4 ms·
The writer has never used Google+ yet complains about the lack of activity within his own news and invite feeds. That seems a strange way to put it. Essentiall
by gmac 15y ago
The writer has never used Google+ yet complains about the lack of activity within his own news and invite feeds.
That seems a strange way to put it. Essentially, the writer makes the rather obvious point that if you run a social network, network effects[1] are everything.
I have the exact same experience: I'm signed up, but why would I visit when I can see updates from the same people and 10x more on Facebook? Likewise, why would I post there when a post would reach the same people and 10x more on Facebook?
Unless Google+ can offer something amazing, new and different -- which best as I can see, they haven't so far -- network effects will surely doom them.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
- Hyena 15y agoFirst: the service is invite only for the time being. Second: the network effect can be a curse as well. Linkedin has succeeded because its network is limited to work contacts. There are costs to having a complete public network. Third: Google+ does offer an amazing, new and different service. It's not Facebook. Facebook is built on its social network, which is the product most users want, not the features (which a lot of users seem to hate). But Facebook expanded initially by being a high prestige social network; that's changed and, given Google's invite strategy, it's reasonable to believe that G+ is now higher prestige.