Why Google+ Failed • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#191

Post by Tempest1981 » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 4:13 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #163

gist wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The saying 'camel is a horse made by a committee' applies to this situation. There was almost certainly no base creative drive when creating the actual product. Most things that end up being good are driven by someone who is viewed as somewhat crazy but has enough power or force to get what they want and/or steam roll others. Not to mention I am sure they are confusing smarts with luck. The decision makers think of t…

Camels are much more robust than horses.

So it must be a visual comparison. They also say that camels have poor temperament.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#192

Post by maybecorrect » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

znpy wrote: post #188

oneshot908 wrote: post #157

I was an IC6 at Google when Google+ launched... From my perspective, I think partitioning the Google+ team into their own Dark Tower with their own super-healthy cafeteria that was for them and their executives alone was the biggest problem. IMO this even foreshadows separating off Google Brain from the rest of Google and giving them resources not available to anyone else. Google was at its best a relatively open cul…

> I was an IC6 at Google IC6 meaning... ?

I think it means Individual Contributor (level) 6 - which is described as "Staff SWE" by https://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Google&track=Software%20Engi...

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#193

Post by rahuldottech » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

esimov wrote: post #186

When Facebook will fail?

Not anytime soon. Tech folks understand the privacy and ethical implications. Good luck explaining that to the layperson.

In many developing countries, FB is how many, if not most people get all their news and interact with family and friends.

Can't take that away. Because there's no real alternative to it.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#194

Post by rawoke083600 » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 4:19 PM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #134

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True. My grandma was in fb early.. She never even knew what Google+ was. Its only a social network if there are ppl on.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#195

Post by usrusr » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 4:19 PM UTC

pbuzbee wrote: post #182

I think Google+ failed first and foremost because there wasn't any reason to switch. First, it didn't make sense that people would quickly leave an established network (FB) to join a new empty network. At this time, most folks who wanted to join a network had finally joined FB. It took a lot of time and momentum for FB to reach that point. Google+ didn't offer anything fundamentally different from Facebook: it was ve…

> there wasn't any reason to switch.

And a big reason not to switch: the big feature that Facebook has which Google could not possibly replicate is that it's not the same company that has control over all the data I type into the web search box. It's bad enough how much data my web search of choice gets, it's bad enough how much data my social media network of choice gets, but combined it would be worse than the sum of its parts.

It's incredibly easy to be data-conscious when all you have to to is not take active action to migrate from Facebook to Google and I believe that many people who would never lift a finger to control their data are still more than willing to factor data into their decisions if it's not inconveniencing them. Similar problems are faced by Bing and Alexa, why would I want to invite Microsoft or Amazon even deeper into my life than they already are?

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#196

Post by mattkevan » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 4:20 PM UTC

sowbug wrote: post #159

mattkevan wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You shouldn't, because you're a member of the early majority, late majority, or laggards, in Crossing the Chasm terms. Innovators and early adopters are more comfortable trying out a startup's offering that might be imperfect or might fail. Most people are conservative like you. Your sheer numbers are why crossing the chasm is so important for the long-term survival of a new offering.

Quite a pointed you there. Thanks for that.

I love discovering and trying out innovative new products, and have made it a large part of what I do professionally.

However, some offerings I take more seriously than others.

With Google, if it's not search, data or ad related (i.e. the stuff that makes them money), it's generally the case it's not going to be around long-term.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#197

Post by unreal37 » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 4:20 PM UTC

oneshot908 wrote: post #157

I was an IC6 at Google when Google+ launched... From my perspective, I think partitioning the Google+ team into their own Dark Tower with their own super-healthy cafeteria that was for them and their executives alone was the biggest problem. IMO this even foreshadows separating off Google Brain from the rest of Google and giving them resources not available to anyone else. Google was at its best a relatively open cul…

Blaming the failure of Google+ on "they had their own cafeteria that we weren't allowed to go to" and "they got bonuses we didn't get" seems really really inside baseball.

Shows the problems inside Google, yes. But that's not why it never really took off.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#198

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 4:21 PM UTC

znpy wrote: post #188

oneshot908 wrote: post #157

I was an IC6 at Google when Google+ launched... From my perspective, I think partitioning the Google+ team into their own Dark Tower with their own super-healthy cafeteria that was for them and their executives alone was the biggest problem. IMO this even foreshadows separating off Google Brain from the rest of Google and giving them resources not available to anyone else. Google was at its best a relatively open cul…

> I was an IC6 at Google IC6 meaning... ?

[deleted]

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#199

Post by Tempest1981 » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

petercooper wrote: post #155

mattkevan wrote: post #94

The problem with Google+ is that using it felt like work . It had some nice ideas, and was in many ways better than Facebook. But it wasn't fun, and it wasn't somewhere that was pleasant to hang out for long. It also felt like it was solving a problem for Google, but not for its users. I could see how it would be strategic for Google to counter Facebook, and how tying searches into my social graph would result in muc…

The problem with Google+ is that using it felt like work. I pretty much stopped using it early on when I realized organizing everyone into the various "circles" was a huge undertaking. At the time you HAD to put people into circles and I had a lot of people from Twitter to import.. so I gave up and just didn't use it.

I actually liked that part -- I could share things with friends, but not family/relatives, or vice versa.

But I wasn't trying to do force Twitter into circles -- just network with close friends.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#200

Post by ablation » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 4:24 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #168

ablation wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

WhatsApp is Facebook

Yes, I'm aware who owns WhatsApp. I was talking about the functionality aspect, I apologise if that wasn't clear enough in my initial post. I don't miss any functionality that Facebook offers because WhatsApp effectively does away with things I don't care about by providing me with highly curated groups of conversation and sharing, without the cruft.

I am fully aware it's a part of the Facebook ecosystem.