5 ms·

"Google+ is just an upgrade to Google," says Gundotra. "People have a hard time understanding that." Well, if they do, your product sucks. The onus of understa

"Google+ is just an upgrade to Google," says Gundotra. "People have a hard time understanding that." Well, if they do, your product sucks. The onus of understanding what your product actually is, is not on the user. You have to make a product so great and easy to understand so that there is no misunderstanding. If you don't manage to do that, you fail. Don't expect people to read your minds and know what actually the product is supposed to be instead of what they understand of it. If Google+ looks like a copy of Facebook to people, then it's just a copy of Facebook.

wissler 14y ago
You may be too young to remember, but as computers were first becoming popular, may people had a hard time understanding them. And no, computers didn't "suck".
- gareim 14y ago
  Yes they did. The first computers "sucked". They "sucked" in the sense that most people couldn't understand them. Computers got popular and people started understanding them as computers improved in usability. If Google+ becomes popular one day after numerous improvements, it's ridiculous to say that the first iteration of Google+ was successful just because future ones were.
  - wissler 14y ago
    So for you, something "sucks" if it fails to win a popularity contest. I find that definition meaningless. Computers didn't "suck", they were and are magnificent, every step of the way.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- protomyth 14y ago
  The Altair 8800 for anybody but the die-hard hobbyist did "suck". It took other companies and other machines to show users why a computer was useful. Its not the user's fault for the misunderstanding.
  - wissler 14y ago
    So your premise is: if the masses do not understand, then it's not useful. The masses determine whether something "sucks" or not. I suppose the very fact that the word "sucks" being used to describe it goes along with your mentality.
    - protomyth 14y ago
      Got a bit of the nastiness going there with that interesting interpretation and the "your too young" stuff. If your users cannot figure out what you are trying to accomplish then yes, I believe you have failed ("you suck") and need to redo or evolve your work. Computer most definitely were not magnificent every step of the way. When one of the great programs running on the Altair relied on its ability to interfere with radios near it, you can bet that it didn't impress the common man. Do some people still see the potential, yes, but that doesn't mean what's there is valuable in itself. It is clear that the product hasn't reached its potential if the users don't understand it. "Suck" is a perfectly valid term to explain ones dismay with something.
      - wissler 14y ago
        "Got a bit of the nastiness going there" Ever seen Idiocracy? Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's not. "If your users cannot figure out what you are trying to accomplish then yes, I believe you have failed" Your standards are idiotic. The phrase "your users" is hopelessly vague. Which users? G+ has millions. Should it pander to each and every one or only the most idiotic of users? What if by making it easier to understand for the lowest common denominator, it makes the intelligent users go away? Your idiotic standards don't address this. Call me nasty if you want; I am simply citing the facts.
vibrunazo 14y ago
Normally I would agree with what you're saying. But it's important to notice that Google has always been consistent about this. This confusion originated from sensationalist bloggers looking for a fight with lots of blood that would generate clicks. Google themselves made it loudly clear from day one that they were just adding a social layer to existing products. And I don't think the average users of this social layer (people who use the new social tools in youtube or gmail, but not the g+ stream), are even confused. It's the loud bloggers and us who read them who are confused.
saraid216 14y ago
> The onus of understanding what your product actually is, is not on the user. I find this a little odd. In the specific case of Google+, I'm not seeing much need for people understanding what it actually is. I mean, sure, that lack of understanding will curtail a large group of users from using it... except that the deep integration with the rest of Google's products minimize any need for explicit usage. It really depends on what Google itself wants with the product. Yes, the whole "active users" thing is a serious dodge if the goal is to compare it to Facebook or rate the level of engagement or what not... but that kind of thinking also changes how developers imagine the product and contributes to the way they prioritize features internally. In the long run, I suspect that's more useful than getting good press.

wissler 14y ago

You may be too young to remember, but as computers were first becoming popular, may people had a hard time understanding them. And no, computers didn't "suck".

gareim 14y ago
Yes they did. The first computers "sucked". They "sucked" in the sense that most people couldn't understand them. Computers got popular and people started understanding them as computers improved in usability. If Google+ becomes popular one day after numerous improvements, it's ridiculous to say that the first iteration of Google+ was successful just because future ones were.
- wissler 14y ago
  So for you, something "sucks" if it fails to win a popularity contest. I find that definition meaningless. Computers didn't "suck", they were and are magnificent, every step of the way.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
protomyth 14y ago
The Altair 8800 for anybody but the die-hard hobbyist did "suck". It took other companies and other machines to show users why a computer was useful. Its not the user's fault for the misunderstanding.
- wissler 14y ago
  So your premise is: if the masses do not understand, then it's not useful. The masses determine whether something "sucks" or not. I suppose the very fact that the word "sucks" being used to describe it goes along with your mentality.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    Got a bit of the nastiness going there with that interesting interpretation and the "your too young" stuff. If your users cannot figure out what you are trying to accomplish then yes, I believe you have failed ("you suck") and need to redo or evolve your work. Computer most definitely were not magnificent every step of the way. When one of the great programs running on the Altair relied on its ability to interfere with radios near it, you can bet that it didn't impress the common man. Do some people still see the potential, yes, but that doesn't mean what's there is valuable in itself. It is clear that the product hasn't reached its potential if the users don't understand it. "Suck" is a perfectly valid term to explain ones dismay with something.
    - wissler 14y ago
      "Got a bit of the nastiness going there" Ever seen Idiocracy? Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's not. "If your users cannot figure out what you are trying to accomplish then yes, I believe you have failed" Your standards are idiotic. The phrase "your users" is hopelessly vague. Which users? G+ has millions. Should it pander to each and every one or only the most idiotic of users? What if by making it easier to understand for the lowest common denominator, it makes the intelligent users go away? Your idiotic standards don't address this. Call me nasty if you want; I am simply citing the facts.

vibrunazo 14y ago

Normally I would agree with what you're saying. But it's important to notice that Google has always been consistent about this. This confusion originated from sensationalist bloggers looking for a fight with lots of blood that would generate clicks. Google themselves made it loudly clear from day one that they were just adding a social layer to existing products. And I don't think the average users of this social layer (people who use the new social tools in youtube or gmail, but not the g+ stream), are even confused. It's the loud bloggers and us who read them who are confused.

saraid216 14y ago

> The onus of understanding what your product actually is, is not on the user. I find this a little odd. In the specific case of Google+, I'm not seeing much need for people understanding what it actually is. I mean, sure, that lack of understanding will curtail a large group of users from using it... except that the deep integration with the rest of Google's products minimize any need for explicit usage. It really depends on what Google itself wants with the product. Yes, the whole "active users" thing is a serious dodge if the goal is to compare it to Facebook or rate the level of engagement or what not... but that kind of thinking also changes how developers imagine the product and contributes to the way they prioritize features internally. In the long run, I suspect that's more useful than getting good press.