it’s quite possible I missed some bit of information somewhere along the line (of what little information is publicly available so far), I’m pretty sure Google has yet again announced an interesting “feature” (they don’t have products after all) that has no clear monetization.

Google does really well in Search. Google dominates Search. There’s no question there at least for the moment (one can remember a time there was no question for Yahoo). Problem is no one can list anything else they do really well in.

I use GMail every day. In fact, despite being on AIM, I keep GMail open just to talk to people on that. I love iGoogle, it’s my homepage for a reason. And yet, how much money do they make off of those? Sure, GMail contextualizes my e-mails (a little creepy), but if I have it open, I’m rarely paying attention to what’s in that little bar. I only look at the window when a new e-mail comes or someone messages me.

And this is what Google does. They have great ideas, but they lack people that have vision to monetize them. Google Docs is great, but there’s no money from that. Other than random speculation about things, what’s different about OpenSocial so far? Is Google going to capture data going through OpenSocial and use it to boost CTRs and CVRs for their ad offerings? Are they going to tag in Ads along with OpenSocial ads and expect developers to not care? As much as I love the concept (especially as I’m working on starting up some social based ventures), I’m missing what Google is getting out of it.

I can only wonder how long before investors and others start wondering about the same thing. They have one product that does fantastic now, but is starting to get a lot of flak. They seem to have no other significant “outs” at the moment (poker term there). As cool as this is, I’m missing Google’s real play here - as I am every other “feature” they come up with.

I was going through a stack of old magazines today, and I got to a recent Time.  The closing article was a humorous take on social networking sites (here).    While the article was written in a fairly light-hearted manner, it touched on something I’ve been talking about with some people for a while now.

Today’s social networks (such as Facebook, MySpace, etc) are fairly immature examples of what social networking could be.  There’s no real deep group aspect to most social networking sites, rather as the article hammers home, they’re simply ways to promote one’s self.   Sure, there’s some group stuff on Facebook that simulates a forum with some extra features, but the primary focus is the profile page.  I’ll admit that the feed does help to create a social atmosphere, but ultimately it’s just a way to draw you into everyone else’s profile pages.

My theory (and I know it’s not just mine) is that social networks will evolve into more collaborative affairs.  I suspect we’ll eventually see networks where the profile page is minimalist or at least ancillary.  The interaction between users will be the key focal point - not just a list of friends and favorite movies.   I think as people start becoming more comfortable with relationships online and see online interaction as somewhat meaningful, this kind of group focus will become possible and more popular.  Or maybe people really do only want to show off themselves.