I find that statement really interesting. Google+ was a flop from day one, it never really had a real userbase and never really had a chance. They released it at Facebook's height of power and for...
Today’s announcements of a Google+ security breach and the upcoming shutdown of consumer Google+ are but immediate symptoms of a malignancy that has been creeping through Google for years.
I find that statement really interesting. Google+ was a flop from day one, it never really had a real userbase and never really had a chance. They released it at Facebook's height of power and for the most part people ignored it (admittedly I do like it, but don't actively use it). I think we all knew it was going to die eventually, I wouldn't necessarily say that has anything to do with Google as a whole. And the death of Google+ seems to be something that she is hinging her entire stance on, personally I see it as just another one of Google's endeavors that didn't take off. Its just one in a long list of attempts to expand that didn't work (when plenty of others did). I think they will be fine.
As somebody who's been there since the 2011 beta, I'm calling bullshit. Google+ was only a flop in the sense that it wasn't a Facebook-killer. However, it succeeded where Facebook failed in...
Google+ was a flop from day one, it never really had a real userbase and never really had a chance.
As somebody who's been there since the 2011 beta, I'm calling bullshit. Google+ was only a flop in the sense that it wasn't a Facebook-killer. However, it succeeded where Facebook failed in attracting the sorts of enthusiasts and experts who -- if they had Facebook accounts at all -- were only on Facebook as if under duress.
Google fucked up by not accepting that G+ was a niche product and nurturing it accordingly.
But that's the thing, the entire intention of G+ was to overtake Facebook like Facebook did with MySpace. It was never intended to be a niche product and by becoming one, it is a failure.
Google+ was only a flop in the sense that it wasn't a Facebook-killer.
But that's the thing, the entire intention of G+ was to overtake Facebook like Facebook did with MySpace. It was never intended to be a niche product and by becoming one, it is a failure.
I mean... I was there from the 2011 beta as well. While those who like it were pretty passionate about it, it wasn't very well received and it would certainly be wrong to call it a success, even...
I mean... I was there from the 2011 beta as well.
While those who like it were pretty passionate about it, it wasn't very well received and it would certainly be wrong to call it a success, even at launch time. Millions of people logged on once and then never again, and it made no real impact outside of a few key areas.
I don't think the death of Google+ is anything other than the inevitable march of Google abandoning a product that didn't quite have the market share they wanted it to, as they do with all products that don't achieve their desired market share.
I think the first problem with google+ was the marketing, and being invite only when it started. Facebook was in full swing, growing by the second, and google was already late to the party. They...
I think the first problem with google+ was the marketing, and being invite only when it started. Facebook was in full swing, growing by the second, and google was already late to the party. They announced google+ and it gathered a lot of attention back then, but because people couldn't immediately join, they forgot about it. In many cases "invite only" is a great way to go (here for example), but that was not one of those cases.
While it's fair to point out that Google isn't the invincible juggernaut that we often think it is (no business can be that), I think calls for their death are extremely premature. Now if the...
While it's fair to point out that Google isn't the invincible juggernaut that we often think it is (no business can be that), I think calls for their death are extremely premature.
Now if the headline was "The Death of Google Plus", that would be more accurate.
Google is so deeply ingrained in licensing for the Android OS, which is projected to remain steady at 85% market share through 2022, I'm hard pressed to see them "die" any time in the next 20 years.
I don't quite see the part where the article ties into the headline. Google is dying because their management is detached. Okay, explain. Because they....killed the monumentally unpopular Google+?
I don't quite see the part where the article ties into the headline. Google is dying because their management is detached. Okay, explain. Because they....killed the monumentally unpopular Google+?
I have been reading Lauren's articles on the old Usenet group comp.risks for far too many years than I recall. :-) Nowadays called the plain old Risks Digest at www.risks.org Lauren always has...
I have been reading Lauren's articles on the old Usenet group comp.risks for far too many years than I recall. :-) Nowadays called the plain old Risks Digest at www.risks.org
Lauren always has interesting and thought provoking commentary to discuss. I enjoy reading his content.
As to this particular content, the death of Google, I'd need to research a bit more to form an opinion!
I find that statement really interesting. Google+ was a flop from day one, it never really had a real userbase and never really had a chance. They released it at Facebook's height of power and for the most part people ignored it (admittedly I do like it, but don't actively use it). I think we all knew it was going to die eventually, I wouldn't necessarily say that has anything to do with Google as a whole. And the death of Google+ seems to be something that she is hinging her entire stance on, personally I see it as just another one of Google's endeavors that didn't take off. Its just one in a long list of attempts to expand that didn't work (when plenty of others did). I think they will be fine.
As somebody who's been there since the 2011 beta, I'm calling bullshit. Google+ was only a flop in the sense that it wasn't a Facebook-killer. However, it succeeded where Facebook failed in attracting the sorts of enthusiasts and experts who -- if they had Facebook accounts at all -- were only on Facebook as if under duress.
Google fucked up by not accepting that G+ was a niche product and nurturing it accordingly.
Google doesn't do niche products. Everything has to have hundreds of millions of active users for them to consider it worth continuing.
FTFY. The "winner take all" ethos isn't confined to Google. It isn't even confined to the Valley. It's endemic in modern capitalism.
But that's the thing, the entire intention of G+ was to overtake Facebook like Facebook did with MySpace. It was never intended to be a niche product and by becoming one, it is a failure.
I mean... I was there from the 2011 beta as well.
While those who like it were pretty passionate about it, it wasn't very well received and it would certainly be wrong to call it a success, even at launch time. Millions of people logged on once and then never again, and it made no real impact outside of a few key areas.
I don't think the death of Google+ is anything other than the inevitable march of Google abandoning a product that didn't quite have the market share they wanted it to, as they do with all products that don't achieve their desired market share.
I think the first problem with google+ was the marketing, and being invite only when it started. Facebook was in full swing, growing by the second, and google was already late to the party. They announced google+ and it gathered a lot of attention back then, but because people couldn't immediately join, they forgot about it. In many cases "invite only" is a great way to go (here for example), but that was not one of those cases.
While it's fair to point out that Google isn't the invincible juggernaut that we often think it is (no business can be that), I think calls for their death are extremely premature.
Now if the headline was "The Death of Google Plus", that would be more accurate.
Google is so deeply ingrained in licensing for the Android OS, which is projected to remain steady at 85% market share through 2022, I'm hard pressed to see them "die" any time in the next 20 years.
I don't quite see the part where the article ties into the headline. Google is dying because their management is detached. Okay, explain. Because they....killed the monumentally unpopular Google+?
I have been reading Lauren's articles on the old Usenet group comp.risks for far too many years than I recall. :-) Nowadays called the plain old Risks Digest at www.risks.org
Lauren always has interesting and thought provoking commentary to discuss. I enjoy reading his content.
As to this particular content, the death of Google, I'd need to research a bit more to form an opinion!
Thanks for the link, really good stuff on there.