3 ms·

No, it's that inherent non-visual (and maybe visual too) unattractiveness that killed (or is killing) G+, not it being a post-Facebook SNS. Facebook, with all i

No, it's that inherent non-visual (and maybe visual too) unattractiveness that killed (or is killing) G+, not it being a post-Facebook SNS. Facebook, with all its questionable practises and unquestionably appalling privacy attitude, got one thing right - it gave what users wanted and needed in real at that time. It didn't, unlike G+, went on to tell people "hey, you want this!", "Hey, you want this profile to be everywhere, even in your YouTube comments", "No, you do not want your user-name as `balladeer` - which is btw still available, you want `balladeer132`". Just few examples and simple day-today usability fails at the lowest level. > none of the little annoyances or problems with G+ would have likely mattered Yes, it would have mattered. It has happened before. You know Orkut had every reason for not failing. I mean everybody was on Orkut seeing the Internet penetration at that time (at least in my part of the world) and Orkutting was the thing - for us there was no Twitter, no Instagram, no MySpace, traces of Friendster, but just Orkut. But it failed. It was pre-Facebook (by a a few weeks iirc) and had gained momentum long before Facebook did. What else surprises me? The fact that what every one - I mean every Tom, Dick, Harry - knew was seemingly unknown to the G+/G leaders. Many of their decisions brought universal reactions of a metaphoric "really?" and they would do that all over again as there was a total communication gap with them and the rest of the world. > Good product; unfortunate timing Imho it's actually like: good idea (but nothing innovative; in fact many times repeated) badly executed (and more bad repeatedly over the time) is failing as expected. Wave, Buzz, Orkut, G+ > For all that success, the Internet giant just couldn't seem to figure out social I think this lines really sums it. Maybe they banked upon the number they had in all their G-ecosystem and they believed they could just herd the flock.

chetanahuja 11y ago
"What else surprises me? The fact that what every one - I mean every Tom, Dick, Harry - knew was seemingly unknown to the G+/G leaders. Many of their decisions brought universal reactions of a metaphoric "really?" and they would do that all over again as there was a total communication gap with them and the rest of the world." This more than anything. And it was not just the external observers either. As pointed out in the article, Vic ran roughshod over the entire company to push his agenda. As is well known, a very large fraction of the rank-and-file employees were up in arms over the real-name policy. There were petitions against it signed by thousands of employees. None of that was heeded by the leadership.

chetanahuja 11y ago

"What else surprises me? The fact that what every one - I mean every Tom, Dick, Harry - knew was seemingly unknown to the G+/G leaders. Many of their decisions brought universal reactions of a metaphoric "really?" and they would do that all over again as there was a total communication gap with them and the rest of the world." This more than anything. And it was not just the external observers either. As pointed out in the article, Vic ran roughshod over the entire company to push his agenda. As is well known, a very large fraction of the rank-and-file employees were up in arms over the real-name policy. There were petitions against it signed by thousands of employees. None of that was heeded by the leadership.