A Pony For President - My 2 Cents on Google Search Plus Your World

My 2 Cents on Google Search Plus Your World - on my Tumblr 'A Pony For President'.

Just some thoughts on the antitrust debate surrounding Google's new personalised search feature.

"I’m definitely one that is a fan of competition, count me in for that, but I also run under the belief that corporations who have worked hard to gain their position as a leader should be able to leverage their position in the industry. Google have worked hard to maintain their position as the number one search engine, they’ve earned their spot not through sly tactical means, but for the pure fact that they have a better product.
I believe that claims for anti-competitive behaviour by not including Twitter and Facebook in personalised search results are unfair to Google."

The Social Factor

So, what is the social factor? The social factor is a collective term I like to use to describe a service or product that embraces active user engagement. User engagement not in the sense of poking and prodding said item physically, but personal engagement with a product and personal engagement between users. Thus, commenting and reviewing apps and music on iTunes can be coined as a product of the the social factor, communicating with Youtubers in a comment flame war is an element of the social factor and of course Twitter and Facebook among other social networks are examples of the social factor in its purest form - social networking.

The social realm has received a generous ignition recently, with the release of Google's own Google+ service as well as the revealing - not unveiling - of Microsoft's oddly named Socl service. It's a completely different landscape from not too long ago when the heavenly abode of social was occupied almost exclusively by Facebook and Twitter. Myspace was descending precipitously with the accolade of an also-ran.

Fast forward a few years, to now, and for the most part the social realm paints a fairly similar picture when looking at the colours of the raw hard numbers. Facebook dominates the social networking space with upwards of 800 million active users, and Twitter with a user base of more than 100 million still trumps that of a fast growing Google+. That's all not to mention actual user engagement, an aspect that Google+ has struggled to maintain following the pre-release hype.

Numbers don't count for everything though, and despite Facebook's considerable lead, Google+ isn't out of the game, and Microsoft Socl isn't dead on arrival. Far from it.

The term social networking is a particularly deceitful monicker given the image that most people have of what a social network is. To most people, a social network is simply what Facebook is - a platform for interacting with friends, and sharing content with friends. At that, Facebook's greatest value proposition isn't in the service itself, but the users that inhabit it. In such a business where the most effective way to get users, is to have users, anyone attempting to beat Facebook at its own games playing by the same rules will end up with a slap on the face and a disheartening, unsurprising disappointment.

Google+ and Microsoft Socl are both great platforms by their very own merits, they're not trying to be Facebook killers, and if they were, then they would quite literally be throwing an untrained army of 50 million against a heavily armed pack of 800 million. It's not possible. It will never work. It will never happen. Let's talk about Google+, and what this element of social plays for Google.

Jolie O'Dell of Venturebeat published a comprehensive article recounting Google's Bradley Horowitz's views on their very own 'social network', Google+. Initially, I assumed his general carefree aura on the, I wouldn't say failure, but perhaps under-performance, of Google+ could be none more than the typical cavalier executive talk. But, Horowitz revealed a vision for Google+ that not only negated my impulse expectations, but his trajectory for the Google+ was elegant and clever, bringing to light that the social factor has implications far beyond the superficiality of people interaction.

Google+ is all about an online identity, an online persona that we have - a virtual porting of our real selves. When you're able to put yourself into the products and services that you use, the seeming triviality of technology is put into perspective and given context. It transforms technologies that are passive, into an actively intricate emulation of our real social communications and inner selves. Essentially, even if social interactions form the core of what constitutes social networking and the social factor, it's greater purpose is to make technology that much more personal.

You see, it's basic human nature that we hold much more sentimental value to the things that are closest to our hearts. For most non-cyborg human beings, the 'things' that we are most emotionally attached to are the people around us, our friends, our family, our boyfriends, our girlfriends. Sure I'd cry if I dropped my phone off the balcony but I'd cry a heck of a lot harder if my mom died. I have a mate who was driving himself half bonkers because he misplaced a pen his girlfriend had given him despite that fact that there were many smoother and inkier pens lying around.

