6 ms·

I think this is a lot less of a problem than the author suggests. Domain names are increasingly unimportant. I get to G+ by hitting the link at the top whenev

I think this is a lot less of a problem than the author suggests. Domain names are increasingly unimportant. I get to G+ by hitting the link at the top whenever I'm on a google page (usually). I only ever typed "plus.google.com" when I was itching for an invite. This is Google's big play for social. Its success or failure won't depend on branding. It will depend on network effects, and they've already captured the early adopters. Now we'll just have to see if that translates to the "norms" using it. I can all but guarantee the url will have little to do with that.

techiferous 15y ago
This is about branding, not URLs. The author was not merely suggesting plus.com as an alternate URL, but that Google+ be branded separately from Google (not that I agree with this). For example, how many non-techies know that YouTube is owned by Google? It's separate branding, not just separate URLs.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Right, but even among techies, how many care that Google owns Youtube? Youtube was the preeminent video site long before Google bought them. Its growth was organic. Google can't afford for G+ to have organic growth. It needed the couple million early adopters it got within the first week if it was to have a chance, and Google is a trusted name for average users. That trust will be huge. You can't really compare the launch of a new social network to that of a flavour of soda. G+ is not pretty much the same as facebook, and it's not a commodity whose sales will be determined bybrand recognition and marketing. It's a service whose popularity will be determined by the level of engagement of its initial users and how motivated and successful they are in getting others to join. Saying "it's from Google" is probably a pretty big selling point, there.

6 ms·

I think this is a lot less of a problem than the author suggests. Domain names are increasingly unimportant. I get to G+ by hitting the link at the top whenev

by redthrowaway 15y ago

techiferous 15y ago
This is about branding, not URLs. The author was not merely suggesting plus.com as an alternate URL, but that Google+ be branded separately from Google (not that I agree with this). For example, how many non-techies know that YouTube is owned by Google? It's separate branding, not just separate URLs.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Right, but even among techies, how many care that Google owns Youtube? Youtube was the preeminent video site long before Google bought them. Its growth was organic. Google can't afford for G+ to have organic growth. It needed the couple million early adopters it got within the first week if it was to have a chance, and Google is a trusted name for average users. That trust will be huge. You can't really compare the launch of a new social network to that of a flavour of soda. G+ is not pretty much the same as facebook, and it's not a commodity whose sales will be determined bybrand recognition and marketing. It's a service whose popularity will be determined by the level of engagement of its initial users and how motivated and successful they are in getting others to join. Saying "it's from Google" is probably a pretty big selling point, there.