4 ms·

I think they did that because of how well it worked for GMail. And Facebook was restricted too in the beginning. Obviously, Google+ didn't benefit from follow

I think they did that because of how well it worked for GMail. And Facebook was restricted too in the beginning. Obviously, Google+ didn't benefit from following the precedents set by other successful launches.

el_programmador 7y ago
GMail's time was different, there was a lot less competition among web services back then.
- wbl 7y ago
  At the time Gmail launched there were a bunch of mail services.
  - CondensedBrain 7y ago
    GMail was different in a number of ways. 1. Exponentially more space in a market where single or double digit megabytes was the norm. GMail's original pitch was that you never had to delete an email, and that you could always find them with search. 2. It was one of the first web apps. It was dynamic in a way few sites were then. Asynchronous JavaScript (Ajax) and Web 2.0 were still new concepts.
- BookmarkSaver 7y ago
  No, the difference with Gmail is that email doesn't require a network effect to be useful. If I'm the only one on G+, it is pointless. If I'm the only one on Gmail, it's just as useful as if everyone I know is on Gmail.
rchaud 7y ago
Gmail's invite only approach made sense because in 2004 it was absurd for anybody to offer 1GB of free storage. Hotmail offered 200MB I think. Compared to that, nobody cared about a Facebook ripoff with a different UI and none of the network effects.
- mongol 7y ago
  I think it was way less than that. Wasn't it like ... 2MB?
  - crumpets 7y ago
    Yeah, the change to 100 or 200mb came as a desperate attempt later to stop the gmail hemorrhage.
  - tigershark 7y ago
    I kind of remember that was something like 10 or 20MB, but yes, was about 2 order of magnitude less.
  - acqq 7y ago
    No. It was 1 GB: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gmail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gmail "after considering alternatives such as 100 MB, the company finally settled upon 1 GB of space, a figure that was preposterous compared to the 2 to 4 MB that was the standard at the time.[3]" "On 1 April 2005, exactly one year after the initial release, Gmail increased the mailbox size to 2 GB, advertising it as 2GB plus" The sample of the news from these times: https://betanews.com/2005/04/01/gmail-storage-to-reach-2gb-and-beyond/ https://betanews.com/2005/04/01/gmail-storage-to-reach-2gb-a...
    - mongol 7y ago
      I referred to what Hotmail had at the time.
- rawoke083600 7y ago
  True. My grandma was in fb early.. She never even knew what Google+ was. Its only a social network if there are ppl on.
ballenf 7y ago
Gmail could send and receive emails outside gmail. FB wasn't restricted within your likely friends group (all students at particular schools were made eligible at the same time).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

el_programmador 7y ago

GMail's time was different, there was a lot less competition among web services back then.

wbl 7y ago
At the time Gmail launched there were a bunch of mail services.
- CondensedBrain 7y ago
  GMail was different in a number of ways. 1. Exponentially more space in a market where single or double digit megabytes was the norm. GMail's original pitch was that you never had to delete an email, and that you could always find them with search. 2. It was one of the first web apps. It was dynamic in a way few sites were then. Asynchronous JavaScript (Ajax) and Web 2.0 were still new concepts.
BookmarkSaver 7y ago
No, the difference with Gmail is that email doesn't require a network effect to be useful. If I'm the only one on G+, it is pointless. If I'm the only one on Gmail, it's just as useful as if everyone I know is on Gmail.

rchaud 7y ago

Gmail's invite only approach made sense because in 2004 it was absurd for anybody to offer 1GB of free storage. Hotmail offered 200MB I think. Compared to that, nobody cared about a Facebook ripoff with a different UI and none of the network effects.

mongol 7y ago
I think it was way less than that. Wasn't it like ... 2MB?
- crumpets 7y ago
  Yeah, the change to 100 or 200mb came as a desperate attempt later to stop the gmail hemorrhage.
- tigershark 7y ago
  I kind of remember that was something like 10 or 20MB, but yes, was about 2 order of magnitude less.
- acqq 7y ago
  No. It was 1 GB: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gmail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gmail "after considering alternatives such as 100 MB, the company finally settled upon 1 GB of space, a figure that was preposterous compared to the 2 to 4 MB that was the standard at the time.[3]" "On 1 April 2005, exactly one year after the initial release, Gmail increased the mailbox size to 2 GB, advertising it as 2GB plus" The sample of the news from these times: https://betanews.com/2005/04/01/gmail-storage-to-reach-2gb-and-beyond/ https://betanews.com/2005/04/01/gmail-storage-to-reach-2gb-a...
  - mongol 7y ago
    I referred to what Hotmail had at the time.
rawoke083600 7y ago
True. My grandma was in fb early.. She never even knew what Google+ was. Its only a social network if there are ppl on.

ballenf 7y ago

Gmail could send and receive emails outside gmail. FB wasn't restricted within your likely friends group (all students at particular schools were made eligible at the same time).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]