????但Facebook在F8會議上最大膽的舉措并不是上述功能更新，而是在社交層面進一步與Netflix和Spotify等其他服務進行整合。現在，如果用戶希望注冊Spotify，就必須提供他們的Facebook賬戶信息。而這一點對用戶來說，有利的一面是可以在Spotify或Facebook上直接找到和收聽朋友的播放列表，而不利的一面則是自己的音樂偏好將被公之于眾（例如，肖恩?帕克正在收聽Florence + the Machine樂隊的音樂）。而隨著時間的推移，這類新的數據可能蘊藏著巨大的商業價值。雖然現在許多網絡出版商允許用戶選擇是否在Facebook上公開自己的動態，比如他們讀過的文章，或他們購買的鞋子等，但多數用戶都會跳過這一步。而在新的模式下，共享成為了一種選擇性退出，而不是選擇性進入。由此，Facebook可以突然之間獲得大量的用戶在線行為信息，并最終利用這些數據來出售更有針對性的線上和線下廣告。 如果說谷歌AdWords和AdSense廣告平臺是目前幫助廣告客戶找到大量有采購目標的受眾，那么社交廣告的用途則是用來幫助人們發現新的事物。

戰火硝煙四起

????10月末的一天，科技博客界因為社交網絡領域的一則新聞而沸沸揚揚：扎克伯格不再是Google+上擁有粉絲最多的用戶。是誰取代了他呢？這個人正是佩奇。雖然看起來這不足為奇，但不難想象谷歌總部肯定為此竊喜不已。無論是谷歌還是Facebook都不愿談論雙方之間的競爭（因此他們也不愿意CEO們就本文置評），但實際上，雙方已經在很多方面展開較量，哪怕是一次小小的勝利都會讓他們彈冠相慶。

????兩家公司對人才的爭奪或許是衡量兩者競爭最直觀的指標，雙方工程師或者高管跳槽到對方的情況很容易統計。而這方面的競爭呈一邊倒的趨勢。Facebook內部從高管到底層實習生，來自谷歌的人比比皆是，其中就包括谷歌原社交項目研究員亞當斯。在Facebook的11位高管中，有4位來自谷歌，包括現任COO謝麗爾?桑德伯格以及負責廣告和運營業務的大衛?菲舍爾。

????但這些數據只不過是雙方競爭的縮影。早在2007年，雙方的競爭便已拉開序幕，隨后便愈演愈烈。Facebook有什么致命武器？它是硅谷最炙手可熱的公司，同時在未來上市后可以創造大批百萬富翁，這些是它吸引人才的王牌。而谷歌則投入巨額資金予以還擊。一位曾親身經歷雙方人才爭奪戰的高管表示，谷歌甚至許諾，如果頂尖的工程師或高管留守公司，他們將可獲得超過價值1,000萬美元的股票和現金。很快，這些消息不脛而走，許多谷歌員工理所當然會采取行動：他們先拿到Facebook 的入職通知，然后轉過頭來以此要求谷歌大幅加薪。近期從谷歌跳槽的一位高管說：“這種情況就造成了一種‘非谷歌式’的環境。人們開始‘良禽擇木而棲’。”于是在今年1月，谷歌推出了不同的措施，給所有員工全部加薪10%，并且將大部分員工的獎金計入基礎工資。由此，許多谷歌員工的薪金增加了15%，甚至20%。

????如果說在人才爭奪戰中，谷歌處于守勢，在吸引用戶眼球方面它則是攻勢如潮，其最有力的武器是在互聯網領域的主導地位。例如，經過90天的試運行后，今年9月份，Google+完全向用戶開放，而谷歌為此采取的推廣措施連一些大公司都艷羨不已：谷歌在其主頁上放置了一個大大的藍色箭頭，將數千萬用戶引導至Google+圖標，使Google+的流量迅猛上升。除主頁外，谷歌還計劃在Gmail、谷歌地圖以及YouTube等服務的龐大用戶群中不分晝夜地推廣Google+，并將Google+服務整合到數百萬臺Android手機中。Twitter首席執行官迪克?科斯托羅也表示：“毋庸置疑，Google+肯定會吸引到大量用戶。”

