6 ms·

Which would be great if checking a feed meant more than logging into your gmail. Also it would be super if it were still 2006 and the only way to sign up was a

by fleitz 14y ago

Which would be great if checking a feed meant more than logging into your gmail. Also it would be super if it were still 2006 and the only way to sign up was a .edu account. Since it's 2012 and most of the activity is driven by Gmail I'd say it's a glacial pace. When your marketing tools are the frontdoor of the internet as well as everyone's INBOX, and you're outdone by 11 guys with an iPhone only photosharing app, you know you're doing something wrong. It's a service so bad you can't even be forced to use it. It's as pathetic as MSN.com not being the front page of the internet despite 90% of computers defaulting to it.

onedev 14y ago
Ouch
ajross 14y ago
I guess. I check it every day. It's true that G+ is driven more by "interest communities" than by "friends and family links". Most of my activity there is reading and occasionally commenting on the posts of people more famous than I. So I think it's fair to say it hasn't achieved Facebook's level of success. Nor, perhaps, will it any time soon. But again, I check it every day, which is the same thing I do with Facebook. If you want my eyeballs for an ad, either platform provides the same value. I'm probably not typical, but I'm not completely weird either. I think you can only look at G+ as a success at this point. Just not a success on the scale of Google Search or Facebook.
- creativityland 14y ago
  Most people I see on G+ when I approach them and ask in person did not even know they had a G+ account... but guess what, they did have a Google Account for Youtube and Gmail. You can see more and more G+ integration into Youtube, why not just turn Youtube into G+ altogether?
  - mkr-hn 14y ago
    Have you seen the new version? It's practically a G+ skin for YouTube.
    - creativityland 14y ago
      Yes. It sure looks like they are taking over YouTube and combining it into G+ as last ditch effort.
- kinleyd 14y ago
  'It's true that G+ is driven more by "interest communities" than by "friends and family links".' And that is one of the main reasons I prefer G+ over Facebook. Facebook is nice to keep in touch with ones family and friends (old and new), but G+ is where I can follow (and occasionally interact with) a number of luminaries, visionaries and tech leaders. God forbid my family and friends fill up my G+ stream! If G+ never catches up with Facebook in terms of numbers, I'll be the happier for it.
- Spearchucker 14y ago
  Success being quite relative. I was forced to sign up to both Gmail and G+, because that's what my employer requires, and I wanted the job. I access Gmail exclusively through my Windows Phone. I don't use G+ at all. The community of interest thing doesn't hold much water for me, because I've yet to be pointed at something of interest on G+ that I wouldn't find elsewhere. Not saying that my particular scenario reflects everyone else's, but it does seem to work for me and my friends, most of whom have GMail accounts as their primary mail address. If success is defined in terms of ad impressions then that won't work with me either. I use an ad blocker.
- JPKab 14y ago
  I don't get why Google + goes after Facebook, when it is sooo much better positioned to go after LinkedIn. Most of what Google + does well is what LinkedIn needs to do better. If Google+ allowed people to upload resumes, they would dominate. Think about the value of a Google search friendly resume, coupled with a community graph.
murz 14y ago
> Which would be great if checking a feed meant more than logging into your gmail. If you read the actual announcement it would be clear that when they say "stream-actives", they are not including people logging into Gmail. "Today Google+ is the fastest-growing network thingy ever. More than 500 million people have upgraded, 235 million are active across Google (+1'ing apps in Google Play, hanging out in Gmail, connecting with friends in Search...), and 135 million are active in just the stream." Source: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/google-communities-and-photos.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/google-communities-an... (which is linked from the Wired article)
- makmanalp 14y ago
  No offense, but that's a dumb measure of activity. None of those things actually requires engaging. I can +1 an app that I used once or do a google hangout because it's more convenient than skype. That doesn't mean I use google+. The activity feed part of the site is mainly crickets.
  - murz 14y ago
    I think you missed my point, which was that the Wired article is citing the number from the second half of that sentence: "and 135 million are active in just the stream." (not the first number, which includes people who just +1'd an app) I don't think the statement in the blog post could be much clearer, you just have to read the whole sentence :)
    - franze 14y ago
      yeah, i watched an old reposted matt cutts video the other day on G+, proud to be part of the 135 000 000.
  - erickhill 14y ago
    Google PR: "Google today announced that it has 135 million active users checking their Google+ streams each month." Facebook PR: "Oct 4, 2012 - More than one billion people are active on Facebook." These are "reports" based on PR-based spin and "rounding up." That's all. If you were a manager at one of these companies, wouldn't you sell the same schtick?
pcwalton 14y ago
Not everyone uses Gmail. It's popular to be sure, especially in Silicon Valley, but overall its market share is not even 50%. Sources: http://www.email-marketing-reports.com/metrics/email-statistics.htm http://www.email-marketing-reports.com/metrics/email-statist... http://www.quora.com/Email-Service-Providers/What-is-the-breakdown-of-market-share-between-Gmail-Hotmail-and-Yahoo-mail http://www.quora.com/Email-Service-Providers/What-is-the-bre...
pkulak 14y ago
You mad, bro? I don't understand why everyone gets so angry at the idea that Google plus might actually succeeded in some way.
- ryanhuff 14y ago
  I can understand some people being fatigued from companies defining their own metrics to justify success. In some cases, its comical. Google is more susceptible than many to this reaction because of their industry position, and their attempts to reign users of traditionally heterogeneous apps into a more monolithic service. We'll see this again when they finally bring Youtube into G+.
- bonch 14y ago
  Google has historically used relatively loose metrics to declare Google+ a success, as well as pushed usage of Google+ in controversial ways, and that has made people cynical.
- msabalau 14y ago
  That's an interesting question. Obviously human beings are more than capable of splitting up into tribes of haters, even in cases such as social media where one can, at no real cost, participate in them all. But, while generally there's less "holy war" drama of this type on HN than you might find on a generic tech news site, on the topic of Google Plus succeeding there seems to be more. My personal (and not particularly charitable) assumption is that in addition to the people who'd normally relish a dispute of this type, there's also a subset of people on HN who feel on some level that their experience as early/heavy Facebook adopters will give them some sort of "leg up" in understanding or creating the future, and if something competes with Facebook, it threatens their "insight". This particular theory aside, it does seem mysterious to me.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  I hate the incantation of "You mad, bro" so incredibly much, but then again, I'm also tired of people who still don't get it. "There's no one on it". Yeah, and if you open a Twitter account and don't follow anyone then it looks like there's no one on it.
paganel 14y ago
Personally, I think Google should just "declare victory" and move to other more important things. They certainly do have have the people for that (the important things), but I feel they're wasting a huge amount of resources on this without much gain (if any).
- lmm 14y ago
  The dream is that it will make search better, and that's the most important thing google does - and the thing that they most need to improve.
LaGrange 14y ago
I actually suspect I'll eventually end up being counted in those statistics, because I'll break and "upgrade" to join some Coursera/Udacity hangout. It will still be the only way I'll use it, but the stats will look great, I'm sure.
return0 14y ago
It wasn't a good idea to just copy-paste a newsfeed on top of your gmail contacts. Also trying to be everything all at once is usually a bad choice. It might fare better if it had been more private or work-oriented, something like a yammer on top of gmail. Right now the product is unfocused and confusing at best.
dbecker 14y ago
You are referring to 35% growth in 2.5 months as "glacial"? If growth is proportional to the number of users (exponential growth) that would lead to more than tripling in size each year. If growth is linear, it is still easily more than doubling each year. What growth rate were you expecting in order to be faster than "glacial."

