4 ms·

> Google+ had terrible marketing and release, but it had some decent ideas that I wish other networks had carried over. While I agree with your points, nobody

> Google+ had terrible marketing and release, but it had some decent ideas that I wish other networks had carried over. While I agree with your points, nobody ever mentions how hard it is got get people off of FB and ONTO their social media platform. I remember when this came out and I did like a number of the features over FB. After some, "Hey, Google+ does this so much better than FB, you should swtich to G+!" posts, and nobody switching. I just found some friends used both, but eventually went back to just using FB exclusively. This has always been the Achilles heel of anybody who wants to compete with FB. It's not about features, it's about how are you going to get all these people, with all of these deep rooted connections, to leave FB and not just join YOUR network, but to stay and bring all their friends in the process. Insanely, insanely hard.

HillaryBriss 8y ago
Totally agree. FB's massive user base + user inertia = FB's killer feature. Which, IMHO, means Google didn't understand what it was doing when it started G+.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  TBF, FB didn't either.
  - at-fates-hands 8y ago
    I'm not sure. Wasn't the underlying principle always to connect everybody in the world? I think FB has done a fair job of doing that. They just tapped into one of the basic tenets of the human condition; the desire to be connected to another human.
    - dredmorbius 8y ago
      Having and understanding goals are not synonymouss. Does this date to TheFacebook (Harvard)?
soylentcola 8y ago
This is exactly why the vast majority of my friends/family/contacts/whatever didn't use it. Facebook was the first of this type of social network to get just about everyone to join. MySpace and Friendster and the like got the kids and the heavy web users but Facebook got your mom and your grandma. They got your boss, your barber, and your barista. They got the people who designed websites and the people who never did anything more complex than pointing at a picture on their iphone to launch an app. It didn't matter if you or I liked some feature or other on G+ (or another competitor) because you can't just switch platforms like you can switch webmail providers. In order to work, you all have to be on the same platform and a good chunk of the potential userbase will simply never deal with switching platforms. How many people in your family or friend/acquaintance group still use their old hotmail (or AOL) email account? Probably not zero. So even if they did "build a better Facebook" (which I think they did in many ways) it doesn't matter. A nicer layout and some improved features aren't enough to move the entire user base away from the default option. As long as it's a winner-take-all system, it will take a lot more to replace Facebook. It's more likely to become irrelevant than replaced.

HillaryBriss 8y ago

Totally agree. FB's massive user base + user inertia = FB's killer feature. Which, IMHO, means Google didn't understand what it was doing when it started G+.

dredmorbius 8y ago
TBF, FB didn't either.
- at-fates-hands 8y ago
  I'm not sure. Wasn't the underlying principle always to connect everybody in the world? I think FB has done a fair job of doing that. They just tapped into one of the basic tenets of the human condition; the desire to be connected to another human.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    Having and understanding goals are not synonymouss. Does this date to TheFacebook (Harvard)?

soylentcola 8y ago

This is exactly why the vast majority of my friends/family/contacts/whatever didn't use it. Facebook was the first of this type of social network to get just about everyone to join. MySpace and Friendster and the like got the kids and the heavy web users but Facebook got your mom and your grandma. They got your boss, your barber, and your barista. They got the people who designed websites and the people who never did anything more complex than pointing at a picture on their iphone to launch an app. It didn't matter if you or I liked some feature or other on G+ (or another competitor) because you can't just switch platforms like you can switch webmail providers. In order to work, you all have to be on the same platform and a good chunk of the potential userbase will simply never deal with switching platforms. How many people in your family or friend/acquaintance group still use their old hotmail (or AOL) email account? Probably not zero. So even if they did "build a better Facebook" (which I think they did in many ways) it doesn't matter. A nicer layout and some improved features aren't enough to move the entire user base away from the default option. As long as it's a winner-take-all system, it will take a lot more to replace Facebook. It's more likely to become irrelevant than replaced.