Why Google+ Has Already Failed | Hacker News Reader

Why Google+ Has Already Failed

blog.jasecooper.com

9 pointsjase_coop23 comments

Facebook makes ~100% of its revenue from advertising-related deals too, no? Google's mission is to organize the world's information - there's a lot of money in that. So far they know that comes from advertising, but don't bet that it'll stay that way forever. Knowing about people's interactions is best done by knowing people, and so Google did indeed build + for people.

Also, if Google+ fails it won't be because of anything mentioned here. It'll be because I've been on it for 2 days unable to add more than 1 friend. I can't believe they're trying another invitation system for another social network. Guys, just let me add my friends already!

Have Google really built Google+ out of a real human need/problem? I don't think so.

I'm not excusing Facebook and how they make money today. These aren't the same motives that influenced their reason for being, which were a lot more focused on people and universities.

> Have Google really built a product out of a real human need/problem?

Are you a troll?

Maybe he is too young to remember the pre-google search experience ;)

Yes. Calendar. It was built because the purchased solution sucked. (And was insecure. Passwords in a flat file in one's home directory?)

Gmail also comes the closest of any webmail interfaces to MH.

I think the point of the article is that the intent and initial design of Facebook was radically different as it's original purpose was to provide something that did not exist previously that is useful. This isn't Google giving us something innovative, or useful in any new way, this is Google trying to get a slice of the social network ad market.

What reason do you have for using Google+ that is not already satisfied by FB or Twitter?

Feels kind of like Bing.

Just think about what market Google entered in the first place. It was a market with things like altavista.com being the dominant search engines.

Facebook was first, so now it has squatters rights? I don't think so.

I feel (and I believe this to be the author's sentiment as well) that Google Plus does not innovate enough on any existing products to grant it significant relevance.

Google dominated because it did search much better than it's competitors and got people the search results they were looking for.

Google+ does nothing for me that I cannot get with Facebook.

Well, it seems to me that the author makes some kind of moral argument out of the whole thing in a David vs. Goliath kind of way. Certainly both are (huge) corporations but I still trust Google more. They still seem to have a sane leadership which I'm not so sure about with Facebook. Maybe I just don't like Zuckerberg ... He just is not the kind of underdog that I would like to succeed. (Edit: Neither is Google, but the author makes it look like Facebook should be support in a way.)

I'm neither pro Google or Facebook.

I merely make a comparison between the early days, intentions and motives of both Google+ and Facebook, how they're different and why I think that difference is important.

I think his point is that Google made + so that they can learn about people. It's designed to serve Google's need to learn about people and damage it's competitors first and foremost.

Vic Gundotra is quite open about this when he talks about how he drove the team using fear of the competition as a motivator.

You're right that Facebook is now just as much about trying to monetize as it is about serving its users, but the OP is pointing out that Facebook started off serving its users, and that's how it grew. Twitter is similar in this respect. They both started off serving user needs and are now trying to transition into profitable businesses.

Google + is fundamentally (as Gundotra says) about serving Google's needs, and the product design is about finding a user need that enables it to do this.

I don't agree with the OP that it's doomed to fail. I don't particularly like Google's business model alignment, but I'm happy with how they make it work for search, so why not social? It seems to me that there are decades worth of opportunities in this area.

The biggest reasons I can see for it failing are:

1. It's too much like Facebook - we don't need another Facebook we've already got one - and as for people disliking Facebook, how is it going to be different just because it's got a Google logo on it?

2. The mental model is too complex. I know what I'm getting with Twitter, so I can trust it. I don't trust Facebook - but frankly Facebook is an entertainment platform to most people, so trust isn't the biggest issue. Google+ is complex but more important, even if I understood all the logic behind it I still couldn't form a good mental model of it because that depends on tacit human behavior which hasn't yet formed.

All that said, it's nicely engineered and clean looking, which makes me willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and try it for a bit to see if it does make my life better in some way (which twitter does, but Facebook does not).

Why can't i downvote this, Google+ didn't succeed already but there is no single reasonable argument in this article.

Facebook being humble is the biggest joke ever.

Something that I've realized is that any project that Google does which feeds into their search engine results is much more likely to be flooded by spammers than any project by any other company. This could mean that Google has closed the doors to anything involving content without realizing it. For example from the point of view of a spammer there's no real gain in hitting a like button a thousand times — but abusing a Google One Plus button seems like a worthy target. Google may just be polluting their own ecosystem by trying to do this...

...I take back what I wrote here! I've now been playing with Google+ and it's killer. It may still get killed by abuse, but perhaps the Google team with some luck and hard work can prevent that.

I'm not sure I see why "I think Google has suspect motives" leads to the conclusion "Google+ Has Already Failed." The Internet has already shown that people trust those with suspect motives far too much.

I don't think their motives are suspect. I'm fine with how they handle my information and conduct their business.

I just don't think their motives will lead to innovation.

Innovation isn't the only thing that leads to success, not by a long shot. Polish, ease of use, a large feature set, security, and any number of other factors can have just as big an impact on users as innovation.

People don't use Google search because it's innovative, and people don't use Facebook because it innovated and people won't make their decisions on Google+ based on its innovations.

> Polish, ease of use, a large feature set, security, and any number of other factors can have just as big an impact on users as innovation.

Not if it's something people don't need or want in the first place.

If Google have 'innovated' then it means they've created something original and new that is useful for people. Only time will tell, but my personal opinion, based on what I've seen so far is they haven't.

Well yes, if the users don't want the product then nothing else matters, but I don't see what that has to do with innovation.

I have no problem with your argument that Google+ will need to be useful in some sense to be successful, but originality is hardly necessary for that to be the case.

If what they're going for is "Like Facebook, but better!" then they certainly are going to have a difficult time convincing many users to switch, but I wouldn't say it's anything approaching impossible.

I disagree.

First, Google has a decent track record in keeping personal data and advertising separate. For example they claim that their tracking cookie used across the web is not connected in any way to your Google profile. They can make use of a lot of data to show decent ads. Whereas Facebook will obviously make use of all your data because that's all they have.

2. Google makes most of its money by showing ads based on search terms you search for. They also use recent mails in GMail for ads within Gmail. They do not depend on any revenues from Google+. They likely see it as a defensive measure against Facebook which seriously threatens its real revenue model. Their competitive advantage is context, not primarily information about users. Again, for Facebook ads within the social network based on personal information are their sole competitive advantage.

It makes more sense to trust Google, at least as far as I am concerned.

If your criteria for failure is that the company is more interested in making money than you, personally, then there isn't a successful product on the face of the earth.

Of course Google is trying to use Google+ to make ad revenue. You know, exactly like Twitter and Facebook, who you hold up as opposition to Google+.

If Google fails here it will be because they didn't make people want to use their product, plain and simple. Not because the people ultimately paying them aren't the people using their product. If that were the case, half of the web wouldn't exist.

If Google+ fills a need for people, especially allowing people fine-grained, easy-to-use control of what is shared to who, then it should succeed.

Facebook is the big target that most people perceive, but surely LinkedIn is a huge target also, since Google+ circles should allow you to have work-oriented Sparks and pictures, versus personal-oriented status updates and pictures.

This shouldn't be a big deal for Twitter, since you might have many Twitter contacts where you simply don't know what their email is, but you still can read, message and retweet them, all within Twitter.

"But it’s the fact you see us an audience, rather than as users is what worries me about you."

i like Google and i like what i see in Google+ so far (great job guys). But I kinda agree with this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com