4 ms·
Google+ should have launched secretly and conservatively, instead of big announcement and smash/crash into every feature. There are some aspects of it that are
by kingnight 12y ago
Google+ should have launched secretly and conservatively, instead of big announcement and smash/crash into every feature. There are some aspects of it that are very appealing (mostly the nonsocial ones...) that I find useful, but due to my initial repulsion to the 'major change' I am less likely to invest in using.
- npizzolato 12y agoThe big announcement was fine. The problem is they hardly let anyone in after the big announcement. I remember there being a huge hype for Google+ when it was announced. But almost no one got invites, and those that did couldn't do anything on it so they quickly lost interest. It's hard to get excited about a social network when none of your friends can be a part of it.
- apendleton 12y agoYeah, in hindsight Facebook looks especially clever in terms of how they managed their initial roll-out. Going university by university meant that they got to gradually ramp things up infrastructure-wise, and created the I-want-it-because-I-can't-have-it effect that I think a lot of companies go for with phased roll-outs, invitations, etc., but because any given school would get it all at once, as soon as your school got it, most of your peer group would also get it at the same time, which avoided the chicken-and-egg problem Google+ experienced.
- dredmorbius 12y agoTotal agreement as I just posted above. A slow and staged rollout for Facebook worked great. In large part because it started with a small, well-suited, and high-status user base (Harvard, Ivy League), and expanded from there. Into a world already dominated by MySpace and with plenty of other social network contenders. Including Google's own Orkut, Buzz, and Wave.