3 ms·
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
by TimTheTinker 8y ago
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 tech world, but that came later.)
- stan_rogers 8y agoIt failed in my case because it polluted every other Google property - search, YouTube suggestions, etc. I'd prefer that suggestions and search results be based on my preferences and not those of an idiot cousin or a foaming-at-the-mouth prepper I happen to work with.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago> ...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?
- TimTheTinker 8y agoI didn't mean that particular ordinal literally... personally, I'm impressed by how they're able to achieve such a high level of uptime, data integrity, and near-realtime communication.
- pantalaimon 8y agoWhen it launched it was terribly incomplete. It didn't even have events, which for a lot of people is a mayor reason to use Facebook and they could have even integrated it into Google calendar. Events were eventually added much later (like a year after launch?), but at that point interest had already died down. Why they did not delay the launch until it had parity with Facebook's core features is beyond me.