14 Comments

Summary:

Google this morning confirmed what had already been widely reported — that it has bought Slide, the social application maker. Google’s blog post on the matter is incredibly vague as to what Slide will actually be doing for Google, but let’s read the tea leaves.

Image (1) superbulbsimage1.jpg for post 72519

Google this morning confirmed what had already been widely reported — that it has bought Slide, the social application maker. (In fact, it’s already been reported who made what from the $182 million sale, with an additional $46 million paid in retention bonuses.)

Google’s blog post on the matter, written by engineering director David Glazer, is incredibly vague as to what Slide will actually be doing for Google. He’s starting to say some of the right words, but we’re going to need to see some product to see if Google really gets it. Meanwhile, Slide founder and CEO Max Levchin (who’s famous for founding PayPal), writes that he’s “thrilled” to join Google to help build “new, open and better ways for users to connect with others.”

Slide founder and CEO Max Levchin

Though Slide had fallen behind the pack on social gaming, payments and virtual goods after its early success as a MySpace slideshow widget and a Facebook application maker, the basic idea behind the acquisition is to help make Google social. Om has argued that Google is fundamentally unable to “get” the social web because its background is in engineering, not empathy. I don’t fully buy that argument — it’s not like the kids at Facebook are Mother Teresa, and further, Mark Zuckerberg is an engineer too — but I do think that Google will have to change its mindset to succeed with social.

The issue of Google and social is probably the No. 1 topic of intrigue in Silicon Valley right now, with management appointmentsproduct leaks and side comments being avidly dissected by press and techies alike. So here’s my take:

The main reason Google is having trouble competing with Facebook is because the latter has a six-year head start. Facebook has by far the biggest social product, and it’s defined the category through its product releases. But Facebook is, by design, fundamentally boring, and that’s largely why it hasn’t gone the way of trendy sites like MySpace and Friendster. The company has succeeded by encouraging its users and developers to make the site interesting through contributing their own creations, like baby pictures and mafia games.

Facebook’s main contributions to its success are keeping the lights on (which is no small feat; look at MySpace and Friendster) and figuring out ways to induce its users to share more and spread the site further. For instance, one of the most significant things Facebook has done was to internationalize by inviting users to translate the site. It’s an incredibly successful example of crowdsourcing. That simple act of empowerment and letting go is what “getting social” is really about. Yes, Google needs a culture shift, but it’s more about learning to rely less on algorithms and more on users themselves.

Anyway, enough punditry, let’s get back to Slide — which, it should be said, made its investors their money back but failed to live up to lofty expectations, in part because it picked the wrong battles by trying to follow trends and drastically changing its strategy on a regular basis. Slide is not like Facebook; in fact, it’s the opposite of Facebook, one of those developers that makes Facebook’s platform fun, if things like SuperPoke are your idea of fun.

Google engineering director David Glazer

Glazer, a long-time champion of social within Google, did give some insight into how the company sees the social situation in his blog post announcing the Slide acquisition. Glazer says a lot of the right stuff, including the key line: “the web is about people.” He talks up the possibility of using social and personal information in “open, transparent and interesting (and fun!) ways.”

With regard to Slide specifically, Glazer calls out Slide’s history of connecting users across multiple platforms and its potential to help Google’s ongoing efforts to make its products “more socially aware” and do so “across the web.” Lastly, he tries out a new motto on us: “We can’t wait to work together to give people more and better tools to communicate and connect.” (That’s a bit different from Google’s official mission — “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”)

The recurring theme from both Glazer and Levchin is that Slide works on a lot of different platforms — not just Facebook, but MySpace, hi5, Bebo, Orkut and Friendster. That’s somewhat in line with Google’s furthest-along work on social, which is around helping establish open social web standards that work behind the scenes to make social data compatible and accessible. And of course, a more open approach is how Google successfully took on the iPhone juggernaut with Android. Indeed, “openness” may well be Google’s biggest weapon versus Facebook, but that word means far too many different things, most of them far too wonky. The real key will be serving users better through a more open approach — and convincing them that’s what they want.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

Why Google Should Fear the Social Web

Please see the disclosure about Facebook in my bio.

