Google+ Now The Top Free App In The Apple App Store
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
On the one hand, you have Apple, a "traditional" hardware/software company, whose aim is to move as many devices out the door (IIRC, hardware is their primary revenue source with the largest margins). They do this by making awesomely polished software that they lock to their devices.
On another hand, you have Google and Facebook, which are information companies. Their primary goal is the collection and organization of data. Google does this through many fields (but for the sake of this discussion, I'll focus primarily on Android and Google+). Facebook does it through "social."
What I find interesting first is the announcement that Apple chose Twitter for iOS 5. From the post on betanews (http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Why-did-Apple-choo...), Apple chose twitter because it wants information to flow freely between its devices (facilitating their ultimate goal of selling more devices).
But more so, Apple is now in a position to really hurt Facebook since Google+ came along. Since Google's goal is the free flow of information, we are continuing to see iOS Google apps, despite the popularity of Android and the seemingly competitive nature of Android vs. iPhone/iPad. But Apple benefits from Facebook's demise and Google+'s openness, and Google benefits from this because they continue to collect more information. Facebook loses in this case since they locked themselves into a corner that they can't get out of anymore. I think this was a well played strategic alliance on the part of Google and Apple.
/my two cents
The only thing I do not understand is how Apple can lock users to iTunes for their media management, it seems analogous in more ways than not to Microsoft's IE issues a handful of years ago. (Perhaps I am missing a key point here, if so please comment.)
I could be wrong, though. I'd love to be wrong.
I wouldn't be surprised if they came out with an ipad app soon and that it was at worst, decent.
That being said I checked out the Google+ app on my Xoom and it does not appear that they included proper tablet configurations yet.
So the 10" tablet app has a layout designed for a 3" screen, ignores the incredible hardware capabilities of the device (two video cameras! no video chat?), notifications that pop up after I've seen them twice already, etc.
It's just no good at the moment, but I'm sure it will improve with time.
Duncan Stewart's retweet of Andy Levy's comment says it best: "as far as I can tell, every post on Google+ is either something I already saw on Twitter or something about Google+."
With that said, I think there is value. I'm more than happy to tell Google who my friends are, if it helps them refine my searches.
That's a mistake. I think it's pretty clear that Google+ is already a successful product that's making an impact, but let's pretend for a second that it isn't.
When Chrome launched, it had very little market share for a very long time. However, as it slowly grew, the obvious statement to make was that as other browsers saw it coming they quickened their pace and sped up their JavaScript engines, hastened release cycles, etc. Even if Chrome never did attain much market share (it did) it would have been seen by Google as a huge success very quickly: if all other browsers are faster that's still a win for Google.
So, even if Google+ never gets significant market share (too late, within weeks it has millions of users), it already has made an impact by providing intense competition for Facebook.
Google even launched video chats before Facebook did, showing very clearly that in some places (new features) they are already changing the landscape of social networking.
They already have made a significant impact. And the game is just starting.
Chrome was a completely different beast, and I suppose the best way to differentiate is on brand relevance vs brand preference. IE and FF were still browsers. No one said "go internet explorer" - but people do say "Oh yeah, go Facebook me" or "yeah Facebook that kay?" When I think of sharing something online, I think Facebook or Twitter, and not "social network".
Yes, Google has a large market share in a small amount of time. What are their usage details? I still haven't seen anything on G+ that hasn't been on my FB feed, or been tweeted first. Also, unlike Chrome, I don't feel G+ offers any drastically different features.
Ok, this is speculation. But this is all speculation. I guess we just need to wait.
Ah, I really dislike this mentality.
Ever heard of "Everybody Loves Raymond"? It's a TV show that I didn't and none of my friends watched. But guess what? it was the most-watched show in the early 2000s.
How about "Arrested Development"? I watched it. My friends were watching it. Some of my friends still talk about it on Facebook. But guess what? It got canceled because of poor ratings.
What I learned is that in some aspects, I'm not part of the mainstream. My guess is a lot of people in Hacker News aren't either.
Let us not make conclusions on something based on what we or our friends use or like.
I am honestly curious -- why wouldn't you just say "Andy Levy said it best"? Is there some onus of attribution regarding retweets? (Not snarky -- seriously curious. My personal opinion is that you blog about or retweet or share something because you think it's notable, deserving no attribution unless you've actually added something interesting to it)
Twitter celebrities will have a natural aversion to any medium that essentially puts them at ground zero, and they're going to look for reasons not to like it. For the overwhelming majority of ordinary people, however, it does fill a need. The first-class nature of circles and the privacy controls have completely changed social networks for me, making intermixing classes of relationships much more relaxing.
What's really great about HN (now I'm being sarcastic), is people who will nitpick at tiny things you say, and then reinforce their pedantics with "This is what makes HN great" or "HN isn't about this". I was just making a simple comment. Is that now allowed on HN?
When someone nitpicks at a tiny element of a larger post, that's pedantic. When all you posted was something tiny, however, you're inviting further inquiry by being unspecific and vague.
To explain to you the specific reaction to your one-sentance comment (great-grandparent here, immediately below the submitted article link), I really couldn't tell for sure if you were being ironic or meant the literal meaning of the sentence you posted. A longer comment usually makes that of issue more clear, which is important in a medium where we are not speaking face-to-face and seeing each other's body language or hearing tone of voice.
I know that they plan to improve it, etc. but I have to wonder what it would look like if you gave Tapbots three months and access to the G+ API...