Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Google's Schmidt: Google+ Unfairly Compared to Facebook

By - Source: TechRadar | B 25 comments

Facebook had 12 years to get to its current state. Google+ has only been open for twelve months at the most.

During Google's Big Tent event taking place just outside London, executive chairman Eric Schmidt said that Google+ is unfairly compared to Facebook. The comment was made after he was pressed about the social network's perceived lack of success when compared to the older rival.

On Wednesday Schmidt reportedly went into defensive mode during the interview. He promised that more was to come from Google+ despite rumors claiming that the site has become a "ghost town" even though the total user base states otherwise.

"What I like is that these rumors create a target from internals [internal figures] we don't have, comparing us to a competitor that is exceedingly well managed, well-run and is 12 years old," he stated.

As Schmidt pointed out, Facebook has had twelve years to evolve. Expecting Google+ to come out of the oven and have immediate success against the elder, more experienced competitor is simply unfair.

"If Google is as successful with Google+ in less than the 12 years Facebook has been around, we'll be very happy with that," he said. "The fact of the matter is that maybe Google is one of those companies where we can't really grow [things] any more – we have to start huge."

The reality of it all, he said, is that the company's Google+ efforts started within the last six to twelve months. So far Google's social website has obtained more than 150 million users, which isn't too shabby considering its age.

"Google+ is doing better than I expected given the competitors in the market and the success [of Facebook]. Do I think it's a success? Absolutely. Absolutely," he added.

Schmidt naturally didn't divulge any information about what's coming up next for Google+ in the feature department, only that Hangouts appears to be the current breakout product. Users will likely see more Google+ integration into other Google services that "make sense," and move Google+ beyond the base social networking structure.

"From our perspective, there's value in creating that social graph, independent of whether Google+ is an end user success, which we obviously want," he said. "Don't you think that YouTube will be better if we have information on who your friends are, targeting videos for you? Don't you think that with Google Search - again I must stress with your permission - that Google will do a better job [if it knows] who you are and what you care about?"

"It [will make] Google more effective," he concluded. "We're already beginning to see that in our core business."

Display 25 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 4 Hide
    del35 , May 24, 2012 10:42 AM
    Facebook is spyonyoutown. At least G+ is more respectful of users privacy for now.
  • 9 Hide
    hardcore_gamer , May 24, 2012 10:49 AM
    del35Facebook is spyonyoutown. At least G+ is more respectful of users privacy for now.


    That's because there is not enough users for profitable data-mining.
  • -7 Hide
    DjEaZy , May 24, 2012 10:54 AM
    Google's Schmidt: ''Google+ Unfairly Compared to Facebook'' or ''weeeeeee, my p#$$y hurts...!!!''
  • -4 Hide
    john_4 , May 24, 2012 12:00 PM
    Google's secret dealings with the NSA/FEDS just like Microsoft and probably Apple too. Don't trust any of these companies if you want to have anything that they cannot see. Long live Linux.
  • -2 Hide
    john_4 , May 24, 2012 12:01 PM
    Eric Schmidt is a leftist, aka Fascist lover among the leftist, don't trust Google.
  • 9 Hide
    skyline100 , May 24, 2012 12:09 PM
    del35Facebook is spyonyoutown. At least G+ is more respectful of users privacy for now.


    I believe both the social website is spying on you, just in different ways.
  • 0 Hide
    atdhe , May 24, 2012 1:27 PM
    Why 12 years for Facebook? It launched in 2004.
  • 5 Hide
    supall , May 24, 2012 1:33 PM
    john_4Google's secret dealings with the NSA/FEDS just like Microsoft and probably Apple too. Don't trust any of these companies if you want to have anything that they cannot see. Long live Linux.


    What does Linux have to do with how your interact with social sites on the net? Or even do Search Queries?
  • 3 Hide
    jhansonxi , May 24, 2012 2:24 PM
    supallWhat does Linux have to do with how your interact with social sites on the net? Or even do Search Queries?
    I think john_4 was making an anti-cloud statement.
  • 2 Hide
    zak_mckraken , May 24, 2012 2:32 PM
    jhansonxiI think john_4 was making an anti-cloud statement.

    Or even anti-internet statement. Because, let's face it, if you surf the web, you're bound to stumble upon and be exposed to one of the "evil" companies.
  • 0 Hide
    zak_mckraken , May 24, 2012 2:44 PM
    I think Eric is right when saying it's unfair to compare Google+ to the behemot that is Facebook. However, I'm not so sure that will ever be able to compete with it. The problem is not in the offering, I think Google+ has strong features and integration to numerous tools. But in this domain, the user base is all it counts.

    I think the ace in the pocket of Google will be to be able to import a complete Facebook profile in Google+ : pictures, videos, contacts, posts, history, etc. Maybe then would people be willing to do the switch, providing contacts of them would do the same too.
  • -3 Hide
    john_4 , May 24, 2012 2:51 PM
    supallWhat does Linux have to do with how your interact with social sites on the net? Or even do Search Queries?

    Linux does not have built in back doors to your OS.
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , May 24, 2012 4:30 PM
    I use Google products independent of what others do: Gmail is useful even if my friends are not on it. Same with search, Docs, Chrome, Android, etc. If G+ ties them together somehow, even better. Yet the ONLY reason to use FB is because everyone is on it, if they're gone, no value. Maybe that won't change, but I'd be a little nervous if I was a FB exec knowing my only value was simply being the most popular at the moment.
  • 1 Hide
    cookoy , May 24, 2012 5:08 PM
    if you want to take the crown, you have to be compared to the current top dog. If you can't measure up to the champ, then you can't take his crown.
  • 0 Hide
    blazorthon , May 24, 2012 5:49 PM
    cookoyif you want to take the crown, you have to be compared to the current top dog. If you can't measure up to the champ, then you can't take his crown.


    They aren't after the crown at this time. You don't compare the prince to the king to say that the king is better.
  • 1 Hide
    hannibal , May 24, 2012 6:00 PM
    Hmmm two different things... Quality and popularity.
    G+ has is good points, but FB is much more popular, because it is more popular. It does not help out talkin FB advantage.
    There are many examples where inferior product has won the competition in AV and computer technology, so it does not help to make just better product. There has to be something more, or the product has to be much, much better and G+ is not there yeat.
    People use face book to look for old friends and to interact with their friends. It does not need very super duper system to do it. Only that all people you need to achieve are there and FB-is allmost in there in that matter. Very much like WOW vs other online rpgs. Nearly indentical product is not enough, and too different don't even get a chance.
  • 0 Hide
    frankbough , May 24, 2012 8:22 PM
    atdheWhy 12 years for Facebook? It launched in 2004.


    I like the way only one person has noticed this so far...
  • 0 Hide
    blazorthon , May 24, 2012 8:24 PM
    frankboughI like the way only one person has noticed this so far...


    It launched publicly back then, but it was around for 12 years. You should read up on the history of Facebook if you want more information.
  • 0 Hide
    frankbough , May 24, 2012 8:49 PM
    blazorthonIt launched publicly back then, but it was around for 12 years. You should read up on the history of Facebook if you want more information.


    Zuckerberg began to write Facebook in January 2004. He didn't even go to Harvard until September 2002.

    Which website are you talking about, then?
  • 0 Hide
    blazorthon , May 24, 2012 9:04 PM
    frankboughZuckerberg began to write Facebook in January 2004. He didn't even go to Harvard until September 2002. Which website are you talking about, then?


    Actually, that's only when it was founded as a company. It was being worked on well before 2004.
Display more comments
Tom’s guide in the world
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Ireland
  • UK
Follow Tom’s guide
Subscribe to our newsletter