February 08, 2010, 7:51 PM — Worked leaked out today that Google would soon announce status updates to Gmail. The knee-jerk media reaction is to assume that Google is competing with, threatening the business of, or replacing Twitter or Facebook. "Watch out, Twitter and Facebook. Google is on your heels," proclaimed the Christian Science Monitor. Other sites spun the story similarly. But the idea is false. First it assumes that Twitter and Facebook are in any way similar, which they're not.
Twitter is a blogging service (a micro-blogging one, but a blogging service nonetheless). Its main purpose is one-to-many broadcasting to an unpredictable collection of humans who have decided to follow. Many Twitter users have zero, one or two followers. Many have tens or thousands. And a few have millions. Although one-on-on communication is possible on Twitter, most people broadcast to their followership, and then maybe use the "direct" Tweet function to follow up on what was broadcast.
Very, very few Twitter users have follower lists that in any way resemble their actual personal social group of family and friends. For example, I have more than 17,000 followers on Twitter, and I have no idea who most of these people are.
Meanwhile, Facebook is about exclusion. Facebook is the social space where, for most people, strangers aren't allowed. And users make an attempt to get every single friend and family member they can to "friend" them and make them part of the social network.
Facebook's friends list in fact do resemble actual personal social networks for many users.
So how on Earth could Gmail possible compete with both of these diametrically opposed approaches to social content?
Gmail either will or will not support Twitter or Facebook or both. If it does support one of them, then "Social Gmail" will merely make it easier for Twitter or Facebook users to post status updates.
If Gmail doesn't plug into either Twitter or Facebook, it's unlikely to make even a dent in those services' user bases.
Twitter is an "anybody" service, in terms of who you allow to see your posts. Facebook is a "hardly anybody" service. Gmail fits somewhere in between, because it's built on a foundation of e-mail contacts. Google will likely roll out status updates to be shared with people in your contacts list who opt in -- which won't be very many. It also won't approach the number of people you can get on Facebook, because so many people user alternatives to Gmail, such as Outlook, Yahoo Mail or whatever.
As a social network, Google Contacts (or Gmail contacts) are a lousy place to start. Unlike Twitter's "anybody" approach or Facebook's "only my real friends and family" approach, Gmail contacts are a hodgepodge of random people and companies you've contacted before, plus the people you've entered into your Contact database. For most users, it's not a complete list of your real social network, and it's not "the world," either.
Also: History does not support the belief that Google knows how to beat Facebook. The company has offered a direct competitor to Facebook, called Orkut, for years. And, outside of Brazil, the service is a major loser. Google has been trying to lure people to Google Profiles, which is another service that apes some functionality in Facebook, but again without success.
Given that track record, there's no reason to believe that stapling status updates to Gmail will somehow achieve what a full-blown Facebook alternative or a truly innovative service like Profiles could achieve after years of trying.
I think any social or status update featured Google adds to Gmail will serve merely to make Gmail a little better, and won't affect the success of Twitter or Facebook at all.