Taking into account this hierarchy of sentimental importance, it makes sense to integrate our personal lives into our products because it allows for a much greater degree of emotional attachment - a sly, but clever tactic to keep consumers loyal.

Microsoft Socl in many ways aims to pursue this same vision of a more personal technology, however aims to add more practical benefits to this.

I, as many are am a little spacey on the tid-bits and details of Microsoft's 'maybe not even coming into market' social network, after all, the only half-decent look we've had at it was when The Verge was granted some much appreciated hands on time. The interface design is fairly standard, calling upon the three column layout shared by Facebook and Google+. And Microsoft were not very creative with the colour scheme either with an eerily similar blue to that of Facebook's, though with a slightly lighter and perhaps more pleasant tinge.

A stand out feature though was something dubbed 'social search'. No, it's far from a revelation, but it shows what social is capable of, and why social is so important to completing a product ecosystem. Social search simply allows your friends to see the queries that you throw at search engines, with the hope that they'll be able to chip in too.

As experience should teach us, it's much easier to extract information out of knowledgeable humans than a knowledgeable website. Hence why we have teachers in classrooms as opposed to a Google homepage. With social search, a Microsoft Bing search has potential to provide better results than a Google search.

What's more, for Microsoft, social search finally allows them to put that tortured little Bing to good use, and as a moral boost, Microsoft can finally start telling people that their foray into search wasn't completely absent of fruits. Microsoft have reiterated that search is an important field that they needed to be involved in, and social search certainly does give it something to show for - a fully integrated Microsoft experience. Without Google. And social search gives Microsoft's Bing a reason to be, because currently, aside from the flashy backdrop of good photography - which, let's be honest is only remotely interesting for those who don't know what they're searching for before they arrive at Bing - Google's a better bet anyway.

The social factor is inarguably invaluable in providing a good ecosystem. Apple tried and failed with iTunes Ping, which demonstrates that even Apple is aware of the capabilities that the emotional and personal attachments of social can have on a consumer.

Aside from providing an online identity as Google+ aims to provide, Google+ unifies Google's too-many-laned highway of products into a flowing single vertical. By having a basic identity tied into all that Google provides, it allows the consumer to act as an umbrella over all the Google services they use and leaves them less chance to drop one, forgotten in the rain. It gives the user more control. Furthermore, Socl social search exemplifies the single greatest thing about the social factor by allowing a company to tap into their single greatest asset - the users themselves. 

Sly social

Facebook's F8 event event and it's subsequent announcements marked a major turning point in social media. Mark Zuckerberg announced a slew of new features at the event which all put hands into one resounding theme - sharing. Netflix and Spotify integration are all about sharing our media and content, the new Facebook timeline is all about sharing our past, the new profile 'cover photo' is all about sharing a bit of who we are and new application permissions make it easier for third party apps to share some little things about ourselves. But what is it with Facebook's plain obsession with making us users share as much of our lives as possible, and why do we so contently oblige to such seemingly unhealthy amounts of transparency?

Myspace, before the rise of Facebook was insanely popular simply because it allowed us to take full control of our image on the internet. People didn't spend the time pimping up the Myspace profiles and adding the auto-playing song onto their page because it was fun, it was because it would contribute to the way that they wanted their friends to see them. Our Myspace spoke a lot about our character, and through the way we're inescapably wired, getting ourselves out there is very important to us. Ironically, social is a predominantly solipsistic medium that is driven almost purely by our self-obsession. As users, we are so blindly content with sharing every aspect of our social lives on Facebook because we feel the need to inform others of the kind of person we are because hey, we're important. Why do we people bother checking into places? We do it because its important that our friends know that we're not a hopeless low-life who leaves the house less than the trash can - and perhaps checking in at a library will help us build our character as an intellectual or checking in at a football stadium will help us build our character as 'the sports fanatic'.

Facebook is taking all the steps to make sure they foster and provide for this growing online culture of self-obsession; they're adding the features to make sharing and individualistic behaviour that much easier.  The announcement that apps will only be required to ask once before posting activities to our walls breaks down that fence that has so long separated the virtual technological world to the real organic world that we live in.