  1. Will Slide Sheep live to see another day, another month or another year!

    For me Google Play Catch Up Again! They need to invent and blaze, not buy and die !

    You opinion!

    Link

  2. Great analogy regarding how Google approached their competition with the I-phone and how they may employ this strategy with their social strategy.

    I am curious as to whether these are truly different ideas:
    “We can’t wait to work together to give people more and better tools to communicate and connect.” – David Glazer
    vs.
    “We want to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” – Google Official Mission

    The words are different, but the core seems the same.

    1. I think they are different. One is about tools to enable the creation of new content; the other is about access to information after it already exists.

  3. Integration with other networks is the theme.
    If buzz integrated nicely and deeply with facebook, I could have used it more.
    The network is already on facebook ,the only thing google can do is try to make people stick to their UI so that the time spent on web still is on google properties.

  4. Liz wrote: Google needs a culture shift, but it’s more about learning to rely less on algorithms and more on users themselves.

    Actually, a substantial part of Google’s translation engine is build on crowdsourcing, meaning translation already done by humans. That is how the Google machine learns and that is why it is such a powerful tool, learning from humans and getting more powerful / accurate all the time.

    Liz wrote: Lastly, he tries out a new motto on us: “We can’t wait to work together to give people more and better tools to communicate and connect.” (That’s a bit different from Google’s official mission — “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”)

    Bingo! IMO, Google should base its social strategy on helping people organize ALL their personal information – email, picture, purchase, bill, phone call, travel info, documents, medical records, financial records, etc. – in a single, easy to use, intuitive and USEFUL interface. Once people have all their information in one place (name the product Google Lifeline), provide the users with easy, intuitive, fine-tuned sharing mechanism. User’s should be able to decide easily exactly which pieces of information they want to share and with whom. Voila! All of a sudden, they have an extremely useful and well-integrated social network. On this social network, people won’t just go to poke each other or play games. They will go to manage their real lives and share information about their real lives with others.

    1. Looooooooocifer! A S Sunday, August 8, 2010

      Lifeline? Like someplace we go to when we call dial 9-1-1?

      Confuse gramma even more.

  5. Max Levchin Says Embracing Failure Is Dumb Friday, August 6, 2010

    [...] Social Czar Is Vic Gundotra See All Articles » How Slide Pushes Google’s Open [...]

  6. Looooooooocifer! Sunday, August 8, 2010

    GOOGLE isn’t SOCIAL

    That’s because this is the ANTI-GOOGLE

    It won’t fly even if Damien tells Eric it’s so.

    You don’t need to be social, they already know whose TP you like and what you did last summer.

    Who’s your buddy, who’s your pal?
    We’re already online, Oh well.

    Scratch

  7. Rabois Slides On To Square Wednesday, August 25, 2010

    [...] recently acquired Slide for $182 million (plus $46 million in retention bonuses.) As Google tries to graft social DNA into [...]

  8. Why Google Has No Game Wednesday, August 25, 2010

    [...] it’s taken the strategy used by awkward rich guys everywhere by trying to buy some hotness: Slide and Jambool. If that wasn’t enough, they made expensive investments in Zynga [...]

  9. Google Adds Rohit Khare to Social Team With Angstro Buy Friday, August 27, 2010

    [...] as with hiring Levchin through the acquisition of Slide, which had built applications on Facebook’s and similar platforms, Khare had built [...]

  10. Keith Rabois Is the New King of Y Combinator Monday, August 30, 2010

    [...] Rabois, the new general manager of Square after his company Slide was sold to Google, is actually the fastest on the draw, with five investments in summer 2010 Y Combinator startups. [...]

Comments have been disabled for this post