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

321–330 of 375 posts

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#321

Post by flyGuyOnTheSly »

My biggest qualms with G+ was that it was constantly changing...

I would log in every few weeks/months and something was different.

G+: Hey, check out this new feature!

Me: But I uhhh...

G+: Oh, and we implemented this too, isn't it great!?

Me: Well sure but...

G+: And we removed that one feature that you did actually kind of use, it's now this.

Me: I just wanted to use your service for 5 minutes right now, not learn about how great it was. And now my 5 minutes is up.

G+ was pivoting to a fault since day 1 imho.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#322

Post by ajcarpy2005 »

The interest graphs gathered in the several years G+ was online should be valuable to Google still. I wish G+ was still around, although I could get a GSuites account and still use Google+. Most likely there are not a lot of users anymore.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#323

Post by whymauri »

shearskill wrote: post #225
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…

Oddly enough kids are using GDocs for messaging in school and during study sessions, etc. Not something to build a network around since they are used as ephemeral ad hoc chat spaces.

GDocs gets used because it's not blocked/censored by the school's IT.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#324

Post by TremendousJudge »

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.

The fact that they already existed separately is not a compelling argument by itself. As a counterexample, many people owned both mobile phones and music players in 2007, but the iPhone was a huge success anyway.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#325

Post by curtis3389 »

waqf wrote: post #260
Nican wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Kennedy" comment really made me giggle. I have some dislike for some trends of applications addining great amounts of white space. I have to agree that the interface, and the "Real Names" requirements were the two biggest hurdles for me to even to start to like Google+. I really liked the concept of circles, but whenever I did get around to using the social network, it never felt as social and engaging as Twitte…

If only Google could invent a discussion site with rich text and threaded discussions … they could call it "Google Wave" …

Or Google Buzz

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#326

Post by FooHentai »

zippergz wrote: post #213
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 hate responding to anecdata with anecdata, but my experience is that Real Names was a HUGE DEAL in a very small and specific sector of the internet (some of which has clear overlap with HN), and an absolute non-story in the rest of the world. I worked at G at that time also, and while I agree that Real Names was a dumb decision, at the time I did not see any direct impact on interest or engagement from my friends b…

>small pocket who we truly incensed. While the incensed group was extremely loud, they were also a tiny, tiny minority

Thing is, that small group is your grassroots, influencer base without which you fail to thrive. G+ never got beyond the starter 'tech nerds' blogger type adoption and out into mainstream headspace.

You don't have to bow to that crowd to succeed, but at the very least you have to avoid annoying them away from your offering.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#327

Post by tracker1 »

johnnycab wrote: post #261
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…

>Google was at its best a relatively open culture and 2011 is the year they killed other cultural icons such as Google Labs and (unofficially) deprecated 20% time. I think the road to the Google we see today started then. Thanks for providing a great insight. I kept away from Google+ due to it's initial aggressiveness of opting in and linking it across other services. There was already a growing disillusionment aroun…

Reader was the shot that killed any trust in Google's service for me as well... Today it's mostly my gmail account that is mostly bulk mail, fallback search when ddg fails me, and maps on my phone. And even the gmail I've been contemplating how to best get away from it.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#328

Post by tracker1 »

Karunamon wrote: post #277
irrational wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the + doesn't mean what we thought it meant. Google + Evil

I’d prefer we reserve evil for things that actually hurt people out of malice, not poor product design. Otherwise that term becomes useless.

While not as bad as some companies (Pinterest), it does seem they're headed in a direction where wrong-think will get your videos pulled, your entire channel demonetized or worse. Kind of evil.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#329

Post by gitgud »

To me the name sucked, google+ is equivalent to more Google. It doesn't really make sense why they choose that name, seems lazy and boring...

Also from what I can remember, the main features were its integration with all Google services and never really did anything interesting, so it was kind of a boring platform that no one wanted to join (I don't remember anyone being excited about it in my social network)...

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#330

Post by dorgo »

netwanderer3 wrote: post #319
hunter23 wrote: post #300

I find it ironic that the author is trying to detail core reasons why Google+ failed when they themselves admit they don't use any social media. While I didn't work on the Google plus team (I was on a different team), the biggest reason in my mind why Google+ failed was motivation. Not a single Google executive on the team had a strong reason for why they should build Google+ besides "we can make a better version of…

That's my thought as well. Google+ seemed like just another "me too" platform. Though Google attempted to steer it into another direction later but it was simply too late by then. What I found hard to believe was that with all the brightest, smartest, most creative people at Google, yet they couldn't figure out a better use case for the platform during all those years? That should have been easy compared to other muc…

>They don't even have to wait for shipping

I don't mind to wait for shipping. In the next two weeks is ok. I don't even search on Google. I search on Amazon. Btw, what is Yelp?

Post reply on HN