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

Why Google+ Failed

onezero.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 375 posts

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#181

Post by Nican »

oneshot908 wrote: post #157

I was an IC6 at Google when Google+ launched... From my perspective, I think partitioning the Google+ team into their own Dark Tower with their own super-healthy cafeteria that was for them and their executives alone was the biggest problem. IMO this even foreshadows separating off Google Brain from the rest of Google and giving them resources not available to anyone else. Google was at its best a relatively open cul…

The "Kennedy" comment really made me giggle. I have some dislike for some trends of applications addining great amounts of white space.

I have to agree that the interface, and the "Real Names" requirements were the two biggest hurdles for me to even to start to like Google+.

I really liked the concept of circles, but whenever I did get around to using the social network, it never felt as social and engaging as Twitter. Even when I did find an intersting discussion, it was hard to keep track of replies. Reddit/HNews/Twitter have a tree-like structure for the comments, but Google+ was mostly flat, and hard to keep track of any debate.

I would lose interest on Google+ as soon as I tried to read a comment thread, and close the application altogether.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#182

Post by pbuzbee »

I think Google+ failed first and foremost because there wasn't any reason to switch.

First, it didn't make sense that people would quickly leave an established network (FB) to join a new empty network. At this time, most folks who wanted to join a network had finally joined FB. It took a lot of time and momentum for FB to reach that point. Google+ didn't offer anything fundamentally different from Facebook: it was very similar, just with far fewer people to talk to.

Second, Google+ wasn't cool. Most successful non-niche social networks seem to grow from young people first: young people enjoy having an online space that's separate from older friends/family. Then, as the network becomes more popular, older folks join. This is loosely the trend we've seen with Facebook and Instagram, and to a lesser extent with Snapchat and MySpace. But, to get young people to join, you have to offer something cool and/or unique. Google+ wasn't very cool or unique: it seemed to target everyone at all once.

G+ failed for other reasons too of course, which others have listed in the comments here. But I think the biggest reason it failed was because there wasn't any compelling reason to use the network.

(I'm a Googler, but my opinions are my own)

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#183

Post by kryogen1c »

oneshot908 wrote: post #157

I was an IC6 at Google when Google+ launched... From my perspective, I think partitioning the Google+ team into their own Dark Tower with their own super-healthy cafeteria that was for them and their executives alone was the biggest problem. IMO this even foreshadows separating off Google Brain from the rest of Google and giving them resources not available to anyone else. Google was at its best a relatively open cul…

> From my perspective, I think partitioning the Google+ team into their own Dark Tower with their own super-healthy cafeteria that was for them and their executives alone

I work in an IT MSP where we do business with lots of small-medium companies, and i am astounded at how much the leadership sets the culture for the company. A sarcastic and passive aggressive CEO will have a company of rude employees. An outgoing confident type A person will work with friendly extroverts.

Separating a team like this guarantees a different culture than the rest of Google, and imherent resentment between the two.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#184

Post by asicsp »

A few Google+ communities I was part of were good, probably benefitted from being small and focused. Compared to Facebook groups, the ability to select sub-topics within the community made it easy to navigate.

These days, I'm reluctant to use any free Google product, their lifetime is uncertain

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#185

Post by mongol »

rchaud wrote: post #134
x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they did that because of how well it worked for GMail. And Facebook was restricted too in the beginning. Obviously, Google+ didn't benefit from following the precedents set by other successful launches.

Gmail's invite only approach made sense because in 2004 it was absurd for anybody to offer 1GB of free storage. Hotmail offered 200MB I think. Compared to that, nobody cared about a Facebook ripoff with a different UI and none of the network effects.

I think it was way less than that. Wasn't it like ... 2MB?

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#187

Post by acheron »

ablation wrote: post #138
GarrisonPrime wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you in school or training? And/or do you work with members of your social circle? And/or does family live close? If any of these are true, I can see how Facebook offers little value. But the older you get, the fewer people you tend to have around. My social life is easily 30 times harder to maintain now than it was when I was in college. Work was also an easy place to find friends and kindred spirits. At first. B…

I don't have Facebook, and all of these needs for connectivity are taken care of by WhatsApp group chats, essentially. It feels far more intimate and immediate than Facebook ever did too.

"I don't use Facebook, I use [thing that is also Facebook]" is not a hugely compelling argument.

While "buy out your competitors" is not exactly a supergenius-level strategy, it is amazing how well it's worked out for FB.

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#188

Post by znpy »

oneshot908 wrote: post #157

I was an IC6 at Google when Google+ launched... From my perspective, I think partitioning the Google+ team into their own Dark Tower with their own super-healthy cafeteria that was for them and their executives alone was the biggest problem. IMO this even foreshadows separating off Google Brain from the rest of Google and giving them resources not available to anyone else. Google was at its best a relatively open cul…

> I was an IC6 at Google

IC6 meaning... ?

Re: Why Google+ Failed

#190

Post by vharuck »

dekhn wrote: post #180
gist wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The saying 'camel is a horse made by a committee' applies to this situation. There was almost certainly no base creative drive when creating the actual product. Most things that end up being good are driven by someone who is viewed as somewhat crazy but has enough power or force to get what they want and/or steam roll others. Not to mention I am sure they are confusing smarts with luck. The decision makers think of t…

camels are amazing creatures that are more useful than horses in a wide range of situations.

That's the point of the adage. The hypothetical committee was supposed to come up with a fast animal to ride (horse). But then everyone wanted it to address their specific concern. In the end, they created something good in many situations (camel), but at the cost of the overall gaol.
Post reply on HN