4 ms·
Maybe. But many of us are early adopters on Google+, because many of us are early adopters of all kinds of technologies. How effective have any of us been? I've
by bratsche 12y ago
Maybe. But many of us are early adopters on Google+, because many of us are early adopters of all kinds of technologies. How effective have any of us been? I've got a ton of connections on Google+, but they're mostly other software developers or enthusiasts. All my real friends who are actually on Google+ created accounts and then apparently forgot they had them and never post. Probably because I'm the only person they know who was using it, and as awesome as I am (jk), one person is not enough to get someone to use a social network.
- mattlutze 12y agoOur early adoption tendencies pair with a tolerance to nerd out over multiple competing systems. Studies have in the past suggested the average smartphone user only uses a few (5, 6?) apps that they've downloaded with any sort of regularity, the idea being they just don't have the time, patience or desire to check in on 6 different social location-aware deal apps. Facebook is, generally, a better experience for a person that wants to keep up with their friends, because posting, discovering others' posts, organizing groups, having get-togethers in real life are quicker, simpler, easier for the general user. So they'll ignore Google+ because they don't need that second social network if Google+ comes in second. Which, for that persona, it really does.
- pantalaimon 12y agoThe thing is that g+ was pretty useless for early adopters because it lacked so many features - an obvious were events, it boggled my mind that Google had Google Calendar which syncs to every Android device, but g+ had no means of creating an event for almost a year.