5 ms·
It's the result of PR attacks and sadly they seem to be working. Some of those writing are just parroting PR pitches and some just seem to depend on their limi
by yanw 14y ago
It's the result of PR attacks and sadly they seem to be working.
Some of those writing are just parroting PR pitches and some just seem to depend on their limited experience with he service.
Also considering that the number of active users is but a fraction of the overall number of those who signed up (yet still a considerable amount) it's not fair to divide active minutes between all registered users. It might be a "ghost town" in comparison to Facebook but so is every other social service the tech blogs seem to be paddling, it's just that + is a bigger target for PR attacks.
- cliffbean 14y agoBesides PR campaigns, I wonder if another source of hostility to Google+ is a normal human reaction to the fact that social networking, as we currently know it, is a natural monopoly. A lot of people are in the situation where they're going to have to be on Facebook no matter what (hello lock-in), and they'd really rather not have to be on Google+ at the same time. It'd be all the annoying parts of social networking doubled, plus the hassle of maintaining two copies of a lot of information, with no significant advantages. I think a lot of people who disparage Google+ would have no major objection if it could quickly take over from Facebook and become the new monopoly. However, by this point it seems unlikely, barring a major event. A world where social networking services could interoperate, sort of like how we have numerous telephone companies but one global namespace of phone numbers, would be interesting.