3 ms·

> 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 eve

by 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.

by frik 10y ago

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.