Imagine having remote access, via a tablet or low-end desktop, to the most powerful desktop setup with automated software and security updates constantly being installed for you. Imagine having never to pay hundreds of dollars for the latest software, but rather being able subscribe to most of what you need for less than $10 per month, including an internet connection faster than most businesses. Think of it like paying for cable (when cable was affordable). For a set low price you get the basics. A base OS, with the software basics such as Microsoft Word, Powerpoint, Excel etc all pre-installed. Then imagine being able to add any other application that you needed for a mere few dollars a month. That is what OnLive Desktop has started to deliver upon.
Right now, OnLive runs Windows 7, which is surprisingly easy to use. I cannot imagine how much better the experience will be once Windows 8 launches.
The most amazing thing about it is the ability for you to truly run a full computing experience in the cloud, available from anywhere; tablet, smart-phone or a cheap, low-end netbook that would normally never be able to open large Powerpoint files or even think about running photo or video editing software.
It takes a mind-shift. One that is similar to the idea of 'renting access' to music via a subscription service similar to Spotify. Overall, the cost to the user drops considerably - while the demand for piracy is eliminated.
Once you try it, it truly is a mind-blowing experience. One that cannot help us question what the future of software will really be. If this is just the beginning, the current business model for creating and selling software could change dramatically. It could unseat today's software giants and completely eliminate the advantage of the hardware and software coupling that Apple holds so precious today. Perhaps that is why Apple has been so focused on the cloud lately.
The service, available to Android and Apple iOS users, brings a copy of the Windows 7 desktop interface to a user's tablet through the cloud. A free version brings with it 2GB of storage and access to most Windows applications including Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint. A premium version for $4.99 per month also offers access to other cloud-based storage services, as well as a fast web browser. Versions for the PC, Mac and TV are coming soon.
Google has often competed in markets it had no long term interest in participating in, just for the sake of drawing attention to or advancing a specific area for the overall benefit of search. That is not the case here. Personal data is sorely needed for search to evolve to the next level and deliver results that are more relevant to individual needs and interests. Google is late to the game and badly needs a social win.
When Facebook crept up and stole MySpace, it was still early. Facebook realized the value of real friends vs an endless accumulation of connections to folks you did not know. Much has happened within social platforms since. Geotagging, e-commerce, currency, gaming, the ability to follow strangers sans-permission, targetted advertising, predictive search and the beggining of what is now evolving towards advanced government regulatory intervention surrounding the often gray areas of privacy.
In other worlds the 'Beta' period for social is over. Folks on all sides have deep experience and opinions as to how the tools work along with expectations as to how they want to engage with them. The players involved have deep pockets and influence and one could argue that the features listed above are pretty much becoming the greens-fee - a commodities list easily replicated.
So, what matters most? The size and quality of community. Facebook is larger than most countries in population. In order for a citizen of any country to want to immigrate over to that of another, you need a combination of 'things are pretty bad at home', combined with 'have you seen what you can do over there?' in order to feel as if your life will be infinitely richer and better tied to your community in order to justify defection or the need to carry multiple passports.
While Google+ is growing quickly, it posseses none of these qualities. Certainly not in functionality after the latest Facebook developments, nor in quality of voice. Most active users are those of us in the industry talking to ourselves. A great tool for us, but as the general population comes on board I become embarrassed for having invited my friends after having heard too many of them tell me they 'don't get it', and that the conversations are not relevant to them. Now, while that may change, there is still not enough reason to immigrate and carry 2 passports. For most folks 1 is already too much to manage...let's not forget about LinkedIn or Twitter.
To my next point, who are you to be on Google+? As people, we naturally like to express the many different sides of our personality depending on where we are. From the langage we use, to the tone of our voices, work and play call for and bring out differenct sides of us. There are many other instances too; think about gaming and our creation of avatars, or our foray into finding the perfect mate amdist online dating communities. While circles was and still is a great concept allowing us to broadcast or speak to specific groups of people, I'll argue that it becomes very difficult to manage all the complex sides to our personalities meant for work and play within one community. Facebook has also now greatly enhanced, and copied, circles via it's own smart lists. Google+ forces us to generalize our own brand as we cannot easily separate our different personas.
Google has approached Google+ in the wrong way. It's gone top-down and sought to replicate and one-up the tools of current competitor communities. What it should do, is capitalize on what it has that the others do not have. Search data. If it could build a social graph reverse engineered to advance it's prime goal of organizing the world's information, we may just all get a personalized version of that information and have a better reason to join.
For a more detailed analysis and additional viewpoint read this post from Mathew Ingram at GigaOM.
With the rise of Google+ and your ability to sort your friends into as many categories (circles) as you would like, it's the ultimate privacy setting as you can elect who sees what on a post by post basis! How are Facebook and Twitter to compete? Of course you can already sort your friends inside of Facebook, but the usability of this feature is buried and involves a maddening process. Twitter does not have this feature at all! Not to mention that this type of activity is easily embarked upon at the start of building your network as opposed to having to go back and group hundreds of friends after-the-fact...who has the time for that?!
Enter Katango. Via Facebook connect, Facebook friends are automatically grouped based upon not just your relationship to them, but based upon all communications between linked friends - along with Katango's secret sauce. I was a sceptic at first, but I was amazed at the accuracy and 'magic' of how fast the application was able to group my friends. Facebook or Twitter simpy have to buy this company if the have any hopes of competing with the privacy and usability of Google+'s 'circles'.
In the early days, there is no shortage of conjecture. Remember how Facebook, Twitter and MySpace started? They were very different early on. Some say Google+ is more of a threat to Twitter than Facebook....and maybe Tumblr too. Given the power of the Google brand Google+ has had an astounding rate of adoption - but those that are joining are the early adopters, the media...the tech savvy...and believe it or not, Brands too.
This never happened at Facebook. Brands tip-toed in. Damned if they did, damned if they did not. With Google+ they have marched in the door from day 1 and Google is bending over backwards to make a place for them. It took both Facebook and Twitter forever (web-time) to make a plan for Brands. At it's core, Google's revenue stream is from Brand advertisers. Google has little interest in privacy and has always been an advocate of openness.
But you still need community - and lots of it. With 10MM users to date, Google is well on it's way and the influencers and news organizations whom have flooded this early on will draw the average consumer...who doesn't have a gmail account?!
Google+ also has the feature set that will appeal to Brands:
No 140 character post limit! Perfect for brands, with the type of engagement features that Twitter lacks.
Hangouts are also the perfect place for Brands to engage with members of the media and consumer influencers. The perfect focus group - a virtual test kitchen at practically no cost.
Not to mention Sparks, the perfect place for folks to list the things they like...and the perfect place for Google to serve up Brand related to our interests.
But Google+ is deafening. Not a place I feel like I want to collect my friends. Even the power of carefully curated circles cannot drown out the noise and focus the conversation. I'm exhausted already!
Google+ won't kill Twitter, nor will it kill Facebook or Tumblr, but it may just become the primary home for Brands, News Organizations and Publishers. The place to kickoff each press release and the definitive place to engage.
Are We Ready for the Era of .Anything?