Let's take this fictitious, though entirely plausible scenario for an example - perhaps we're going for a run and there's an app on our smartphone that tracks and monitors our run with contextual metadata like calories burnt, distance and speed. This app connects to our Facebook and allows us to post this information on our walls to share with our friends. In the past, this would require a prompt in which the app asks us permission to do this, but now it only has to ask once, the very first time. Essentially, the things that happen in the real world become immediately synchronised with the virtual word of Facebook, in a sense making the service a deeply connected attachment to ourselves. Facebook now becomes a parallel and always up-to-date technological porting of our lives.

So, what's the significance of Facebook's timeline feature? The timeline feature simply augments and manifests upon the idea of 'the Facebook second life', because when utilised to its absolute fullest the timeline becomes practically our life story. We're currently living in an age where it's not ridiculous for a new-born baby to have a Facebook profile. Naturally, Mark Zuckerberg encourages this, particularly with the release of the new 'expected child' feature. However, it's not solely because Mark Zuckerberg wants to endlessly increase Facebook's user base, but it's because he wants to connect with the user base. He wants Facebook to connect to the user base in such a manner that deleting a Facebook profile would be almost equivalent to semi-suicide. By unethically, albeit cleverly taking advantage of clueless new-borns, Facebook is hoping to inaugurate a generation of Facebook users who will have timelines that really do begin with their lives. Imagine growing up as one of these infants and trying to delete your Facebook profile in 15 years time - an archive of your life story that you've had with you since the day you were born? Yes, it is semi-suicide.

By cleverly leveraging upon the idea of user self-obsession, Zuckerberg will have locked us users into his service in such a deep personal way that we can't ever quit. And what better time to force the loyalty of users than now, a time when Google+ appears genuinely threatening.

Sure, it's easy to say I won't get hooked on Facebook and I won't get trapped, but the simple fact is that most of us already are. How many of you could quickly and easily delete your Facebook profile and tell yourself honestly that this decision will be entirely regret-free? It's time to just stop and have a look at the direction Zuckerberg is leading us in social media, we can't allow ourselves to be turned into mindless zombies for transparency living an inescapable second life that we never even asked for.

Second nature technologies for first class experiences.

By many, and notoriously for senior citizens, gadgets and tech has always been an area where years of experience and accumulated knowledge can sum up to practically zilch. What seems so obvious and almost natural for us late 80s to 90s generation sends senior heads whirling. How do I zoom in on this 'page'? What's this little scroll ball on the 'mouse'? And how do I get anything done? Basically, it's just a demoralising blankness once confronted by the display of a device. However to what will be the relief of many, technology is adapting in a way that is arguably more monumental than any other previous transformation, yet one we're hardly noticing.

What is it that makes a well designed tablet with a refined operating system an absolute joy to use? Of course it's portable and just, you know...fun, for want of a better word. But when we think about it, the pleasure of a tablet goes so much further than the initial novelty of a large touch screen. It's one of those things that affects us in the deepest but most subtle of manners. Put simply, tablets appeal to an instinctual need to connect and communicate directly with a device. When we touch or swipe, the effect of the action is instant and it feels natural. A PC plays second fiddle when compared to a touchy feely tab because it requires the mouse or keyboard as a middleman between us and our content. Example? When we zoom in on a PC we go Ctrl +, but when we zoom on a tablet, we physically touch our content and pinch our fingers and stretch, just like we would with items in the real world.

So essentially, the pleasure of a tablet lies in the simple fact that it's a product with a dangerously shallow learning curve. Why? How? It's all a simulation of the natural world we live in which we've all adapted to - swiping to scroll is a simulation of, well, the physics of nature and pinch to zoom does the same. Technologies like this don't require extensive manuals because heck, the skills required to use the product have been with us since the day we were born, they are the roots of our instincts. By allowing direct interaction, tablets bring us closer to our technology and content and thus breaking down the limiting technological wall. No wonder granny can use your iPad.

