11–20 of 42 posts
It's a bit easier when you already have a user base of billions. Edit: So I disagree with the article entirely, it's not interesting at all.
Agreed. Also, if it's growing so fast why does it still feel like a graveyard?!
It's a bit easier when you already have a user base of billions. Edit: So I disagree with the article entirely, it's not interesting at all.
Agreed, that having a huge user base of another product helps. But did Google Wave or Buzz take off that fast? I don't think Wave ever probably got to that many users.
Even though I use FB more than any other social networking websites, I still think many of their features suck a lot (photo album, chat). It bothers me that they have been in business for so long , but they have failed to incorporate better features . For me the way FB was frantically responding to Google+ seems silly. They should have done these way before. Can anyone explain why FB had to wait for adding new features until Google+ was launched.
Ugh...actually it does: http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/weblogs?blog=/pub/wlg/25593
Also interesting to compare these timespans to other networks, like telephone and fax. Not sure how accurate these figures are, but for a ballpark: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v201/kaap/fig3.gif
"Metcalfe's law states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n^2)"
"The law has often been illustrated using the example of fax machines: a single fax machine is useless, but the value of every fax machine increases with the total number of fax machines in the network, because the total number of people with whom each user may send and receive documents increases. Goods characterize the first component or intrinsic network effect. Services fall under the second component of network effects known as complementary.[6] A social networking site works the same way as the fax machine described above. The greater number of users with the service, the more valuable the service becomes to the community. Deriving from Metcalfe's Law, every new "friend" accepted or added on these social networking sites makes the user's profile ever more valuable in terms of the law. Positive and negative outcomes take place with all network effects involving a service of this sort. New jobs, relationships, and opportunities arise with more people coming together, however, if not used correctly, services of this type can lead to distant relationships."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfes_law
(If you read the Wikipedia entry, also read about "Reverse Effects")
These stats are a complete joke. Almost any major google launch gets this type of initial surge. That google is happy to celebrate and even cite this type of stats tells me they are looking at the wrong metrics.
How about: how many people have given up fb for google plus?
Once terms begins I suspect people will form around one network or another as their primary tool, so if Plus hasn't managed to get full social groups across and active by then, they may well default to Facebook as their primary social network for organising and sharing. Alternatively, I could see Hangouts managing to grow as a chat/skype substitute even if social groups were generally staying on Facebook as their Events and Sharing site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, that having a huge user base of another product helps. But did Google Wave or Buzz take off that fast? I don't think Wave ever probably got to that many users.
Thats true,part of it maybe that we were a bit tired of FB . Also there was a sense of hype around the launch of Google + which we didnt have in Wave or Buzz. Even though I use FB more than any other social networking websites, I still think many of their features suck a lot (photo album, chat). It bothers me that they have been in business for so long , but they have failed to incorporate better features . For me th…
Alternate title: "How long it took Google+ to reach 1.3% of the number of Facebook users"
Google+ is still a novelty. That doesn't mean it won't eventually become something useful, but right now I have 20 people in my circles, and not one person posts anything. It's more accurate to say there are 10 million accounts on Google+, not users. Users implies people actually use it.
It's a bit easier when you already have a user base of billions. Edit: So I disagree with the article entirely, it's not interesting at all.