The possibility of the simultaneous existence on the Internet of commercial giants such as Google and Facebook seems quite reasonable and logical, because each of these companies is engaged in its own business. The interests of these titans, in theory, do not intersect, and thus the question “who wins?” does not generate public interest.
The presence of competition between these companies seems incredible. Google specializes in the search business and develops solutions for Internet data processing. Facebook, meanwhile, is responsible for online social communication. But the “cold” war between companies is already beginning to gain strength, the end result of which may be deplorable for one of them.
Google and Facebook have a source of income: Internet advertising. This market is of billions of dollars a year. Therefore, the giants of the Internet industry have something to share. Supposedly free service providers like Google and Facebook receive in exchange the information they need about users, highly valued in the advertising market. Each new service contributes to the expansion of the information delivered to companies. Google always knows what a person is looking for, what content the incoming letters have, what documents the user is editing, what cities they are looking for on Google Maps. All this data is automatically analyzed, consolidated in a single database and is of great interest to the advertiser.
Facebook has taken a different approach to monetizing user privacy. If Google has an idea of what a person is looking for, then the social network knows what they like. But the number of personal life skins for monetization is limited, leading to a lack of these skins for all sellers. For this reason, as early as 2011, Google and Facebook began an active fight for access to this type of information.
The opportunities for the giant of the search business are much greater: Google controls 41% of online advertising. But the young “predator” shows miracles of efficiency and speed: in a year, Facebook doubled its revenue. People spend significantly more time on the pages of this social network and the personal data available to Facebook is of better quality and relevance. The latter is due to the original concept of the social network, which does not welcome anonymity.
As a result, Google decided to go on the offensive and created its own social service. It turned out to be the same as Facebook, but some additional features were added to it that give this service a visible advantage (for example, circles of friends). Zuckerberg did not wait for the consequences and proposed a fundamentally new service that allows keeping a timeline of events. In other words, Facebook will be a kind of life story for each of its users. If this innovation is picked up by the masses, it is difficult to imagine what benefits the social network will receive from the information received.
In this way, a global database can be created about the lives of a large number of people: about their connections, jobs, family members, interests and much more. Now it only remains to be seen what will come of it. But only one thing is clear: only one will be able to survive: Google or Facebook.