Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Hans de Kraker
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in Implications of a Google Social Network on Chris Brogan
Swiss Army knife works for some audiences. Not for all.
One of the big challenges I saw from the outset for Facebook is that it is not essential for business. Google is. Today more and more companies are starting to block Facebook and whilst there is some noise about their moves being conservative - you cannot expect an organisation with 10000 staff to give its staff free access to Facebook. They would waste most of the time -as most do on Facebook. It is interesting to entertain a 'professionalised' version as an Intranet (without all the Fun and Super-wall type time wasting applications), or leaving some of the business developers or strategists to spend time on Facebook - but other than that - you cannot afford it.
Google and Microsoft have the advangtage of having access to us every day of the week. We need Google for work - and hence Google - has a huge advantage over Facebook and others.
On top of that, Google is a user generated brand that has been around for 10 years and we tend to trust Google as that brand. Facebook has years of work ahead.
Facebook could possibly have paved the way for Google - or maybe Microsoft.
Google is already profitable - Facebook still aspires to become profitable. In their battle to do so they also need to continue to stay on the ball when it comes to Facebook. So much still needs to happen.
Google is slowly gaining ground on Microsoft and starting to eat into marketshare of other companies and industries as well, like telephone and energy. They can do this because of the strength of their brand.
I tend to agree with you Chris, there are many angles from which Google is interesting to users - and more essential ones then Facebook at this stage. Both Google and Microsoft cannot be beaten when it comes to essential functionality.
We can still do our work without Facebook or other Social Networks.
One of the big challenges I saw from the outset for Facebook is that it is not essential for business. Google is. Today more and more companies are starting to block Facebook and whilst there is some noise about their moves being conservative - you cannot expect an organisation with 10000 staff to give its staff free access to Facebook. They would waste most of the time -as most do on Facebook. It is interesting to entertain a 'professionalised' version as an Intranet (without all the Fun and Super-wall type time wasting applications), or leaving some of the business developers or strategists to spend time on Facebook - but other than that - you cannot afford it.
Google and Microsoft have the advangtage of having access to us every day of the week. We need Google for work - and hence Google - has a huge advantage over Facebook and others.
On top of that, Google is a user generated brand that has been around for 10 years and we tend to trust Google as that brand. Facebook has years of work ahead.
Facebook could possibly have paved the way for Google - or maybe Microsoft.
Google is already profitable - Facebook still aspires to become profitable. In their battle to do so they also need to continue to stay on the ball when it comes to Facebook. So much still needs to happen.
Google is slowly gaining ground on Microsoft and starting to eat into marketshare of other companies and industries as well, like telephone and energy. They can do this because of the strength of their brand.
I tend to agree with you Chris, there are many angles from which Google is interesting to users - and more essential ones then Facebook at this stage. Both Google and Microsoft cannot be beaten when it comes to essential functionality.
We can still do our work without Facebook or other Social Networks.
1 year ago
in Facebook’s Impact on the Widget Economy on AllFacebook
Hi Nick,
I am working on a strategic initiative that includes social startpage project and believe this has enormous potential. The social startpage will allow for Facebook essential info to be displayed- without interfering with work/productivity.
Cheers
Hans
Sydney, Australia
I am working on a strategic initiative that includes social startpage project and believe this has enormous potential. The social startpage will allow for Facebook essential info to be displayed- without interfering with work/productivity.
Cheers
Hans
Sydney, Australia
1 year ago
in Facebook vs. Linkedin - An unpopular opinion on Pravda on Media and Technology
Hi Kfir,
This is an interesting "cross-platform discussion" that occurs on Facebook on Linkedin (LinkedInnovators on Yahoo Groups) and outside these two on blogs like yours.
Interestingly enought Facebook has given birth to several Linkedin discussion groups - Linkedin does not offer the same option. Facebook allows users to create groups - without getting approval from Facebook management. One would wonder if the Linkedin 'group vetting team' would allow a facebook group to be registered on Linkedin.
I know that some C-level execs at big corporations (credit card company Visa for example)in Asia Pac prefer Facebook over Linkedin. They have even created their own Visa group. They have commented that Linkedin is 'pushy and not always practical' where Facebook suits them. They will probably never appear on Linkedin.
Some other C-level execs do not like Facebook for other reasons and will choose Linkedin as their way of participating in this new world of communication.
Until Facebook allows for all the functionality that Linkedin offers (recommendations etc), I agree that there is place for both I believe.
The issues you raise of not being able to export your contacts are again valid I believe and drawbacks of the system.
I suspect a majority of users will use both platforms, depending on the use they make of the platform.
Like you, I would not want to poke a business contact and may not want to share personal information with business contacts. At this stage there are no ways to determine the different level of access.
Linkedin has done great so far and so has Facebook- but in this world where yesterday is stale - they both will have to make sure it innovates and opens up and leave more up to the users and the community.
Cheers
Hans
Sydney-Australia
This is an interesting "cross-platform discussion" that occurs on Facebook on Linkedin (LinkedInnovators on Yahoo Groups) and outside these two on blogs like yours.
Interestingly enought Facebook has given birth to several Linkedin discussion groups - Linkedin does not offer the same option. Facebook allows users to create groups - without getting approval from Facebook management. One would wonder if the Linkedin 'group vetting team' would allow a facebook group to be registered on Linkedin.
I know that some C-level execs at big corporations (credit card company Visa for example)in Asia Pac prefer Facebook over Linkedin. They have even created their own Visa group. They have commented that Linkedin is 'pushy and not always practical' where Facebook suits them. They will probably never appear on Linkedin.
Some other C-level execs do not like Facebook for other reasons and will choose Linkedin as their way of participating in this new world of communication.
Until Facebook allows for all the functionality that Linkedin offers (recommendations etc), I agree that there is place for both I believe.
The issues you raise of not being able to export your contacts are again valid I believe and drawbacks of the system.
I suspect a majority of users will use both platforms, depending on the use they make of the platform.
Like you, I would not want to poke a business contact and may not want to share personal information with business contacts. At this stage there are no ways to determine the different level of access.
Linkedin has done great so far and so has Facebook- but in this world where yesterday is stale - they both will have to make sure it innovates and opens up and leave more up to the users and the community.
Cheers
Hans
Sydney-Australia