????Facebook最擔心的自然便是谷歌吸引用戶的能力。盡管Facebook的高管多年以來一直表示，他們有信心在公平競爭環境中擊敗谷歌，但他們也擔心微軟之前的一幕將會重演，即谷歌并不會與Facebook公平競爭，而是會利用其在互聯網領域的主導地位來推廣Google+。而且在谷歌網站上推廣Google+不僅非常有效，而且也無可非議。但如果谷歌利用其搜索引擎來力推Google+并打壓其他社交網站服務，則可能產生爭議。雖然谷歌還未采取這種措施來推廣Google+，但它之前在推廣谷歌地圖等其他服務時便曾這樣做過，導致競爭對手大呼不平。如果谷歌今后希望采取這種措施，必須三思而行，因為公司已經在接受政府的反壟斷調查。而在移動領域，谷歌可能在Android手機和平板電腦上內置多個Google+功能，進而增加對手的競爭難度。

????But the boldest move at F8 was not Zuckerberg's flashy redesign but rather deeper social integration with other services like Netflix (NFLX) and Spotify. To register for Spotify, newcomers must now use their Facebook credentials. The upside is that you can find and listen to your friends' playlists on Spotify or on Facebook directly. The downside is your musical tastes are revealed to the world (i.e., Sean Parker is listening to Florence + the Machine). This new stream of social data could prove invaluable over time. Until now, although many web publishers offered users the option to publish their actions -- articles they read, shoes they buy -- on Facebook, most people took a pass. In the new model, sharing becomes opt-out rather than opt-in, and Facebook could become the sudden recipient of a good deal more information about what we do online. Eventually, the company could use the data to sell even more targeted ads both on and off the site. If Google's AdWords and AdSense are the de facto tools for helping advertisers reach large numbers of people who know what they're looking for, social ads will be the tool for helping people discover new things.

The war

????One day in late October, tech blogs started buzzing about the latest bit of news on the social web: Zuckerberg had lost his place as the most followed Google+ user. Who edged him out? None other than Larry Page. Trivial, perhaps, but it's hard not to think that the news lit up smiles across the Googleplex. Neither Google nor Facebook likes to talk about competing with each other (and neither company would make their CEOs available for this story), but battles are raging on multiple fronts, and both sides celebrate even the smallest victory.

????Nowhere is keeping score easier than in the battle for talent, where every engineer or executive who defects from one company or the other is easily tabulated. On that front the battle has been a lopsided affair. Look through the ranks of Facebook, from upper management to lowly interns, and you'll bump into ex-Googlers like Adams, the social researcher, at every turn. Four of Facebook's 11 top executives hail from Google, including COO Sheryl Sandberg and David Fischer, the advertising and operations chief.

????These numbers, however, don't tell the full story of a battle that began as far back as 2007 and has only intensified since. Facebook's weapons of choice? Its cachet as the hottest Valley company -- and its potential to mint millionaires when it finally goes public. Google has fought back with money, lots of it. In some cases Google offered top engineers or execs more than $10 million in equity and cash if they stayed, said an executive directly involved in the talent wars. Word spread quickly, and many Googlers did what rational people would do: They got an offer from Facebook just so they could get a big raise at Google. "It created an un-Googley environment," says a senior manager who left Google recently. "They like to be merit-based." So in January, Google tried a different approach: It lavished a giant 10% raise on its entire workforce. It also shifted a large chunk of employee bonuses into base pay. As a result, many people saw their paychecks increase by 15% or even 20%.

????But if Google is playing defense on the talent war, it is clearly playing offense in the battle for eyeballs. Its most powerful weapon is its status as the dominant Internet company. In September, for example, when it opened up Google+ to everyone, following a 90-day trial period, it unleashed the kind of promotion that even the biggest brands would envy: A large blue arrow on its homepage pointed the tens of millions who visit it daily to a Google+ tab. Traffic on the site spiked immediately. In addition to Google.com, Google plans to promote Google+, day in and day out, to the hundreds of millions of people who use services like Gmail, Maps, and YouTube; and to weave it into millions of Android handsets. Says Dick Costolo, the chief executive of Twitter: "There is no doubt they are going to be able to pull in massive numbers of users."

????Naturally, it's Google's power to pull in those users that worries Facebook the most. For years executives there have said that they are confident they can beat Google on a level playing field. But they fear that, like Microsoft in an earlier era, Google will use its power to peddle Google+, and not always fairly. Some tactics, like promotions on Google.com, are effective and uncontroversial. Others, like Google's ability to use its search engine to promote Google+ ahead of other social services, could prove more problematic. Google has not yet done so with Google+, but it has done just that with other services, like its maps, prompting rivals to cry foul. Google may think twice before engaging in such tactics, as it is already under a government antitrust investigation. Yet with mobile as the next battleground, Google may also find ways to build many Google+ features right into Android phones and tablets, making it harder for rivals to compete.