Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company • Hacker News Board

Re: Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company

#211

Post by dinkumthinkum » Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 4:04 AM UTC

zippergz wrote: post #65

saidajigumi wrote: post #34

> Former CEO Eric Schmidt admitted in an interview at the D conference in 2011 that he missed the boat on the rise of identity on the Internet. > “I clearly knew that I had to do something, and I failed to do it,” he said. “A CEO should take responsibility. I screwed up.” I think Eric screwed up in a deeper way that this quote admits. Google+ came up at a time of broader dissatisfaction with other social networks, pa…

My experience is that the Real Names policy was hated by a small but vocal and influential group of users. I never heard about it from any of my friends who aren't reading sites like HN. Those people still don't use Google+, but it's because none of their friends were there, they found Circles confusing, and they didn't see any real benefit to taking the effort to learn about it. Social networks have a lot of inertia…

I think in the long term all the nerds, as you imply, that hated Real Names will be vindicated and it will be obvious that this enforcing people to spread their real names all over the web is a bad idea.

Re: Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company

#212

Post by keypusher » Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 4:25 AM UTC

zippergz wrote: post #65

saidajigumi wrote: post #34

> Former CEO Eric Schmidt admitted in an interview at the D conference in 2011 that he missed the boat on the rise of identity on the Internet. > “I clearly knew that I had to do something, and I failed to do it,” he said. “A CEO should take responsibility. I screwed up.” I think Eric screwed up in a deeper way that this quote admits. Google+ came up at a time of broader dissatisfaction with other social networks, pa…

My experience is that the Real Names policy was hated by a small but vocal and influential group of users. I never heard about it from any of my friends who aren't reading sites like HN. Those people still don't use Google+, but it's because none of their friends were there, they found Circles confusing, and they didn't see any real benefit to taking the effort to learn about it. Social networks have a lot of inertia…

The thing is that these sites (as with many things) grow from a core of early tastemakers. In some circles these people know the hottest bands, the best new books, wear the coolest clothes, or know about the new restaurants in town before everyone else. In tech they know the best sites, and where they go the rest will follow. "People reading HN" might be a small minority in the grand scheme of things, but I would be willing to bet that they collectively have a huge influence on the web at large. They were the natural drivers of Google+, and they didn't bite. Meanwhile things have moved on from Facebook to Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc leaving Google+ in the dust. Do not ignore vocal and influential groups of users, even if they are small in number.

Re: Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company

#213

Post by r0h1n » Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 4:25 AM UTC

Google+ and Gundotra's lasting, and perhaps perverse, legacy to Google is the "social glue" that forcibly connects together most Google services.

That Google+ never quite managed to take on Facebook is obvious. A much bigger and intangible cost, IMHO, is the falling trust in much bigger Google products like search, YouTube etc. as Google+ was shoved down user's throats.

To wit, I don't use Google+, but thanks to its bundling I've also stopped logging in to any Google service on my laptop except on a strict need-to basis (for e.g. log in, update Google Drive doc, log out...or turn GPS on, use Google Maps, turn GPS off).

Re: Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company

#214

Post by dredmorbius » Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 4:35 AM UTC

npizzolato wrote: post #130

timothya wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was in the invite-only stage for less than 3 months.

You say that like it's a short amount of time. Three months is more than enough time for hype to build, peek, and wither, which can -- and did, I would agrue -- kill a social network.

A slow and phased community development worked really, really well for Facebook. Remember: it was deployed into a world already dominated by MySpace and with multiple rivals.

Slower, with a solid core community, would have been far better for G+ IMO. It opened up too fast.

Not only didn't it have a gelled community, but there were far too many UI / feature glitches and omissions. Many of which persist to this day.

Re: Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company

#215

Post by dredmorbius » Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 4:38 AM UTC

kingnight wrote: post #6

[deleted] wrote: post #2

[deleted]

Google+ should have launched secretly and conservatively, instead of big announcement and smash/crash into every feature. There are some aspects of it that are very appealing (mostly the nonsocial ones...) that I find useful, but due to my initial repulsion to the 'major change' I am less likely to invest in using.

Total agreement as I just posted above. A slow and staged rollout for Facebook worked great. In large part because it started with a small, well-suited, and high-status user base (Harvard, Ivy League), and expanded from there.

Into a world already dominated by MySpace and with plenty of other social network contenders. Including Google's own Orkut, Buzz, and Wave.

Re: Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company

#216

Post by arkj » Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 5:27 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #177

gwillen wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The engineers -- the ones down in the trenches -- practically revolted over it. The decision was purely from On High, i.e. managerial. It came down from the highest levels.

And that right there strikes me as a symptom of a deep problem. I think the best use of executives is to support people in the trenches, because they're closest to the actual work. That support can include thoughtful questioning, advising, and mentoring. But when it becomes controlling, it often gets ugly. I just happened to chat today with a guy who built a large and successful construction company up from nothing.…

sounds interesting! who is this guy? or he prefers to be anonymous?

Re: Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company

#217

Post by arkj » Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 5:30 AM UTC

G+ failed coz of a simple reason, Hubris.

Re: Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company

#218

Post by rachelbythebay » Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 5:52 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #193

kibwen wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad to hear it. I apologize to Google's engineers for my uninformed implication.

I wish more had protested more strongly or simply walked. I know it's easy to project actions on others, but really, that was a BAD decision.

Unfortunately, not everyone had that sort of mobility. Mortgage holders, people on visas who needed to find another sponsor (and couldn't just go anywhere) and the rest have a harder time moving on.

That has to suck: knowing something is rotten but having to stick with it due to external constraints.

Re: Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company

#219

Post by x0x0 » Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 6:02 AM UTC

magicalist wrote: post #159

pessimizer wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only because you don't read creditnews.com. When a major exec leaves in my industry, everyone is talking about it on Monday, and lawsuits often ensue if they end up at a competitor.

non-competes are void in California.

only up to a certain seniority level

Re: Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company

#220

Post by eitland » Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 6:28 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #199

eitland wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The easy nym fix is to create a "page" with your handle. The "page" can post, comment on YouTube etc. Not heavily advertised though, I only became aware of it when I had to give up my old YouTube account. You can easily switch between main account and nym account and you only need one password.

That "easy nym fix" still requires storing your real ID with Google. That's a non-starter for many of us, as it's still available: to hackers, national security, subpoena processes, etc. See Bruce Schneier's recent Stanford talk.

Agreed. There are cases where this is not enough. For me (who are aware of the possibility of having multiple personas but is totally comfortable with national security 2014 edition to know about it ) and most ordinary people (who happily upload all their stuff to Facebook anyway) the current solution seems like a good and user friendly alternative.

If the fact that Google needs to know who their customers are isn't acceptable then people need to find other services. Google can pinpoint us pretty much anyway they are just being upfront about it in my opinion.