21–30 of 116 posts
If 100% of Google Reader users enthusiastically adopted Google+, would that have even come close to what they were hoping to ultimately get? That's probably a rounding error by Facebook's usage numbers.
Big assumption that people who were not Google+ users would tolerate having to join it just to continue using Google Reader. A lot of people would have just been pissed off that "G+ is borging google reader just like it is everything else".
No joining necessary, they just move your reader account into G+ and slowly people start using it for more than an RSS reader.
IIRC, facebook was all about the "wall" before friendfeed. Google has already gotten real names and identity from Google+, but I can't help but think the key insight into social existed at google before anyone had talked about Google+. Google+'s big mistake is being too late. The product is perfectly fine.
It was actually a really good product, but the thing has had zero traction with real people. If no one uses a product then it's clearly providing no value. That's pretty much the definition of a bad product.
It was actually a really good product, but the thing has had zero traction with real people. If no one uses a product then it's clearly providing no value. That's pretty much the definition of a bad product.
I agree with OP on this though - Google simply didn't push enough features people actually want the most, and those that they pushed usually lacked polish.
Big assumption that people who were not Google+ users would tolerate having to join it just to continue using Google Reader. A lot of people would have just been pissed off that "G+ is borging google reader just like it is everything else".
I used to be a Google fan for many things. but that was conditional on execution. They just seem to start things and then abortively stop them short of completion, over and over again. Then revamp the appearance or something a couple of times and let it rot until it's deprecated, or they crank up the prices. I don't understand how so much money and talent can help so many visionary ideas just stall and get clubbed to death.
It was actually a really good product, but the thing has had zero traction with real people. If no one uses a product then it's clearly providing no value. That's pretty much the definition of a bad product.
- price and cost (doesn't really apply here, though)
- marketing and image
- critical mass and network effects
Therefore, your conclusion is invalid.
This is the way I've been using Facebook for years. Most of the publications I follow have FB pages to which they submit their most pertinent content (for small publications and individual authors this usually ends up being every story or post). I can skim what's new and get other recommendations from people that I know. With a little bit of work I can also filter down what I see to just the people whose opinions I c…
If 100% of Google Reader users enthusiastically adopted Google+, would that have even come close to what they were hoping to ultimately get? That's probably a rounding error by Facebook's usage numbers.
I disagree. People who used Reader were early adopters and influencers. Perhaps it was only 8 million users from Reader, but they would have had a multiplier effect.