by fleitz 14y ago

onedev 14y ago

Ouch

ajross 14y ago

I guess. I check it every day. It's true that G+ is driven more by "interest communities" than by "friends and family links". Most of my activity there is reading and occasionally commenting on the posts of people more famous than I. So I think it's fair to say it hasn't achieved Facebook's level of success. Nor, perhaps, will it any time soon. But again, I check it every day, which is the same thing I do with Facebook. If you want my eyeballs for an ad, either platform provides the same value. I'm probably not typical, but I'm not completely weird either. I think you can only look at G+ as a success at this point. Just not a success on the scale of Google Search or Facebook.

creativityland 14y ago
Most people I see on G+ when I approach them and ask in person did not even know they had a G+ account... but guess what, they did have a Google Account for Youtube and Gmail. You can see more and more G+ integration into Youtube, why not just turn Youtube into G+ altogether?
- mkr-hn 14y ago
  Have you seen the new version? It's practically a G+ skin for YouTube.
  - creativityland 14y ago
    Yes. It sure looks like they are taking over YouTube and combining it into G+ as last ditch effort.
kinleyd 14y ago
'It's true that G+ is driven more by "interest communities" than by "friends and family links".' And that is one of the main reasons I prefer G+ over Facebook. Facebook is nice to keep in touch with ones family and friends (old and new), but G+ is where I can follow (and occasionally interact with) a number of luminaries, visionaries and tech leaders. God forbid my family and friends fill up my G+ stream! If G+ never catches up with Facebook in terms of numbers, I'll be the happier for it.
Spearchucker 14y ago
Success being quite relative. I was forced to sign up to both Gmail and G+, because that's what my employer requires, and I wanted the job. I access Gmail exclusively through my Windows Phone. I don't use G+ at all. The community of interest thing doesn't hold much water for me, because I've yet to be pointed at something of interest on G+ that I wouldn't find elsewhere. Not saying that my particular scenario reflects everyone else's, but it does seem to work for me and my friends, most of whom have GMail accounts as their primary mail address. If success is defined in terms of ad impressions then that won't work with me either. I use an ad blocker.
JPKab 14y ago
I don't get why Google + goes after Facebook, when it is sooo much better positioned to go after LinkedIn. Most of what Google + does well is what LinkedIn needs to do better. If Google+ allowed people to upload resumes, they would dominate. Think about the value of a Google search friendly resume, coupled with a community graph.

