5 ms·

Google lost the plot with G+. The reason that Google is where it is is because it made things people wanted to use, they naturally came to use these things. Ar

by bane 11y ago

Google lost the plot with G+. The reason that Google is where it is is because it made things people wanted to use, they naturally came to use these things. Around this time Google just simply forgot this, killed reader, killed ig, killed labs, and then tried to herd people into using an inferior social network, then tried to shove all of google's other products into this terrible product nobody wanted to use. This is different than what happened during the search engine wars, where google's product was simply better than all the others and that's why people used it.

davidgerard 11y ago
People really wanted Facebook the product without Facebook the company. G+ had a golden opportunity, and they blew it.
- allendoerfer 11y ago
  I assure you, that nobody outside our bubble ever thought something like that.
- klausa 11y ago
  I sincerely doubt that for people that wanted Facebook without Facebook Inc., Facebook with Google Inc. would be a winning proposition.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  Possibly a small cohort. But yes, absolutely.
yborg 11y ago
I think this may have had a lot to do with the guy they picked to run it. Vic Gundotra brought his Microsoft mentality with him, and proceeded to use it on Google.
- varelse 11y ago
  As someone who worked at Google when Google+ was released, IMO the failure was all about Vic Gundotra. 1. He's the elitist who went against Google's culture and separated the Google+ team in its own sooper sekrit headquarters with its own cafeteria. 2. He's the backstabbing liar who first said the company-wide annual bonus was going to be based on the success of Google+ and then when it briefly looked like it would be a facebook killer, he went back on his word, thus alienating pretty much everyone. 3. He's the out of touch dumba$$ behind real names that sucked the appeal out of Google+ and left it a dumping ground for stuff that didn't fit anywhere else. The day Google+ was released, I was besieged with invite requests from friends and acquaintances. And the Google+ UI IMO was nicer than Facebook's (and it still is IMO). However, as soon as Google+ made it their business to out gay people using pseudonyms to stay in the closet, those requests stopped. I'm sure there are many more reasons for the failure, but this was what I saw from within Google at the time.
  - mycelium 11y ago
    This is dead on. Anybody who looks at the failure of G+ without looking at Gundotra is missing a huge part of the plot.
    - bambax 11y ago
      Maybe. But he was put in charge, and left in charge, by Page. He can't be the only one left holding the candle.
  - minwcnt5 11y ago
    Not to mention gaming the usage metrics and OKRs to give the impression G+ was far more popular than it really was, then taking the whole team to Hawaii to celebrate the supposed success. I'll never understand what Larry saw in him; he came across to many as a huge culture mismatch from the very start with his smooth-talking used car salesman style.
    - jrsta 11y ago
      When project leaders spoke internally at Google (at least back then) they typically did so with a level of candor that Vic never provided. He would get on stage and just speak in unconvincing platitudes. Bradley Horowitz still carries that torch unfortunately.
bambax 11y ago
At some point you began to have to use Goofle+ to post comments or ratings to Maps' POIs. (So I stopped.) If you have to force people to use your product, and they still won't, the product is dead. There is no product. That Google couldn't see that is a little disturbing. And let's not forget the damage Google+ did to search. You used to be able to use the + sign to force a word to appear in results documents, but this was changed to clumsy double quotes (on both sides of the word) because of G+...
- techbio 11y ago
  So how do you like the new Apple Music?
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  I think the progression is. Provider: Here use X. Customers: Nope don't wanna. Provider: Okay now you have X to use Y. (lol got you) Customers: Stops using Y.
powera 11y ago
I regret that I have but one +1 for this comment. This is exactly what happened. The thinking was, "We're going to make a successful social network ... what can we do that looks like successful products?" So the target audience is just "everyone", since of course everyone wants to use a successful social network. And if the stats don't look like they're successful, make up new stats ("the fastest growing social network ever" bullshit). And when that fails, we force as many products as possible to integrate with it, which of course they have to do because we're making a "successful" network and who wouldn't want to integrate with "success"?
alkonaut 11y ago
With a search engine the cost of switching is pretty small. I don't care if anyone else switches search engine when I do. Learning a new one is easy. Adding features and continuously making a slightly better product will make it a winner in the long run. With social networks you just can't do that. The cost of switching is enormous for the individual user, and no new users will join the smaller network. It's s natural monopoly. The only chance you have is to offer something else, such as a professional network (LinkedIn) or a similar thing to completely set it apart from all existing networks. When I created my G+ account I expected to find features for adding/importing/inviting my FB contacts. Nothing. Google must have been too scared of legal fallout to just mass import users' networks. The way G+ worked at launch, FB could have a year of downtime without risk of losing many users to other networks.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  Switching costs for search are far higher on the backside: advertising networks. That more than Google's search tech is its real strength IMO.
nostrademons 11y ago
Steve Jobs deserves a lot of the credit for this as well: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-steve-jobs-influenced-googles.html http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-steve-jobs-infl... Also, not in the article but reported in the press at the same time, Jobs told Page that he should be less afraid of ruffling feathers and more willing to command the company to do what he wants. Unfortunately, what worked for Steve Jobs wouldn't necessarily work for Larry Page.
MichaelCrawford 11y ago
Google ate the seed corn a year or two ago: http://www.google.com/search?q=hacker+news http://www.google.com/search?q=hacker+news Fox News www.fox.com missing: <strike>hacker</strike> I could eat Google's lunch while waiting for my morning coffee to brew but I've got a lot on my plate right now. Do Yer Worst.

