The debate about who will win social - Google or Facebook - is strikingly similar to the decade ago debate about who will win search - Microsoft or Google. And recently, Jason Calacanis gave us six reasons why Google+ will win big (he also suggests, admittedly again, that Google will steal half of Facebook’s value). So here are six reasons why history says he’s wrong….

1. He says, “+Larry Page and +Sergey Brin are using the product….”

So this time, senior management and the visionaries behind the company are supporting Google’s social foray. But recall that when the threat to Microsoft from Google became apparent, Microsoft senior management, including both Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, made beating Google it’s number one priority - pouring billions in resources into what ultimately became Bing. Bing has done alright, but it hasn’t come close to unseating Google in search. I’d argue that Facebook has higher switching costs for the end user (>600 million people already invested a ton of time and energy building profiles, uploading photos, connecting, etc.) than moving from Google to Bing search (typing “bing.com” instead of “google.com.”)

2. He says, “Forced categorization of contacts….”

I.e., Google+ lets people more easily categorize their contacts, maintain privacy, etc. Honestly, who cares? You can do all the same stuff on Facebook (though I concede they make it annoyingly difficult), but I believe the vast majority of people don’t want to bother categorizing their connections inside one network (unless it’s done implicitly). Rather, they choose to/with whom they connect/share based on each network (e.g., LinkedIn for business, Facebook for friends+, etc.) If anything, users are using Facebook for more than just friend connections. Great post here re why Google doesn’t get social and (more relevantly) why people care less about friend categorization and privacy.

3. He says, “Google Hangouts is as good as Skype, and a lot more fun….”

Microsoft owns a piece of Facebook and all of Skype. And “they” say Facebook is coming out with Skype-powered video chat next week. Next.

4. He says, “Chrome Browser and Chrome Store integration….”

Microsoft had Internet Explorer (and still does) when it started battling it out with Google for search. If I remember correctly, IE had greater share than Chrome’s ~20% share. I also believe that with Chrome, Google’s original intention was to influence browser evolution to benefit Google (search) - which has worked. Bonus that their browser is a great product that garnered a bunch of market share. It looks like Facebook may be following Google’s example by cozying up to Rockmelt. Even if Rockmelt is ultimately unsuccessful, it is likely that it (and other social browsers) will cause developers to build more social features into browsers (good for Facebook et al).

5. He says, “Android integration….”

Are you f’ng kidding me?! I don’t want to discount how valuable Android is to Google, especially for its social endeavors, but Microsoft had greater than 90% operating system share and has been unable to parlay that into beating Google at search. Why? Antitrust. And guess who has antitrust prosecution stalking it all over the world (hint: Google).

6. He says, “The avant garde have left Facebook already….”

Echo chamber. Come on. Facebook continues to grow users (despite reports to the contrary) and, perhaps more importantly, is seeing increasing usage among members (more time spent, more posts, more photos…. “more women! more wine!”) People who say they don’t use Facebook remind me of people who (smugly) tell you they don’t watch TV. Maybe they don’t, but television viewership is up 25% over the last few years (the average American watched five hours per day - crazy).

Anyway, no doubt Google+ will have a material impact on social networking, but let’s put its prospects in perspective by keeping in mind the (arguably more profound) advantages Microsoft had going up against Google.