Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 733 posts

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#131

Post by stevekemp »

notatoad wrote: post #64
pc86 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question, is anybody going to be outraged by sunsetting G+?

there's a decent sized group of people who are outraged when google shuts down any product, regardless of if they used it or had even heard about it before.

I'm not particularly outraged, but the stereotype that Google shuts down projects too frequently to depend upon them is not going to go away when it keeps happening.

I use their mail, as a backup, their maps, and search engine. But I'd think long and hard before I developed against one of their services, or came to rely upon any future-project they released.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#132

Post by konschubert »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #102

packets to packets, bits to bits. I am not surprised they are killing the service, and I'm reminded of all the damage it did to the company both inside and out[1]. If there is one thing I could say I miss about not working at Google it is seeing how the organization internalizes what they did and why. These sorts of things can teach a lot of really good lessons to an organization if the retrospective is done well. I…

Btw, is anyone building a google inbox clone yet?

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#133

Post by brownbat »

davidw wrote: post #60
jonknee wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> never depend on anything from Google They're shutting it down precisely because no one was depending on it. How would anyone depend on a social network without any users?

"No one" at Google scale might actually be quite a few people...?

That's the tragedy. It's a business that became one of the richest companies in the world in a few years, obtaining massive capital looking for investments along the way. It then holds all those investments (of money or time or intelligence) to the same standard of success and failure.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#134

Post by robotbikes »

cronz wrote: post #41
_uhtu wrote: post #6

Google+ had terrible marketing and release, but it had some decent ideas that I wish other networks had carried over. The idea of "circles", where you had a circle for "acquaintances" "friends", "family" would be great on, say, Facebook, as it would allow me to filter down my feed to just the people I really care about but still have a connection to more distance acquaintances. Currently on Facebook the news feed is…

The idea of circles sounds fantastic on paper but it's simply too much work for the common user. For most of the posts users would make, users would probably spend more time thinking about which circles to enable than actually writing the post. It's a headache and it leads to a poor experience, it feels like a hurdle, something you must do; it makes posting less natural. Facebook on the other hand offers the same fun…

Sorting feeds into algorithmically informed circles would be helpful. The current algorithm is a nightmare if it is data starved, ie you get fed a bunch a irrelevant info from people you just interacted with. There is no process to say, hey Facebook show me what my old college friends are up to. Or hey Facebook show me what my family is up to or hey Facebook show me political news. It's just a bunch of random grasping at straws.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#136

Post by pessimizer »

cronz wrote: post #41
_uhtu wrote: post #6

Google+ had terrible marketing and release, but it had some decent ideas that I wish other networks had carried over. The idea of "circles", where you had a circle for "acquaintances" "friends", "family" would be great on, say, Facebook, as it would allow me to filter down my feed to just the people I really care about but still have a connection to more distance acquaintances. Currently on Facebook the news feed is…

The idea of circles sounds fantastic on paper but it's simply too much work for the common user. For most of the posts users would make, users would probably spend more time thinking about which circles to enable than actually writing the post. It's a headache and it leads to a poor experience, it feels like a hurdle, something you must do; it makes posting less natural. Facebook on the other hand offers the same fun…

> users would probably spend more time thinking about which circles to enable than actually writing the post

I'm not sure why this is harder than choosing an email address to send an email to. Some things I'd share with FAMILY, some things I'd share with EVERYBODY, some things I'd share with MY QUILTING GROUP.

Seems like the easiest thing in the world.

Also seems weird to say that even selecting a group to share to is a massive hurdle, but the fact that facebook buries the same functionality behind 5-6 clicks for each post is convenient. Seems more like it was too easy, and had to be made harder.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#137

Post by ams6110 »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #53
mindcrime wrote: post #20

LOL, one more example of why one should never depend on anything from Google. developer adoption Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because they never released a usable write API and were basically just a little less developer-hostile than Twitter? G+ had a lot of potential, had Google chosen to truly embrace Open Standards, federation, and usable API's. As it is, they shot themselves in the foot by creating JAWG (Just Another…

Everyone always says "this always failed because it didn't do X," where X is anything they like. It's clear that it failed. It's less clear that the reason is necessarily any of the ones you gave. Every dominant social network has been a walled garden, and, contrariwise, every attempt to create a major social network based around federation and open standards has, so far, failed. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see o…

Mastodon and Diaspora are both horrible names for anything aspiring to be socially popular. The former conveys something lumbering, slow, and now extinct. The latter sounds like a gastrointestinal disease if you don't know what it means, and conjures up images of a group of people being expelled or fleeing if you do.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#138

Post by arkitaip »

rlv-dan wrote: post #88

"it has not achieved broad consumer or developer adoption" I bet G+ has more active users than your average indie developer could ever dream about. But Google is not that kind of company. It's all or nothing. World domination or shut it down and try again (or buy a company that succeeded).

G+ only had 500k users and 90 percent of the user sessions lasted less than five seconds. https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/google-plus-hack/

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#140

Post by tokyodude »

stedaniels wrote: post #73
IshKebab wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erm, Facebook did implement something like this. Shortly after Google+ came out. You can still assign friends to different groups.

Alas, the concept was never fleshed out and is all but buried and featureless.

hmmm, I've been using it since it came out and still use it. Yes the UI is a little crap but basically every time you post there's a tiny drop down you can set which groups can see and which groups can't. It will stay on whatever you last chose.

Mine is set to "All Friends" except "DoNotShow" and there's about 3 people on my "DoNotShow" list.

Have also excluded family for a few posts.

Post reply on HN