4 ms·

Orkut was a usability nightmare and dominated by Brazilians who typically don't write in English. It was hostile to US users and a bizarre acquisition all aroun

Orkut was a usability nightmare and dominated by Brazilians who typically don't write in English. It was hostile to US users and a bizarre acquisition all around. What was the value proposition here other than "not Facebook?" I think they realized their mistake but it was too late and had to move to something else. They couldn't make it "Googly" and no one wanted anything to do with it outside of Brazil. I still don't understand why they didn't just add a "Gmail Social" and let you build it out with your name, info, photos, etc and have that be a sort of opt-in social network straight from gmail, a bit like how hangouts is now in gmail. Instead they created this Google+ pig that makes no sense and fits in nowhere comfortably. Also, it was bizarrely tone deaf to somehow tie youtube in this and to get these confusing prompts about merging accounts and such only to find your youtube shitposting and viewing habits now tied to your real name for any employer to find. This is a colossal mistake that I imagine will be studied in business schools for decades to come. I read somewhere that Jobs gave Google the idea of a centralized social area for their users and considering Jobs' success rates with iCloud and other Apple initiatives on the cloud back then, it seems like they took advice from the wrong guy. Worse, Jobs might have been able to pull off some kind of Apple social network this way, but mostly because there is so much zealous fandom with Apple. Google is just a boring, unsexy service for most. They didn't realize how little liked they are. They're the barely tolerated nerds of the industry, not the popular kids. They should have just launched something easier, simpler, and more modest. Jobsian-like antics just won't work for their brand.

frik 10y ago
> I still don't understand why they didn't just add a "GMail Social" Google tried it, called Google Buzz. It was pretty unpopular because they forced it on every GMail user. Suddendly everyone had his name, email and account private details exposed on public readable pages indexed by Google search engine. One year later it was dead. Yet to be replaced by Google+ with almost the same shaddy tactic. No wonder it failed, people don't like such shit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Buzz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Buzz
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  Well, I did say "opt-in." I can imagine that approach working far better than an instant on "Hi, your stuff is now public" approach. Look, they weren't going to dethrone facebook, but they didn't need to fuck up this badly. They could have gone with a more modest approach and pleased a lot of people who wanted a quick social profile in gmail in a jiffy and not a whole other service. >Google Buzz. Branding still matters. Google Social tells grandma whats up. Buzz, wave, etc make no sense to her.
  - soylentcola 10y ago
    But Gmail accounts already had profile sections. This was (theoretically) a way to tie together the other Googly stuff (mail, calendar, photos, text/voice/video chat, videos, etc) for easier sharing a-la Facebook. I've always preferred both the full G+ website and the mobile app to Facebook and they were doing many of the things Facebook added shortly afterward. Granular privacy/sharing controls were much easier than anything FB had or has added since. That said, as others have mentioned, with closed networks, you can't reproduce what Gmail did to Hotmail/Yahoo/etc 10-12 years ago. You can't just switch to a client/service because you like it better because, unlike email, it requires everyone you communicate with to also make the same switch. As long as this is the case, the only important "feature" is the existing userbase.
notlisted 10y ago
This BR domination started years after Orkut was launched (more or less in line with availability of FB to the general public). It was always a 20% Google project, so not sure why you refer to it as an "acquisition".

frik 10y ago

> I still don't understand why they didn't just add a "GMail Social" Google tried it, called Google Buzz. It was pretty unpopular because they forced it on every GMail user. Suddendly everyone had his name, email and account private details exposed on public readable pages indexed by Google search engine. One year later it was dead. Yet to be replaced by Google+ with almost the same shaddy tactic. No wonder it failed, people don't like such shit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Buzz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Buzz

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Well, I did say "opt-in." I can imagine that approach working far better than an instant on "Hi, your stuff is now public" approach. Look, they weren't going to dethrone facebook, but they didn't need to fuck up this badly. They could have gone with a more modest approach and pleased a lot of people who wanted a quick social profile in gmail in a jiffy and not a whole other service. >Google Buzz. Branding still matters. Google Social tells grandma whats up. Buzz, wave, etc make no sense to her.
- soylentcola 10y ago
  But Gmail accounts already had profile sections. This was (theoretically) a way to tie together the other Googly stuff (mail, calendar, photos, text/voice/video chat, videos, etc) for easier sharing a-la Facebook. I've always preferred both the full G+ website and the mobile app to Facebook and they were doing many of the things Facebook added shortly afterward. Granular privacy/sharing controls were much easier than anything FB had or has added since. That said, as others have mentioned, with closed networks, you can't reproduce what Gmail did to Hotmail/Yahoo/etc 10-12 years ago. You can't just switch to a client/service because you like it better because, unlike email, it requires everyone you communicate with to also make the same switch. As long as this is the case, the only important "feature" is the existing userbase.

notlisted 10y ago

This BR domination started years after Orkut was launched (more or less in line with availability of FB to the general public). It was always a 20% Google project, so not sure why you refer to it as an "acquisition".