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

131–140 of 375 posts

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#131

Post by rchaud »

The "Non-organic growth" section covers Google+'s biggest sin for me. They unilaterally created G+ profiles for everybody with a Gmail account with no prior warning, and with no opt out.

Because of this, my Gmail contacts could see the comments I'd made on Youtube videos because it was front and center of their G+ profile page, which I recall popping up when you logged into Gmail. Prior to this, there would have been no organic way for them to discover my comments other than randomly coming across a video I'd watched and commented on.

Now, I don't post anything objectionable on YT comments (it is attached to my primary Gmail after all), but I wanted to keep my YT experience separate from people on my Gmail list. G+ took that away in one fell swoop.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#132

Post by _jal »

fyoving wrote: post #100
mattkevan wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, so…

I don't mind the killing off of stuff that doesn't catches on it's a mark of dynamism.

In a backhanded way, neither do I.

When Google Reader died, it reminded me not to become dependent on other peoples' computers. I had gotten lazy and was attracted to a well done tool, and it dying was a helpful reminder that I'd been suckered, and was lucky it wasn't something more important.

I've been better at not making that mistake since.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#133

Post by el_programmador »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #128
imgabe wrote: post #117

I think a lot of it came down to their "invite-only" launch. I remember a lot of my friends were excited to try it. Some of us were able to get invites, some weren't. Eventually the people who couldn't get on right away just said "screw it" and went back to Facebook. The rest of us followed because that's where we could interact with everyone and not just the people who happened to get on Google+. By the time it open…

I think they did that because of how well it worked for GMail. And Facebook was restricted too in the beginning. Obviously, Google+ didn't benefit from following the precedents set by other successful launches.

GMail's time was different, there was a lot less competition among web services back then.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#134

Post by rchaud »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #128
imgabe wrote: post #117

I think a lot of it came down to their "invite-only" launch. I remember a lot of my friends were excited to try it. Some of us were able to get invites, some weren't. Eventually the people who couldn't get on right away just said "screw it" and went back to Facebook. The rest of us followed because that's where we could interact with everyone and not just the people who happened to get on Google+. By the time it open…

I think they did that because of how well it worked for GMail. And Facebook was restricted too in the beginning. Obviously, Google+ didn't benefit from following the precedents set by other successful launches.

Gmail's invite only approach made sense because in 2004 it was absurd for anybody to offer 1GB of free storage. Hotmail offered 200MB I think.

Compared to that, nobody cared about a Facebook ripoff with a different UI and none of the network effects.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#135

Post by andrewl »

Google engineer Steve Yegge said:

Google+ is a prime example of our complete failure to understand platforms from the very highest levels of executive leadership (hi Larry, Sergey, Eric, Vic, howdy howdy) down to the very lowest leaf workers (hey yo). We all don't get it. The Golden Rule of platforms is that you Eat Your Own Dogfood. The Google+ platform is a pathetic afterthought. We had no API at all at launch, and last I checked, we had one measly API call. One of the team members marched in and told me about it when they launched, and I asked: "So is it the Stalker API?" She got all glum and said "Yeah." I mean, I was joking, but no... the only API call we offer is to get someone's stream. So I guess the joke was on me.

The full Yegge rant is at: https://gist.github.com/chitchcock/1281611

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#136

Post by fyoving »

mattkevan wrote: post #116
fyoving wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mind the killing off of stuff that doesn't catches on it's a mark of dynamism.

It suggests a lack of focus, and gives users a reason to not trust their products. Why should I adopt service n when it's probably going to be shut down in 12-18 months, after the launch of service n+1?

Not really, adopting these apps is usually a modest investment on the users' part.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#137

Post by duxup »

conductr wrote: post #108
pavel_lishin wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ya I never used it but assumed that was their way of trying to be Facebook LinkedIn and Twitter all at once. Problem being the world already had those services and by being separated the circle management is done for you.

Yeah asking a user to switch modes on the fly was pretty awkward.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#138

Post by ablation »

GarrisonPrime wrote: post #99
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.

Are you in school or training? And/or do you work with members of your social circle? And/or does family live close? If any of these are true, I can see how Facebook offers little value. But the older you get, the fewer people you tend to have around. My social life is easily 30 times harder to maintain now than it was when I was in college. Work was also an easy place to find friends and kindred spirits. At first. B…

I don't have Facebook, and all of these needs for connectivity are taken care of by WhatsApp group chats, essentially. It feels far more intimate and immediate than Facebook ever did too.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#139

Post by rchaud »

jimmies wrote: post #12
Causality1 wrote: post #2

>Project Hancock was the internal code name of the project designed to do this. It was going to set up a Google Plus account for every Google user. This is actually much more complicated than it sounds; it took a team of engineers somewhere around three months to accomplish it. What this bit glosses over is the PR disaster that was Google forcing Google+ down the throats of its unwilling users. For example, for years…

This, Google was shoving the Hancock down to every Google user. It didn't just die by itself. Google Talk was killed with Google+ too. It was a functional, no-nonsense IM that just worked and worked everywhere. After they engulfed this into Google+, it just became a bloated monstrosity that no one could understand. Remember when it suggested you every Google+ user when you tried to type a friend's name in Hangouts? Y…

Google Talk was fantastic. The desktop experience was great, and the mobile apps were flawless, even on Nokia Symbian and Blackberry 6 OS.

It's the only Google product that felt fun to use. I haven't bothered with Hangouts, Allo, Duo or any of the stuff that followed it.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#140

Post by jeffdavis »

G+ worked pretty well. I took shared family photos, a few thoughts, news, interesting stuff I found, got comments, etc. It did what I wanted.

However, it didn't do what Google wanted. It didn't capture my attention for hours and get me to engage with all kinds of corporate marketing and ads. It didn't teach Google anything about me (to be used to sell me stuff later) that it didn't already know.

We know with social media, we are the product, not the customer. So Google+ didn't fail, we failed. I was a great customer of G+, but I guess I wasn't a very good product.

Post reply on HN