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

311–320 of 733 posts

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#311

Post by anyfoo »

justicezyx wrote: post #168
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…

Not relevant, but "the fish rots from the head" is relevant to Chinese? I cannot find any explanation of that connection. Just curious.

I cannot answer that question, but I can add that it's a common German saying as well, in a slightly different form: "The fish smells from the head."

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#312

Post by bsimpson »

badloginagain wrote: post #84

I wonder what G+ could have done to pivot after its terrible release. They had some good ideas, and usually Google takes those good ideas of a failed product and rolls it into successful products. Remember Google Wave, where you could work on a document _at the same time_? Something like the automatic generation of circles in Google Mail, and integrate some kind of generalized wall posts for Google Mail users.

You mean like Photos and Hangouts?

Google+ was never a go-to social network like Facebook, but many of its features became successful products in their own rights.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#313

Post by HillaryBriss »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #72

Google+ was a top-down, scrambling response to Facebook's meteoric rise. I think it ultimately failed because it didn't naturally mesh with or arise from Google's natural strengths. Google has always had amazing scientists and engineers working for them, but building a new social network requires less math/science and more of a human focus. (Of course, Facebook's data centers and ops are now the 6th wonder of the tec…

> ...Facebook's data centers and ops are now the 6th wonder of the tech world ...

At the risk of not being taken seriously, er, what are the first 5 wonders of the tech world?

Is AWS #1? Is Google's huge swarm of web search indexing machines #1? What makes it onto that list?

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#314

Post by MCrekt »

timdavila wrote: post #214
ams6110 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While it sounds shallow I have to agree. I think your product name is part of the UI and should be as friendly and memorable as possible.

Just makes sense. Marketing to a broader audience is to be a bit shallow.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#315

Post by fooey »

nathan_long wrote: post #108
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?

There can be death spiral here, though. Them: "We're shutting down X because too few people use it. Also, announcing Y!" Users: "I'm not using Y. You'll probably shut it down." [months pass] Them: "We're shutting down Y because too few people use it." The brand recognition that they hope will make Y successful might actually work against it.

Google's chat strategy in a nutshell

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#316

Post by dang »

p49k wrote: post #199
sctb wrote: post #93

Related discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169027 . Edit: here are some other articles providing coverage: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/8/17951914/google-plus-data... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/08/google-reportedly-exposed-pr... https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/google-plus-hack/ https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45792349 https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/google-plus-shut-down-... htt…

This is not a news article, though - it's a one-sided PR piece that greatly minimizes important points about the story and completely ignores other points (e.g. the regulation angle). You should have let another news story take its spot; there are plenty others that are not paywalled.

I guess we'll leave both stories up for now since at a minimum they emphasize different aspects (the data breach in one, the Google+ shutdown in the other).

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#317

Post by vl »

justicezyx wrote: post #168
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…

Not relevant, but "the fish rots from the head" is relevant to Chinese? I cannot find any explanation of that connection. Just curious.

It's widely used in Russia and considered to be a classical Russian proverb.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#319

Post by giancarlostoro »

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…

Except I distinctly remember Facebook having customizable feeds in 2013. I was able to separate friends by groups to their own specific feeds and block them from my main feed. I havent been able to figure out how to get that feature back since I forgot about it. My best guess is I either deleted those lists or Facebook pulled back the feature due to lack of use.

Edit:

Here's a link to someone asking for help when I guess they started to pull the plug on custom friend feeds:

https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=1020258...

Friends List is here apparently:

https://www.facebook.com/bookmarks/lists/

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#320

Post by reading-at-work »

adrianmonk wrote: post #98
evgen wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'd like to think that's not true, but it wouldn't be the first time such a technique has been used, apparently successfully. Witness the local TV news which is always teasing that some story is coming up next, only to put it at the very end of the broadcast so that you have to watch the whole 30 minute program (including commercials) to hear the 1 minute you care about.

> I'd like to think that's not true

Facebook insiders have admitted that it is. Mike Allen, Facebook's first president, said this in an interview:

“The thought process was all about, ‘How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?’,” he said. “And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever, and that’s going to get you to contribute more content, and that’s going to get you more likes and comments. It’s a social validation feedback loop. … You’re exploiting a vulnerabilty in human psychology.”

So that underscores their general attitude towards user behavior. The 'every once in a while' piece applies to the newsfeed too - it's designed to keep you searching for things you care about, and they carefully mix in things you don't, so that you're never too satisfied or unsatisfied, just constantly craving more.

Post reply on HN