63 ms·
I suspect what the commenter meant is that Google could have created an open social platform for others to build upon, resulting in a plethora of specific socia
by ryanhuff 13y ago
I suspect what the commenter meant is that Google could have created an open social platform for others to build upon, resulting in a plethora of specific social implementations targeting many different verticals.
Instead, what we have today is G+ as a glue that provides a social foundation for all of their products, although I hope that G+ will open up soon to allow others to build upon it.
- danmaz74 13y agoYour suspect was right :) I remember many discussions about this when G+ was in its infancy. Obviously for Google the best thing would have been for G+ to become facebook - but that was, and is, impossible. So, the second best thing would have been (imho) to beat FB at the openness game, attracting first the developers, and then their users. Alas, they chose a different path.