Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Google+ Failed

onezero.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 375 posts

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#81

Post by qwerty456127 »

hateful wrote: post #61

While I do (mostly) agree with this article, it fails to mention the #1 reason why I never used it. I couldn't post something on someone else's page. I could post something to my "feed" and they could happen to see it. But I couldn't post something into their "feed" (wall, timeline) where all their friends could see it and then comment on it. It was more like Twitter than Facebook. Maybe I'm wrong, but too me they we…

Indeed it was more like Twitter. Yet it was better than Twitter because it didn't have the severe post length limit and it would let you create channels (both private and open) for specific selection of people you invite to discuss a particular subject.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#82

Post by ksclarke »

xamuel wrote: post #69
sumanthvepa wrote: post #49

I have to disagree with the author. Google+ did not fail. Had it been a startup rather than a Google project, it would have been considered an amazing success. The problem was that the goal of being a Facebook killer was just too ambitious. Had it instead been a social feature amongst Google products it might have served valuable purpose for both Google and its users. Sadly, in a large corporation, every project has…

But all its success came from strong-arming people into using it, using the leverage Google had with all its other products. So it makes zero sense to compare it to a startup.

That's not where all its success came from. That's the one downfall the article got right. It was successful before that. Trying to shoehorn a bunch of people who didn't want to use it into using it was the mistake. It was doing just fine before that and it would have continued to grow organically. It was never going to be a Facebook replacement though. It was better than that.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#83

Post by mattkevan »

fyoving wrote: post #66

I always thought the name had something to do with it, "google plus" doesn't sound right specially for a social network, also "Hangouts" is a terrible name, it doesn't internationalize well nor does it work for an enterprise setting, and "keep" is a good app but it should be called "google notes" nevermind they already used that name on a now defunct product. Google has been worse at naming products than they have a…

Feels like the same people responsible for Mircrosoft's product decisions in the 2000s have now all moved to Google, with a slight twist in strategy.

When a Microsoft product didn't do well they called it something different and relaunched, hoping no-one realised it was the same old thing – e.g. Zune Music/Xbox Music/MSN Music/Groove Music/Microsoft Store etc.

Google now* just kills it and launches something else, sometimes more than one, hoping no-one remembers the still-cooling corpse of the previous attempt. For example, they're now on their ninth attempt [0] at a messaging service with no end in sight.

*Google Now is also dead.

[0]https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/06/google-ninth-attempt...

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#84

Post by arkades »

jrockway wrote: post #35

The ranking system did kind of annoy me. We used G+ heavily inside of Google, and lots of interesting people posted interesting things. As time wore on, I felt like I got less and less of that stuff. A coworker would say "did you see so and so's G+ post" and I would go look for it and not be able to find it until I begged someone a link. I followed them. They followed me. The post had 300 +1s. But I could never see i…

I agree their content surfacing / organization was terrible. You couldn’t just find content from Person; hell, you couldn’t find your own. You literally had to google work-arounds on how to find the set of your -own- posts. Talk about alienating people from your product.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#85

Post by leadingthenet »

hateful wrote: post #61

While I do (mostly) agree with this article, it fails to mention the #1 reason why I never used it. I couldn't post something on someone else's page. I could post something to my "feed" and they could happen to see it. But I couldn't post something into their "feed" (wall, timeline) where all their friends could see it and then comment on it. It was more like Twitter than Facebook. Maybe I'm wrong, but too me they we…

I never understood why you would want to do that. I also never see people do that on Facebook, is it an American thing?

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#86

Post by zrobotics »

skybrian wrote: post #68
combatentropy wrote: post #18

Computer networking in general and social apps in particular are still young, in civilization's history. We are still figuring this out. Maybe in a hundred years we will have a good grasp of what works. If the writer is right, then Google Plus's lack of traction was from the interaction among several subtle ingredients.

Yes, even Facebook's "successful" model is kind of a failure because it encourages people to spam all their friends and relatives with crappy memes. It seems like a better model should somehow encourage people to think about their audience and post what they would appreciate.

So similar to IRC. As much as I hate their desktop client, Discord is actually ticking all the right boxes for what I want out of social media. Ironically one of these things: broadcasting specific things to specific groups, is something G+ tried to do. If I see an interesting paper, I don't want to share that on FB and have my grandmother making confused comments. But I do have a discord channel w/ some college friends where something like that is appreciated.

At the same time, most of them aren't gamers, so gaming content is on a different channel. I don't even regularly use discord for their VOIP chat (arguably the reason they caught on), but unfortunately it is just easier to use for non-technical people than IRC.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#87

Post by salad77 »

Marazan wrote: post #70

Realnames. It was entirely Realnames on launch. Realnames Realnames Realnames. Realnames stopped people joining just at a point where Facebook was being incredibly shitty.

Real names AND the instant account lock with no hope of reversal if your name failed the opaque real name check. I lost access to a gmail account and everything associated with it because g+ didn't like my name. Account totally locked. Gone. Forever.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#88

Post by ajross »

aerovistae wrote: post #71

> My refusal to use Facebook means that I tend to miss out on a lot. Like what? I'm in my 20s-- I haven't used Facebook in 10 years and I have never once had the feeling from my interactions with other people that I had missed out on something.

My whole extended family all use Facebook to post notes and pictures of kids and cousins, ask questions, say hi, and plan events. I have a clear feeling I would miss out on something if I refused to use the product.

What, you say? They don't have to use Facebook to do that? Of course they don't. But they do, and I can't fix that. Your cohort seemingly doesn't, or the members that do aren't members you care about.

That's what network effects are all about. "Facebook" isn't a product or a feature list in this context, it's a community. They have it, Google didn't, and that's what the linked article is about.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#89

Post by pavel_lishin »

duxup wrote: post #73

I feel dumb for saying it, but I didn't understand "circles". I think I actually did but I found it a bit confusing and assumed I didn't understand. Actually generally I didn't understand what Google thought the workflow for Google+ was "supposed to be." This actually is something I find hard to understand about a lot of their products. There will be a heartwarming video, or some announcment showing a gee wiz feature…

I understood circles. I spent two hours carefully categorizing everyone I added into the perfect Venn diagram.

And then I realized that this was bonkers, and that I never wanted to do it again.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#90

Post by nicky0 »

benburleson wrote: post #74
aerovistae wrote: post #71

> My refusal to use Facebook means that I tend to miss out on a lot. Like what? I'm in my 20s-- I haven't used Facebook in 10 years and I have never once had the feeling from my interactions with other people that I had missed out on something.

For example: I was invited to an event this week, and to participate, I need to RSVP on the Facebook event... I could ask how to get around that, but I'm actually not that interested. The point is, the process has put a roadblock in my participation. But to be honest, I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

Think of it as a useful filter. If the event isn't important enough to actually invite you in person, it probably isn't worth bothering with.
Post reply on HN