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

151–160 of 733 posts

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#151

Post by jklinger410 »

cletus wrote: post #99

This is Vic Gundotra's legacy and perhaps the first major strategic decision Larry Page made in the post-Eric Schmidt era and it was the design and launch of Google+ and (IMHO) it marked a turning point in the company's culture. Internal resistance to aspects of G+ was enormous. People outside the company get this idea that Google acts as some kind of singleminded (possibly nefarious) entity when "herding cats" is so…

>Probably the worst decision made in this whole mess was trying to unify the account model.

Trying it at all after realizing it was not going to be complete. I think the unified account was an all-or-nothing strategy, and they met with early resistance from every dedicated user silo on all of their previously very separate products.

But instead of launching some big unified account thing to really force Google+, they did a kind of half-assed thing. Some accounts migrated and auto-signed up, there were some weird account-links, people had multiple accounts (youtube, gmail) etc etc. They backed out, pandered, etc. It was an absolute shit-show from the perspective of a power user.

If someone would have had the prescience to say "our products are too silod for a successful merger" at the onset, and then either spent 5 years slowly breaking down those silos FIRST, or just tearing the walls down AT ALL, it might have worked.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#152

Post by pessimizer »

ben_w wrote: post #17

A curiously soft end given all of the (IMO valid) outrage about “real names” when it was first announced.

We gave up the idea of pseudonymity on social networks just so Google could lose money on a product that it aggressively attempted to force the pseudonymous users of its other products to use. Actually pretty sad.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#153

Post by Apocryphon »

karpodiem wrote: post #47
glenrivard wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poorly managed? They have now grown over 20% the last ten quarters and now over 26% the last two. Since the beginning never declined for a quarter YoY. Even though the great recession. That is pretty hard to do.

How many FTEs do they have running G+? There are a bunch of OSS people that use it because Facebook sucks and Twitter is toxic. The good will from the OSS community in maintaining G+ can be easily paid for in the 250% growth you referenced. And please, save me from the 'we need to double down and focus on products that matter' - no, you need to maintain some credibility for your product ownership. That's why I don't…

Shouldn't the OSS community be using an OSS social media network like Mastodon anyway?

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#155

Post by leephillips »

_uhtu wrote: post #19
_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #10

What exactly does "sunsetting consumer Google+" mean? The blog post wasn't particularly enlightening. Are they shutting down Google+ as a social network?

From the article: "Action 1: We are shutting down Google+ for consumers." They will keep it active as an internal network, but regular old joes won't be able to use Google+ anymore.

So, nothing's changing?

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#156

Post by [deleted] »

evgen wrote: post #45
_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…

There is no way Facebook would ever implement something like this. The whole point of the Facebook feed tinkering is to force you to wade through a river of shit to find the nuggets you are interested in. The feed algorithm is all about making that river just slightly short of unbearable, because the river is where they stuff all the ads. If they provided you with useful filters it would make the revenue opportunitie…

[deleted]

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#157

Post by unsignedint »

Google+ sunsetting is sad news, as I've actually used it fairly actively. (and I have a few dozens of people I interact regularly who I wouldn't have known if not from G+!)

It somewhat acted like a better version of Twitter for me, where I can write a lot more on the post, and actually engage a meaningful discussion with people.

I don't know, even with relaxed character counts on Twitter that it will accommodate same use cases, and I don't like to use Facebook for this purpose as I really don't want introduce a total stranger as my friend...

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#158

Post by pasbesoin »

People are finally becoming dis-enchanted with Facebook. Quick, kill Google+!

As opposed to trying to take advantage of the opportunity and improve it -- fixing the bork-headed management design shoved onto it prior to external launch.

Facebook has shown how it's failing its users. Google has the opportunity to make a big show and potentially market share gain by doing the opposite. But, nope.

Instead, 'our market share is corporate'.

Which is fine. But, it tells you a lot about where Google has been going.

(And, if I were corporate Worldmerica, I'd be hesitant about investing too much good will in and dependence upon +.)

As an individual Google user, unfortunately I have little hope that this unwinding will also back out other changes co-morbid with the + deployment, such as the account "unification" that allows a single "mistake" to lock you out of everything. And a single Google "mistake" in execution to haunt you across all their properties.

I'm in the process of exiting Facebook, except for a mostly placeholder presence. A lot of my friends don't have the wherewithal to set up and maintain privately implemented social presences. But, we won't be switching to +, I guess.

Maybe an old-fashioned bulletin board -- with otherwise unlinked pseudonyms -- will do. Back to the Future...

As I think about this, maybe there is a strongly implied message in this. Assuming parts of Google still emit good will. Namely, that, these days, NO commercial network can escape the pressures -- governmental as well as commercial -- to compromise their users.

We aren't making it, because we can no longer do so honestly and securely.

An interesting alternative perspective.

(And, we're even less inclined than Mark and Co., to try to ride herd on all the nut jobs out there.)

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#159

Post by Already__Taken »

coldtea wrote: post #125
cronz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. How low have we got, capacity wise, when this is even considered "a hurdle"? At one time, people had to walk to the TV to change the channels…

One person is all it takes to ruin it, and there's no cost for them to do so nor immediate negative consequence.

I thought g+ circles was a great idea, the reddit webdesign circle taught me I don't care about all of your kids.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#160

Post by jsnell »

arkitaip wrote: post #138
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/

I'm not sure that article is saying there were 500k users. It reads more like there 500k users had granted access to an app that had these permissions. It seems hard to imagine that a bug like this would be affected by whether a user is currently active or not.
Post reply on HN