Live data from Hacker News

Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

blog.google

91–100 of 733 posts

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#91

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.

I mean you really can't argue that Google's attempts to move away from relying on ad revenue for most of its earnings have been successful

Yes but not following how that relates to "poorly managed"?

I mean they are in all of history the fastest to a $100B market cap and since started in 1998 it was right at the .com bust. Then the fastest to $200B.

Does that not take good management?

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#92
post #49

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…

> 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?

[deleted]

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#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-...

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-says-it-found-...

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-shutters-google-socia...

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#94
post #39

The use of the word "sunset" as a verb in posts like this is fucking infuriating. Yes, software types know what it means, but this is a consumer product with tens of millions of users, who have no familiarity with that term. It's a weasel word. The way to say this is in plain English. We're closing, shutting down, turning off, discontinuing, or something.

From the post, literally in bold, and listed as the first action.

"We are shutting down Google+ for consumers."

> this is fucking infuriating

Comments like yours are much worse.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#97
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…

I was excited about the "circles" idea on day one, but on day two I realized it was basically useless because it didn't let you create ad-hoc circle-groups based on venn diagram unions and intersections and differences, and their APIs were read-only so you couldn't hack this on top. I haven't cared about Google+ since.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#98
post #45
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…

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.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#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 often much closer to the truth. In G+'s case, the rank-and-file was largely against things like the Real Names policy yet leadership went ahead with it anyway (Vic often quipped that you didn't want everyone named "Dog fart", which was a pretty ridiculous argument).

And while it may have been Vic driving this, Larry backed him so has to bear shared responsibility.

Probably the worst decision made in this whole mess was (again, IMHO) trying to unify the account model. Youtube accounts have different permission models to Gmail accounts, etc. It would've been sufficient to simply link them (and not require they be linked) rather than jamming single-sign-on down everyone's throats, which really gained nothing except a lot of user backlash.

The worst part of this was that the for the longest time some policy violation (like your name not being "real") could lock you out of your entire account. Whoever made this decision needed to be fired. Deciding someone's name wasn't real enough should NEVER lock you out of your Gmail (or Youtube or any other service).

I was reminded of this in a thread yesterday about the disaster that was the Snapchat redesign. Leadership ignoring user feedback as people start to attribute luck to skill and vision (people have a tendency to socialize losses and privatize wins). Is this merely hubris? Because it's very reminiscent of the dismissal of internal feedback that is now routine (at Google).

It's unfortunate how much Google-hate is on HN these days because I think it's largely unjustified. There are definitely some bad (IMHO) leadership decisions but the rank-and-file are still culture carriers for a lot of the things that made Google great.

Still, as the Chinese say, the fish rots from the head.

Disclaimer: Xoogler. All opinions are entirely personal and I don't speak for this or any other company.

EDIT: TIL the origin of "a fish rots from the head" is disputed and possibly Turkish not Chinese: https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/fish-rot-from-the-head-d...

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#100
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question, is anybody going to be outraged by sunsetting G+?

Not me. But it reinforces my commitment to never get attached to any Google service. The new GMail is also helping me with that.

I really like Inbox and am dreading the day that inevitably gets canned.
Post reply on HN