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

441–450 of 733 posts

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#441

Post by fipple »

spenczar5 wrote: post #338
reading-at-work wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pos…

I couldn't believe this quote, so I had to dig it up. It's real, but from Sean Parker. Mike Allen was the interviewer. Source (a slightly clickbaity-looking place, go at your own risk): https://www.axios.com/sean-parker-unloads-on-facebook-god-on...

Why is it hard to believe the quote? This has been the MO of mass entertainment since the gladiators fought the lions.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#442

Post by romed »

dekhn wrote: post #425
fulafel wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the hosting business more important?

cloud, not hosting. hosting is just part of cloud. Well, the first reason is that if Google misses this growth opportunity, they will be punished badly in the market, which will affect their ability to complete long-term against Amazon and MSFT. Growth in cloud is what growth in mobile was 10 years ago: critically important to remain relevant in a market. When cloud switches to "profitable mode" some time in the futu…

But Facebook is and did take a huge bite out of the total ad market. Facebook has roughly 1/3rd as much ad revenue as Google on a far smaller investment of infrastructure and a narrower range of products.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#443

Post by andybak »

UncleMeat wrote: post #121
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…

Is this a joke? G+ has been a laughingstock in terms of actual usage numbers for years. Nobody is using it. The fact that it was still supported is amazing. Is Google supposed to support failing products until the end of time?

I saw a joke on Reddit recently: "Google+ data breach. Up to 50 accounts compromised"

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#444

Post by mindgam3 »

stanmancan wrote: post #382
mindgam3 wrote: post #373

RIP. Like so many of Google’s high profile efforts (anyone remember Wave? Glass, etc), a bunch of good ideas and great tech brought down by an utter failure to understand the human element/social psychology angle. Google+ was dead in the water from day one. You don’t beat Facebook at social by building a slightly different product with some cool ideas like Circles. Going for feature parity was a mistake. Instead they…

Big companies typically don't go after small niches. There are so many of them available they can't possibly pursue them all, because ultimately you don't know which one will take off. The book The Innovator's Dilemma focuses on this.

Exactly. My point is that going after small niches until one works would have been a better strategy to come up with a viable Facebook competitor. This could probably only happen with a “startup within big company” model where they had the freedom to test out a bunch of crazy stuff for a long time without pressure from management.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#445

Post by fipple »

8ytecoder wrote: post #65
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…

This is a very cynical view of things. I'm not a product manager - but I can't imagine one sitting in a room thinking about all the evil ways to make the feed harder for people to find relevant posts. I can, however, perfectly imagine a PM who is "extremely numbers driven" to look a bad version of the algorithm that increases the time users spend shifting through shit and assume that the algorithm is a huge success b…

I am a PM who has actively made decisions to harm the user to my company’s benefit. Don’t know why you’d put it past us.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#446

Post by ihuman »

mindgam3 wrote: post #373

RIP. Like so many of Google’s high profile efforts (anyone remember Wave? Glass, etc), a bunch of good ideas and great tech brought down by an utter failure to understand the human element/social psychology angle. Google+ was dead in the water from day one. You don’t beat Facebook at social by building a slightly different product with some cool ideas like Circles. Going for feature parity was a mistake. Instead they…

> anyone remember Wave?

Doesn't Google Wave live on as Google Docs?

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#447

Post by draw_down »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #383
mindgam3 wrote: post #373

RIP. Like so many of Google’s high profile efforts (anyone remember Wave? Glass, etc), a bunch of good ideas and great tech brought down by an utter failure to understand the human element/social psychology angle. Google+ was dead in the water from day one. You don’t beat Facebook at social by building a slightly different product with some cool ideas like Circles. Going for feature parity was a mistake. Instead they…

Why do you need to beat Facebook at social at all? Just focus on what you’re good at, it’s not like Facebook is going to suddenly dominate search.

Ads.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#448

Post by fipple »

nostrademons wrote: post #267
notahappycamper wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is where the loading bays are, so they keep the fridges nearby so cold items have less chance to heat up. Plus milk is often stocked from behind, which can only be done where they have the extra space at the back of the store.

I could buy this on smaller or older grocery stores, but the Safeways near me have 2 full aisles of frozen goods (and one additional one of refrigerated goods). These aisles extend all the way from the back to the front of the store, and are located in the center of the floor plan. The milk is still in the back, along with perishable juices. The difference between them and the aisles is that processed foods (frozen d…

Frozen food doesn’t need to be stocked from the back because they don’t need to make sure the stock turns over very quickly.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#449

Post by spenczar5 »

fipple wrote: post #441
spenczar5 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't believe this quote, so I had to dig it up. It's real, but from Sean Parker. Mike Allen was the interviewer. Source (a slightly clickbaity-looking place, go at your own risk): https://www.axios.com/sean-parker-unloads-on-facebook-god-on...

Why is it hard to believe the quote? This has been the MO of mass entertainment since the gladiators fought the lions.

It's just so bald. I hadn't seen anyone at Facebook so openly describing things like "exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology." They usually say stuff like "bringing people together," "connecting the world," etc.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#450

Post by spenczar5 »

mehrdadn wrote: post #414
spenczar5 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't believe this quote, so I had to dig it up. It's real, but from Sean Parker. Mike Allen was the interviewer. Source (a slightly clickbaity-looking place, go at your own risk): https://www.axios.com/sean-parker-unloads-on-facebook-god-on...

> It's real, but from Sean Parker. Does that give it less weight or more weight? It's hard to see what you were going for here.

Doesn't change the weight, I was just making a correction.
Post reply on HN