3 ms·
>the Google+ saga reads almost exactly like this Does it? IIRC a lot of people wanted to switch to G+ in summer 2011 or thereabouts, and it was getting a lot o
by deciplex 12y ago
>the Google+ saga reads almost exactly like this
Does it? IIRC a lot of people wanted to switch to G+ in summer 2011 or thereabouts, and it was getting a lot of buzz. But, by the time they got around to opening registration to people who didn't know someone who worked at Google, nobody gave a shit anymore, and Facebook had had enough time to address most of the stuff that was pissing everyone off anyway.
I always got the impression that Google+ nearly had it, but Google fumbled on the rollout - not that they were unable to overcome networking effects on Facebook.
- xnull2guest 12y agoI think there are instances in time during which a 'violent' change of adoption can take place, where suddenly everyone stops using a service and replaces it with another. Facebook did replace of Myspace. Facebook has been replaced in countries where it has been blocked. If Facebook were to break (extended downtime), face too large a scandal, be obviated by a social network on the 'post-Web' platform Facebook was too late to get onto, or whatever else there could be a sudden shift in the monopoly holder. There may have been an instant where Google+ could have, under the right alignment of stars, inherited this monopoly. Larger point being made above is that it's successors of monopolies, like a kingship, not proper market competition with multiple simultaneous informed-consumer choice.