5 ms·
I stopped reading when he made the claim that Google+ is not the success that "Google obviously intended it to be". Because at that point, you either need to cl
by saraid216 15y ago
I stopped reading when he made the claim that Google+ is not the success that "Google obviously intended it to be". Because at that point, you either need to claim that Google is incompetent from an engineering standpoint or that they were flat-out lying when they said their scaling up had been outpaced by the adoption rate several times. Instead of addressing this, the author seems to have gone with a pseudo-intellectual squintiness that sounds more like an attempt to mentor Vic Gundotra than analyse the product itself.
- shadowfiend 15y agoWhile I sympathize with your point, I feel like it's a mistake to assume that just because one point in the post is wrong, no part of the article may be insightful.
- saraid216 15y agoAgreed, but something that glaring suggests that the rest of the article is less likely to have relevant insights. The article is a nice refresher on Sun Tzu, for instance, but that's not what it was aiming to be.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- alain94040 15y agoEngineering has nothing to do with user adoption. It could very well be that the author is reasonably smart and can read between the lines of Google's PR statements. It has been well documented that statements from Google could be read as misleading (for instance: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/how-good-are-those-google-plus-numbers-again/251872/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/how-go...)