I think that is the fundamental question nowadays: Is the Web big enough for another Social Network? Robert X. Cringely just wrote a must read article about it. A sample:
I have just one question: We already have one Facebook. Do we really need two?
I know, I know. Seemingly irresistible forces of technology have crumpled within the space of a few years. At one time, IBM was the big, bad monopoly that needed to be splintered. Microsoft was going to run every device in your house, like it or not. AOL was king of the online world. MySpace was so far ahead in social networking that nobody would ever catch up.
Now IBM has become kind of like electricity or running water — you don’t think about it until something goes wrong. Microsoft has become kind of pathetic. AOL passed the pathetic mark and went into ludicrous a long time ago, and MySpace — heck, if you have $50 to spare, Rupert Murdoch might sell it to you.
And so it could easily go with Facebook. Those 700 million users are a fickle bunch, and aside from some status updates and time spent clicking “yes” and “like,” they don’t have much invested in it.
Facebook is extremely annoying and perhaps there lies the strength of the brand new Google+ The segmentation of the main stream called +Circles has much potential for the use of working groups or project teams, which can quickly and intuitively, exchange information and files in real time. It’s far easier than creating a Twitter List or a Facebook Friend List. The drag-and-drop functionality is a welcome addition, and the cute animations that appear when you perform actions give the product personality.
The service spark seems to be a good idea when looking for something of interest on specific topics, such as fotebol or rugby, for example. Although I did not use the other services available and even the mobile version of Google +, but from what I saw so far,the new Google social network – unlike its predecessors Buzz and Wave – has everything to be a relative success.