Over the weekend Google announced that its Google+ Domains API was coming out of beta. The highlights of the changes brought about by this new API are detailed here. A new domain element has been added to messages posted on Google+. This element adds an access control layer that scopes the visibility of a post to within a domain, meaning the message is only available to people within an enterprise. In essence, these API changes enable Google’s social messaging infrastructure to provide the foundation for an enterprise social network (ESN). Practically speaking, however, it is still a stretch to call Google+ a private ESN (what most competitors provide). I would call Google+ a “public ESN.”
The fundamental disagreement I have with Google is their contention that users should be able to completely control the scope of their posted messages. In the Gartner report entitled “Google Apps in the Enterprise, a Status Check” Matt Cain wrote:
“Google acknowledges the need for enterprise controls, but it believes the decision to allow data outside the organization should reside with the user, rather than administrators.”
Although the new domain element makes restricting the scope easier for individuals to manage (before this, people would have to create their own circles or create a Google+ community to limit visibility), it will still be viewed by enterprises as too dangerous. They do not want to rely on training to keep people from inadvertently posting messages on public social networks.
To understand this point, let’s compare Google+ to Microsoft Yammer (a cloud-based, yet private ESN), as an example.
First, both Google+ and Yammer provide a single user profile that enables someone to login once and participate within multiple circles, groups or networks.The most notable difference between the two are how they approach public, inter-enterprise and private social network interactions:
The Google+ user starts by participating within the Google+ public social network. The scope of their interaction is narrowed by the visibility defined in their colleagues’ individual posts. This scope is specified by someone when creating a post and is defined in terms of domains and circles. This comes awfully close to being what most people consider an ESN. Thus, Google+ is a public ESN.
The Yammer user starts by participating within a private social network. They can interact with others outside of their enterprise within an external network (using their same login), if invited. External networks are inter-enterprise private social networks. However, Yammer has no public social network.
To be fair, the cultural norms around ESNs have not been fully established. Should ESNs be part of a public social network or should they be kept entirely private? Advocates for the public approach (i.e., Google) point to the ease in which people can exchange email today. However, this analogy falls short when you look beyond messaging and the resulting visibility of content. When I search my email messages the results do not show messages from other people’s mailboxes, even those within the same company. The open messaging paradigm presented in ESNs is a big enough cultural shift that fighting to keep networks within a public space is a losing battle (at least, for now).
Nevertheless, Google+ Domains API should concern other enterprise social network vendors. Google now has the infrastructure to support private ESNs (or they are getting really close). Should Google decide to make it appear that their customers’ ESNs are truly private, this could send tremors through the ESN market. Ultimately, this move by Google begs the question: Are these changes to Google+ a deliberate step towards Google becoming more competitive in enterprise software or are they simply interesting additions to an API?
The Gartner Blog Network provides an opportunity for Gartner analysts to test ideas and move research forward. Because the content posted by Gartner analysts on this site does not undergo our standard editorial review, all comments or opinions expressed hereunder are those of the individual contributors and do not represent the views of Gartner, Inc. or its management.