murz 14y ago

> Which would be great if checking a feed meant more than logging into your gmail. If you read the actual announcement it would be clear that when they say "stream-actives", they are not including people logging into Gmail. "Today Google+ is the fastest-growing network thingy ever. More than 500 million people have upgraded, 235 million are active across Google (+1'ing apps in Google Play, hanging out in Gmail, connecting with friends in Search...), and 135 million are active in just the stream." Source: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/google-communities-and-photos.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/google-communities-an... (which is linked from the Wired article)

makmanalp 14y ago
No offense, but that's a dumb measure of activity. None of those things actually requires engaging. I can +1 an app that I used once or do a google hangout because it's more convenient than skype. That doesn't mean I use google+. The activity feed part of the site is mainly crickets.
- murz 14y ago
  I think you missed my point, which was that the Wired article is citing the number from the second half of that sentence: "and 135 million are active in just the stream." (not the first number, which includes people who just +1'd an app) I don't think the statement in the blog post could be much clearer, you just have to read the whole sentence :)
  - franze 14y ago
    yeah, i watched an old reposted matt cutts video the other day on G+, proud to be part of the 135 000 000.
- erickhill 14y ago
  Google PR: "Google today announced that it has 135 million active users checking their Google+ streams each month." Facebook PR: "Oct 4, 2012 - More than one billion people are active on Facebook." These are "reports" based on PR-based spin and "rounding up." That's all. If you were a manager at one of these companies, wouldn't you sell the same schtick?

pcwalton 14y ago

Not everyone uses Gmail. It's popular to be sure, especially in Silicon Valley, but overall its market share is not even 50%. Sources: http://www.email-marketing-reports.com/metrics/email-statistics.htm http://www.email-marketing-reports.com/metrics/email-statist... http://www.quora.com/Email-Service-Providers/What-is-the-breakdown-of-market-share-between-Gmail-Hotmail-and-Yahoo-mail http://www.quora.com/Email-Service-Providers/What-is-the-bre...

pkulak 14y ago

You mad, bro? I don't understand why everyone gets so angry at the idea that Google plus might actually succeeded in some way.

ryanhuff 14y ago
I can understand some people being fatigued from companies defining their own metrics to justify success. In some cases, its comical. Google is more susceptible than many to this reaction because of their industry position, and their attempts to reign users of traditionally heterogeneous apps into a more monolithic service. We'll see this again when they finally bring Youtube into G+.
bonch 14y ago
Google has historically used relatively loose metrics to declare Google+ a success, as well as pushed usage of Google+ in controversial ways, and that has made people cynical.
msabalau 14y ago
That's an interesting question. Obviously human beings are more than capable of splitting up into tribes of haters, even in cases such as social media where one can, at no real cost, participate in them all. But, while generally there's less "holy war" drama of this type on HN than you might find on a generic tech news site, on the topic of Google Plus succeeding there seems to be more. My personal (and not particularly charitable) assumption is that in addition to the people who'd normally relish a dispute of this type, there's also a subset of people on HN who feel on some level that their experience as early/heavy Facebook adopters will give them some sort of "leg up" in understanding or creating the future, and if something competes with Facebook, it threatens their "insight". This particular theory aside, it does seem mysterious to me.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
I hate the incantation of "You mad, bro" so incredibly much, but then again, I'm also tired of people who still don't get it. "There's no one on it". Yeah, and if you open a Twitter account and don't follow anyone then it looks like there's no one on it.

paganel 14y ago

Personally, I think Google should just "declare victory" and move to other more important things. They certainly do have have the people for that (the important things), but I feel they're wasting a huge amount of resources on this without much gain (if any).

lmm 14y ago
The dream is that it will make search better, and that's the most important thing google does - and the thing that they most need to improve.

LaGrange 14y ago

I actually suspect I'll eventually end up being counted in those statistics, because I'll break and "upgrade" to join some Coursera/Udacity hangout. It will still be the only way I'll use it, but the stats will look great, I'm sure.

return0 14y ago

It wasn't a good idea to just copy-paste a newsfeed on top of your gmail contacts. Also trying to be everything all at once is usually a bad choice. It might fare better if it had been more private or work-oriented, something like a yammer on top of gmail. Right now the product is unfocused and confusing at best.

dbecker 14y ago

You are referring to 35% growth in 2.5 months as "glacial"? If growth is proportional to the number of users (exponential growth) that would lead to more than tripling in size each year. If growth is linear, it is still easily more than doubling each year. What growth rate were you expecting in order to be faster than "glacial."