I think had Google taken the approach of 'what do we have that Facebook doesn't?' vs 'what does Facebook have that we can obtain?' would've resulted in a better product (as far as value proposition goes). There was a lot of opportunity to create a unique experience, and that simply didn't happen.
Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company
261–267 of 267 posts
Re: Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition to being safe, understandable, and wrong, it was completely out of touch. Did nobody stop to think why people would ever elect to use MetalHead444 over their real name in the first place? The only explanation I can fathom was that it was a decision motivated by engineers and marketers rather than by anyone genuinely concerned about user experience.
100% of Facebook's value is real names. That is it. There are hundreds of other services for instant/asynchronous messaging, photo sharing, etc. but only Facebook knows everyone in my life by the same names I do. I can discover and communicate with anyone I might have heard about in my real life on Facebook because (and only because) they use their real name on Facebook. Discoverability by real name is the point of F…
> Discoverability by real name is the point of Facebook.
Yup, and it's also it's greatest weakness. Hence the abandonment of Facebook by millennials to communication mediums that are inherently private—SnapChat, Kik, and anything else that doesn't put their behavior on the Internet, Google-able in one hop by authority figures.
Facebook is great for middle-aged people with stable (boring) lives who want a digital scrapbook to share with similar people. Hence all of the photos of people's kids.
Re: Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company
#263Earlier 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.
Actually it doesn't. You don't need a G+ Profile to connect a Youtube channel to a G+ Page.
That's the crux of the whole problem, G+ is so heavily associated with being a social network connected to real identity that having it manage the profile system is untenable.
Re: Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company
#264"He spent his last hour at the company thanking each Google+ user personally."
Re: Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company
#265370 million monthly active users. I wonder how many of those interact with Google+ by mere accident. Personally, the only time I post stuff on G+ is when I'm using another Google service (e.g. Youtube) and they post it to my G+ stream, often without my knowledge or consent.
As Vic departs, the elephant in the room remains - that the quoted G+ active population is probably one of the most inflated BS numbers ever.
From rating an app to commenting on youtube, to uploading on youtube, the content is posted to your mandatory Google+ account by default.
Remember the girl on Youtube who sang a song about how much Google+ sux, then the Youtube co-founder also said it sux? Those reactions should have been of major concern. Not unfixable, but you can't ignore teenage girls singing songs about how much your product sucks!
Re: Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safe? It threw the Internet into uproar, which continues today as they force YouTube users to either use their real names or create a Google+ brand page for their YouTube username. That doesn't sound like a safe decision to me.
Realistically: (a) It threw a small but vocal corner of the internet into an uproar. Now many, many of those people were smart and had really thought about the issue and the problems it would cause, but the sad truth is that a vast majority of people really didn't care. (b) Pretty much anything throws a small but vocal corner of the internet into an uproar.
Much of the majority follows the lead of that vocal minority. This is part of how Google gained supremacy in search.
Re: Google+ Head Vic Gundotra Leaving Company
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
Realistically: (a) It threw a small but vocal corner of the internet into an uproar. Now many, many of those people were smart and had really thought about the issue and the problems it would cause, but the sad truth is that a vast majority of people really didn't care. (b) Pretty much anything throws a small but vocal corner of the internet into an uproar.
Much of the majority follows the lead of that vocal minority. This is part of how Google gained supremacy in search.
I'm curious about how you're establishing that the people objecting to this are the same people who were early adopters of Google search.
I was an early adopter of Google search back in the late 90s but I'm not that bothered about what they're doing with plus (I'd rather they were handling it differently but I'll take it or leave it).
I do see that some of the people who are objecting are potentially significant voices - I tried to reflect this in my post by saying they were people who had thought this through - but sadly having a good point doesn't mean that you'll always win the argument, particularly where massive commercial concerns are involved.