Why Google+ Failed • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#231

Post by unreal37 » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 5:13 PM UTC

devit wrote: post #158

I think what they should have done is add functionality into Chrome that would allow and encourage you to automatically import all the data in your Facebook account into Google+ and then post to both accounts. At the time, Google had much more goodwill than today and there's a chance people would have used it just so they could use Google instead of Facebook.

Trying to use your dominance in one space (search, or browsers, say) to actively steal data from a competitor (scrape Facebook!) with the intention to destroy that competitor is something lawyers have wet dreams about.

I mean, Facebook would have destroyed them in court.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#232

Post by AJ007 » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 5:17 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…

Thanks for the insight on this from an internal point of view.

I've been trying to figure out how Google transitioned from being viewed as having the moral high ground over most other public companies, tech and otherwise, to the sad state it is in today. Based on everything I've read to this point, my best guess has been dysfunctional management. What you describe sounds like basic blunders rather than any sort of mistake due to complexity or bad luck.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#233

Post by joncrane » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

sverige wrote: post #176

joncrane wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well Happy Birthday wishes is the big one. Other times there's like maybe an inside joke or a picture or an anecdote that you think that their friends would enjoy more than your friends. It's used way more by younger people, though.

Actually, the story I hear from people under 35 or so is that Facebook is for old people like me (mid-50s), though I've never used it. My wife does, though. It seems awful. My daughter and her friends all use Instagram and Snapchat, or probably something else now. They have dormant Facebook accounts they made when they were teens / early 20s that they've purged of all meaningful content.

I mean the "post on another person's wall" functionality within FB, not FB itself.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#234

Post by ggggtez » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 5:20 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…

> the biggest problem was getting their own super-healthy cafeteria

That's a really bizarre position to take. Every other thing you mentioned sounds a lot more impactful than that.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#235

Post by bduerst » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 5:21 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... ?

Job level. At Google the different job roles are separated into ladders, with the number representing the how high you've climbed. IC6 isn't director level but it's far from entry-level. Invoking their job level like this at the opening of their comment is an appeal to authority.

Edit: This comment is being misunderstood. Not saying it's a fallacy - appealing to authority is not always illogical.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#236

Post by pier25 » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 5:22 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…

I think the worst problem was the terrible UI.

For example I remember how odd the two column layout looked. I'm not sure anyone has studied this, but it seemed obvious to me from the first day it was a huge mistake.

It seems like a small thing but I think there is a reason everyone (Facebook, Twitter, etc) is using a single narrow column to feed content to the scrolling user. My hypothesis is that it takes less cognitive effort to parse.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#237

Post by petercooper » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

Tempest1981 wrote: post #199

petercooper wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I like the idea, but the practice of categorizing so many people seemed intimidating and I couldn't be bothered to do it. So I stuck with the alternatives.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#238

Post by waylandsmithers » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #89

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.

Kind of funny that among other things, nobody at Google realized that most married couples would never want to have to go through making their wedding reception seating chart again.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#239

Post by bduerst » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

trevize1138 wrote: post #119

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…

Sounds like they were trying to emulate the early days of FB some people pine for where you had to have a .edu email address to sign up. I know a few friend were hopeful that Google+ meant they would no longer see posts from their racist uncle or gullible aunt. Start out with that same kind of exclusivity and hopefully it builds this exclusive mystique so when you open it up to everybody you get a flood. Perhaps the…

It's an exclusivity play, to pump up demand. People like things that make them feel exclusive, so for launch someone at Google tried to increase demand by making G+ more exclusive with invite-only.

Unfortunately this increased the barrier to entry at launch too, which for social networks whose value is tied to users generating media is a cardinal sin.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#240

Post by CommieBobDole » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

I think most of the damage from the "real names" policy came from the their sudden and draconian enforcement of it at exactly the wrong time. Just when the service was starting to build momentum, they initiated an effort to find and punish anyone who'd previously signed up with anything that didn't look like a "real name", in many cases locking them out of their entire Google account.

And then shortly after that, having learned nothing, they started hunting down and banning accounts that appeared to be for businesses, since their "Google+ for business" offering wasn't ready yet. By the time it was, nobody wanted to put their business on Google+ anymore.

Finally, after it was already dead (but they didn't seem to know it), they subverted the rest of their business to try to drive users to it - mandatory Google+ account integration, killing any product that tended to compete with it, etc.

Google+ is the demarcation between the old Google that consistently did amazing things and the new Google that, well, mostly doesn't.