3 ms·

I chalk that up as a deadly blunder on Google's part. No one forced google to just open up G+ to the entire world. I feel they botched the launch of G+ by allo

I chalk that up as a deadly blunder on Google's part. No one forced google to just open up G+ to the entire world. I feel they botched the launch of G+ by allowing scattered masses to join instead of totally nailing smaller groups like how Facebook did.

robryan 15y ago
I think they nailed a single group, the already fairly well connected tech and startups people. This also dragged along those interested in these people although they get less value from it as it's more of a Twitter like following medium unless lots of people are putting you in their circles. Google certainly have the resources to nail more smaller groups, it's just not the way they operate as this doesn't scale well.
- badclient 15y ago
  I disagree that they have nailed any group. For me, nailing a group would mean that group ditching their competitor. Yet, I can't name a single Valley friend of hundreds who has ditched facebook for Google+. Now, I can name you dozens who have a G+ account and have tinkered with it. But that is hardly "nailing" it. I think you actually nailed it: google doesn't know how to scale social because social doesn't scale the same way as most other products. Facebook scaled growth in a very methodical manner from university to university and later country to country.
  - mayanksinghal 15y ago
    Actually, Google+ is doing fairly well among bloggers, especially tech bloggers. Some references: [1] [2]. Also, success of a product does not mean ditching competitors (although one of the report does even suggest that!), it means gaining sufficient acceptance initially, so that later it becomes a valid option to ditch competitors. For example: I was an Orkut user (was not happy with it) for quite a long time (1 year or so), even after joining facebook. Not because Facebook was not good or successful but because there was already some engagement at Orkut that cannot be replaced in a jiffy. [1] http://www.blogworld.com/2011/07/13/prominent-tech-bloggers-point-domain-names-to-google-plus-streams/ http://www.blogworld.com/2011/07/13/prominent-tech-bloggers-... [2] https://plus.google.com/113117251731252114390/posts/3wfvDJEiJXq https://plus.google.com/113117251731252114390/posts/3wfvDJEi...
    - badclient 15y ago
      Actually, Google+ is doing fairly well among bloggers, especially tech bloggers. Some references: [1] [2]. Sorry, tech bloggers is a vastly different segment than tech users. Neither are optimal groups to target if you want to build a mainstream social network.

robryan 15y ago

I think they nailed a single group, the already fairly well connected tech and startups people. This also dragged along those interested in these people although they get less value from it as it's more of a Twitter like following medium unless lots of people are putting you in their circles. Google certainly have the resources to nail more smaller groups, it's just not the way they operate as this doesn't scale well.

badclient 15y ago
I disagree that they have nailed any group. For me, nailing a group would mean that group ditching their competitor. Yet, I can't name a single Valley friend of hundreds who has ditched facebook for Google+. Now, I can name you dozens who have a G+ account and have tinkered with it. But that is hardly "nailing" it. I think you actually nailed it: google doesn't know how to scale social because social doesn't scale the same way as most other products. Facebook scaled growth in a very methodical manner from university to university and later country to country.
- mayanksinghal 15y ago
  Actually, Google+ is doing fairly well among bloggers, especially tech bloggers. Some references: [1] [2]. Also, success of a product does not mean ditching competitors (although one of the report does even suggest that!), it means gaining sufficient acceptance initially, so that later it becomes a valid option to ditch competitors. For example: I was an Orkut user (was not happy with it) for quite a long time (1 year or so), even after joining facebook. Not because Facebook was not good or successful but because there was already some engagement at Orkut that cannot be replaced in a jiffy. [1] http://www.blogworld.com/2011/07/13/prominent-tech-bloggers-point-domain-names-to-google-plus-streams/ http://www.blogworld.com/2011/07/13/prominent-tech-bloggers-... [2] https://plus.google.com/113117251731252114390/posts/3wfvDJEiJXq https://plus.google.com/113117251731252114390/posts/3wfvDJEi...
  - badclient 15y ago
    Actually, Google+ is doing fairly well among bloggers, especially tech bloggers. Some references: [1] [2]. Sorry, tech bloggers is a vastly different segment than tech users. Neither are optimal groups to target if you want to build a mainstream social network.