by bane 11y ago

davidgerard 11y ago

People really wanted Facebook the product without Facebook the company. G+ had a golden opportunity, and they blew it.

allendoerfer 11y ago
I assure you, that nobody outside our bubble ever thought something like that.
klausa 11y ago
I sincerely doubt that for people that wanted Facebook without Facebook Inc., Facebook with Google Inc. would be a winning proposition.
dredmorbius 11y ago
Possibly a small cohort. But yes, absolutely.

yborg 11y ago

I think this may have had a lot to do with the guy they picked to run it. Vic Gundotra brought his Microsoft mentality with him, and proceeded to use it on Google.

varelse 11y ago
As someone who worked at Google when Google+ was released, IMO the failure was all about Vic Gundotra. 1. He's the elitist who went against Google's culture and separated the Google+ team in its own sooper sekrit headquarters with its own cafeteria. 2. He's the backstabbing liar who first said the company-wide annual bonus was going to be based on the success of Google+ and then when it briefly looked like it would be a facebook killer, he went back on his word, thus alienating pretty much everyone. 3. He's the out of touch dumba$$ behind real names that sucked the appeal out of Google+ and left it a dumping ground for stuff that didn't fit anywhere else. The day Google+ was released, I was besieged with invite requests from friends and acquaintances. And the Google+ UI IMO was nicer than Facebook's (and it still is IMO). However, as soon as Google+ made it their business to out gay people using pseudonyms to stay in the closet, those requests stopped. I'm sure there are many more reasons for the failure, but this was what I saw from within Google at the time.
- mycelium 11y ago
  This is dead on. Anybody who looks at the failure of G+ without looking at Gundotra is missing a huge part of the plot.
  - bambax 11y ago
    Maybe. But he was put in charge, and left in charge, by Page. He can't be the only one left holding the candle.
- minwcnt5 11y ago
  Not to mention gaming the usage metrics and OKRs to give the impression G+ was far more popular than it really was, then taking the whole team to Hawaii to celebrate the supposed success. I'll never understand what Larry saw in him; he came across to many as a huge culture mismatch from the very start with his smooth-talking used car salesman style.
  - jrsta 11y ago
    When project leaders spoke internally at Google (at least back then) they typically did so with a level of candor that Vic never provided. He would get on stage and just speak in unconvincing platitudes. Bradley Horowitz still carries that torch unfortunately.

bambax 11y ago

At some point you began to have to use Goofle+ to post comments or ratings to Maps' POIs. (So I stopped.) If you have to force people to use your product, and they still won't, the product is dead. There is no product. That Google couldn't see that is a little disturbing. And let's not forget the damage Google+ did to search. You used to be able to use the + sign to force a word to appear in results documents, but this was changed to clumsy double quotes (on both sides of the word) because of G+...

techbio 11y ago
So how do you like the new Apple Music?
Gibbon1 11y ago
I think the progression is. Provider: Here use X. Customers: Nope don't wanna. Provider: Okay now you have X to use Y. (lol got you) Customers: Stops using Y.

powera 11y ago

I regret that I have but one +1 for this comment. This is exactly what happened. The thinking was, "We're going to make a successful social network ... what can we do that looks like successful products?" So the target audience is just "everyone", since of course everyone wants to use a successful social network. And if the stats don't look like they're successful, make up new stats ("the fastest growing social network ever" bullshit). And when that fails, we force as many products as possible to integrate with it, which of course they have to do because we're making a "successful" network and who wouldn't want to integrate with "success"?

alkonaut 11y ago

With a search engine the cost of switching is pretty small. I don't care if anyone else switches search engine when I do. Learning a new one is easy. Adding features and continuously making a slightly better product will make it a winner in the long run. With social networks you just can't do that. The cost of switching is enormous for the individual user, and no new users will join the smaller network. It's s natural monopoly. The only chance you have is to offer something else, such as a professional network (LinkedIn) or a similar thing to completely set it apart from all existing networks. When I created my G+ account I expected to find features for adding/importing/inviting my FB contacts. Nothing. Google must have been too scared of legal fallout to just mass import users' networks. The way G+ worked at launch, FB could have a year of downtime without risk of losing many users to other networks.

dredmorbius 11y ago
Switching costs for search are far higher on the backside: advertising networks. That more than Google's search tech is its real strength IMO.

nostrademons 11y ago

Steve Jobs deserves a lot of the credit for this as well: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-steve-jobs-influenced-googles.html http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-steve-jobs-infl... Also, not in the article but reported in the press at the same time, Jobs told Page that he should be less afraid of ruffling feathers and more willing to command the company to do what he wants. Unfortunately, what worked for Steve Jobs wouldn't necessarily work for Larry Page.

MichaelCrawford 11y ago

Google ate the seed corn a year or two ago: http://www.google.com/search?q=hacker+news http://www.google.com/search?q=hacker+news Fox News www.fox.com missing: <strike>hacker</strike> I could eat Google's lunch while waiting for my morning coffee to brew but I've got a lot on my plate right now. Do Yer Worst.