This 'instinct' factor is having applications all over the spectrum of technology, from computer OS's to social media. I was one of the first million to download Mac OS Lion on its day of launch, and by experiencing the simplicity of multi-touch gestures at first all I could muster was 'this is awesome!' Simon Sinek pointed out in his presentation regarding his Golden Circle model that our emotions and feelings are controlled by a completely different section of our brain than the one that controls rationality and language. That was the feeling I got when using Lion - it felt great, but aside from the joy of the swift motions of the multi-touch gestures I couldn't quite lay a finger on why, and all I could muster was 'this is awesome'. By appealing to natural humanly desires instead of the superficial elements of features and spec, Apple created a deeply pleasing experience, with what seemed like very little effort. 

In social media, Google+ has succeeded in creating a social networking service that emulates your real social life. The circles concept builds upon how our social life operates in our minds - we unwittingly create categories in which we organise certain friends and their importance to us. But only we're allowed to know. Google+ allows us to place these thoughts and inadvertent categorisations in a tangible form, thus realistically porting not only our friends, but the inner sanctum of our social lives onto the net. And in front page news on The Huffington Post, Randi Zuckerberg (marketing director, Facebook) stated 'anonymity on the internet has to go away'. Despite the context of her statement being in limiting cyber-bullying, anonymity online lends nothing to the growing trend of the 'instinct' factor. Nobody walks around behind closed doors, it's impossible to go out in public as an unidentifiable block of pixels, so why should it be on the internet? Google+ doesn't allow anonymity, not even fake profiles. 

I think we are at a certain cutting point in history, where we can demarcate the disparate separation between antiquated and somewhat complicated technologies and the current 'direct interaction' type of technology. We, currently, are the ones who have witnessed this change where traditionally buying a program or device means going through a lengthy set up process before 'excitedly' jumping onto the manual, up to now, where the status quo is quickly becoming installing a program through an efficient and hassle-free download process and learning the program or device through quick experimentation and prodding. Ironically, as it happens, the rate at which technology has progressed and become increasingly more complex on the inside has made technology easier on the outside. In five years time perhaps we will look at the tower desktop PC, or even a sleek all in one and award it the ignominy of the piece of gadgetry that a newbie can't just pick up and use. 

Doesn't it simply feel right when we can use technologies that are physically realistic, that respond the way we expect, behave the way expect and also act the way we act? I sure think so, and it's where the world is heading, definitely for the better. By creating technologies that are simply second nature, that understand, how we, as humans are programmed to behave not only makes technology more accessible to a wider range of differing user demographics but also creates a 'magical' first class user experience. 

Facebook - Stop changing, start improving

For most of us, using Facebook and logging onto Facebook whenever, wherever we go is almost second nature. In essence, Facebook is a second life. Everyone has a different use case for Facebook, but I think I can safely say that Facebook's core appeal lies in the ability to share sentiments, have group discussions and contact friends. Having said that, a certain frustration with Facebook has grown on me in the past month that I haven't quite been able to pinpoint. But the launch of Google+ has helped to bring light to the cause: Facebook stopped innovating and started changing.

I'm the kind of guy that embraces change. I believe it's safe for me to say that I'm an early adopter of new technology, I love the excitement. What Facebook is doing isn't change for the better, but change for the sake of it, and nobody likes alterations in things they're accustomed to when it doesn't bring anything of notable value to the table. The first time that a so called improvement really bugged me was when Facebook decided to combine arbitrary matters like my friends 'likes' with the all-important status updates and wallposts in the news feeds. The term 'news feeds' immediately became redundant because it was no longer a stream of my friends connections but a water slide of spam and junk. Scavenging for the social  networking aspects amidst all of the 'likes' was parallel to finding a needle in a haystack. Little did I know, this very event augured a landslide of alterations and tweakings in Facebook of use to bloody no one. Suddenly, a glance at the Facebook interface doesn't quite give you a clear picture as to what the service is. Underneath all of the scum, 'social' seems to have become an afterthought. 

