141–150 of 375 posts
There was zero sense of privacy and they tried to shove that down my throat, and I vomited it out of my system.
I don't think it's important whether Google+ failed or whether Facebook declines or not. The fundamental failure is by computer science or the IETF that there is no open standard for federated social networking. Some might say social networking is out of scope for academic research. But why was SMTP not out of scope when it was invented?
There is ActivityPub (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivityPub) but it's unlikely that any of the big parties is going to adopt it.
1) Invite Only It makes sense for gmail to be invite only, as you can still connect to non gmail users. Its email. It doesn't make sense to make Google Plus invite only. You are just limiting the growth of your product. It was dumb.
2) Circles Circles were good and bad. Circle are groups. Groups are what everyone now uses on WhatsApp, but WhatsApp is optimized for PRIVATE communication, while Google Plus was a SOCIAL network. So, when I made awesome posts and shared with my circles, those who were not in circles, saw my boring empty profile and moved on. What is there were others interested in my Lego and Arduino cirles? They wouldn't be able to know about my lego and arduino posts, and they wouldn't be able to get themselves added to my lego and arduino circles (they tried to rectify this later on by some other feature, but it was too late by then).
3) Real Name Why try to go this route? I just didn't understand. Maybe requirements from higher-higher up?
4) Slow UI While the UI looked good, I am not sure how good of an experience was it. It was definetly SLOW.
All they had to do was to make a facebook clone. Then slowly polish it.
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…
A social network's initial frowth phase is completely predicated on it being a space people want to join, and that is accomplished by its delivering value and appeal.
That might be compelling content, compelling connections, or a mix of the two. A cultivated and exclusive club, as with the Haevard Facebook, or early Usenet, has appeal. It's the opening up to the world which kills that initial growth appeal.
Google+ would have done far better to extend the beta period, possibly by years, and shake out its fundamental architectural flaws.
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…
If they would just fiddle with YouTube they might get into trouble but now they've tested everything they needed and rolled it to other products. Google+ was never meant to be Facebook replacement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess it's a fair post-mortem for G+ the product, but I'm personally more interested in what happens to content on G+. For example, Linus Torvalds blogged on it (eg. dead link https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912/posts/1vyfmNCY... about why he switched away from Suse), and many others as well. The content is why I occasionally went there, and why people outside Google posted there (assuming a big name won'…
98%+ of all Google+ public content was archived and was / will be posted to the Internet Archive. https://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Google%2B You'll need to know, or track down, the user or content page to find it. E.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20190102053619/https://plus.goog... Raw archive dumps: https://archive.org/details/archiveteam_googleplus
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…