3 ms·

For one thing, G+ doesn't have a serious API yet, whereas App.Net already has Android and iPhone apps by third-parties using its API. But overall, I've found i

For one thing, G+ doesn't have a serious API yet, whereas App.Net already has Android and iPhone apps by third-parties using its API. But overall, I've found it interesting how little G+ comes up in discussions about Twitter and App.Net. I happen to think it's an absolutely excellent product and find it much more engaging than Twitter. Most people I see complaining about it have made hardly any posts and haven't taken the time to build up a network.

msbarnett 14y ago
> But overall, I've found it interesting how little G+ comes up in discussions about Twitter and App.Net. Probably because it's completely Apples-to-Oranges. Twitter/App.net is for short status updates. I deeply value the enforced brevity. G+ posts tend toward blog-style bloviating; the use cases really don't overlap.
- mmahemoff 14y ago
  Fair point. I've noticed G+ doesn't work at all for live event updates, so expecting them to build a Facebook-like "heartbeat" thing on the side at some stage. At the same time, I can say I've moved a lot of link sharing to G+, so for that use case, it's a fairly direct substitute. The rich embedding is better and I can say what I want without having to cram it. It's like that Pascal quote about not having time to make it concise...G+ just lets you write a couple of sentences, or more on whim, without having to then manicure it into 140 characters.