The simple fact is nobody really cares what pages someone likes, and I don't personally care who changes their profile pictures or who becomes friends with who. I admit, some of the like pages are pretty funny, but there's the burning question of why. Why do we have these like pages? We get a brief laugh, and then when we realise that we can relate them to our life we give them a like, and then someone else sees that we liked it and then they like it. It's a cyclical process with no higher destination. The only person that wins is the page owner who gets the satisfaction of seeing his stats fly. Personally, I don't like these 'like' pages anymore because I know that the only cause I'll be serving is spamming someone else's news feeds, and nobody wants that. Sure, I can hit 'top news' and filter my news feeds to a collection of popular statuses and wall posts, but it doesn't provide me with recent content, just popular content. Why won't Facebook just give us a function that allows us to filter out the spam? Why won't Facebook fulfil the desires of people like me, who want to use Facebook for what it was meant to be - sharing with friends instead of inadvertently sharing junk. 

This Facebook rant wouldn't be complete without the glaring topic of the dislike button. The haunting dream of every single user, that Facebook simply refuses to acknowledge. Why? Because they don't have to. There could be issues of cyber-bullying revolving around disliking, but really, what has this world turned to? Expressing disapproval for a topic, thought or event is not hurtful or harrassing, and if you think it is, then you shouldn't be on Facebook because swear words which run rampant in 'like' pages and comments are far worse than simply saying no. By not providing users with a dislike button, Facebook are breeding a culture where its expected to simply say yes and accept, and they're closing the door on another means of expressing ourselves which is the central point of what a social network is meant to be. 

Facebook's behaviour seems like a public but subtle display of arrogance. Facebook knows that we are trapped in their service because in social we can only go where our friends go. I get the feeling that we, the users are nothing more than just subjects for experimentation, Facebook makes a change and they observe how we react. But we're ultimately powerless. The users want a new feature, but Facebook doesn't deliver because heck, they don't have to. We have no viable alternatives to shift to, and if there were alternatives it would take monumental leadership to move a whole friendship community to an entirely new service. 

Even Gizmodo knows that the new chat is a complete abomination

To throw oxygen into the Facebook conflagration, the new excuse for 'chat' is an absolute nightmare. There's an old saying that you've undoubtedly heard that goes by the way of 'don't fix it if it ain't broke'. This generally ideology is against progression, so in most cases I vehemently dismiss it but Facebook could learn a thing or two. For those of you lucky enough to not have been downgraded to the new chat, I envy you, but for those of you who have, we share our hatred. The new chat sidebar, is a sidebar that remains on the right of your screen permanently, unless you care to make the extra two clicks to make it go away. It's not like the old chat, where you click to bring it up, and clicking away minimises it once again. The remaining presence of the new chat is obnoxious, and gives the whole interface a disturbingly asymmetrical feel. Not only that, but the list is no longer scrollable. Meaning that it only has the ability to show a finite number of online friends which is ultimately decided by the pixel density of your display. For anyone else you want to talk to that doesn't fit on the list, you must search them. What an absolute affront! Does Facebook really believe that we go into Facebook with intention? When I log onto Facebook, I just log on. I don't list intentions and goals beforehand - hmm, today I'm going to log onto Facebook so I can talk to blah-blah and message blah-blah and tag blah-blah in a photo. No, nobody does that. I use the chat box to see who's online and decide who I want to chat with based on who I see online. It's a matter of spontaneity, and by forcing us to methodically search potential chat companions is a gross removal of the whole impromptu factor of social altogether, which is an integral element.

Finally, there are the little tweaks too, that aren't necessarily game-changingly bad but vitiate needlessly the experience and familiarity users have with the interface. The more salient of such offences was when Facebook decided to make the font of the whole interface just a hair smaller. I thought there was some issue with my display resolution or the zoom of the webpage but it was just Facebook, being, well, Facebook. We've all adapted to the font size now but the change was never necessary in the first place and hasn't added anything to the service. It's a perfect example of the restless engineer bored of seeing stats fly.

If Google+ is here to prove anything, then it's the fact that Facebook is doing it all wrong. They're spamming our news feeds, annoying the users and just not being social enough. Let's hope that Google+ will act as an impetus for improvement for Facebook, because these last two years have just been one major digression, changing this and changing that to create the illusion of progress and improvement where we're really not moving anywhere. All I'm requesting of Facebook isn't anything new, more importantly, it's back to the old.