Graph: How long it took Facebook, Twitter and Google+ to reach 10 million users
eu.techcrunch.com
eu.techcrunch.com
Facebook intentionally was only on college campuses. It let them scale slowly and work their way up the chain so to speak.
Twitter was crushed by growth and didn't have an existing user base to tap into.
Google+ growth is impressive, but it's built on top of how many Google Accounts, GMail accounts, Chat accounts and so on? It was designed from day 1 to get to the same 700+ million users that Facebook had.
I doubt either twitter or facebook ever considered the idea of getting a billion people to use them when they launched.
Also, even more than Buzz or Wave, Google+'s only value lies in inviting your friends. So, people invite their friends. It's like a social game, it only is fun if other people play it. It is in everybody's best interest to invite their friends, otherwise you are just sharing with Google's servers. If I wanted to work on a wave, it was with 1-5 people, if I want my social network on Google+, I'm going to invite 100+ people.
Apples. Oranges.
The graph provocatively illustrates that google+ could steamroll over facebook in a very short time, if they play their game right.
Google+ is making a huge splash, that is about the only meaningful statement that this graph illustrates. It doesn't suggest that they could dethrone facebook because there's a hell of a lot more to making a good social network than how quickly it gets ten million users.
For me and my friends, google+ is a dead zone. I signed up to check it out, and barely have looked at it since. I would like to use it some day, when more of the people I really want to connect with are on it, but there's really no certainty that it will make it to that point.
Until then, be very wary of false extrapolations.
Edit: So I disagree with the article entirely, it's not interesting at all.
But did Google Wave or Buzz take off that fast? I don't think Wave ever probably got to that many users.
Even though I use FB more than any other social networking websites, I still think many of their features suck a lot (photo album, chat). It bothers me that they have been in business for so long , but they have failed to incorporate better features . For me the way FB was frantically responding to Google+ seems silly. They should have done these way before. Can anyone explain why FB had to wait for adding new features until Google+ was launched.
Yes, in two days, Buzz had millions of users according to Google: http://tinyurl.com/3gsve3q
I think Google+ is way overhyped. It's currently riding a novelty factor among early adopters of not being Twitter or Facebook. You even get blasted on it if you mention "Follow Friday."
I'd like to see MySpace in the graph, it of course took them much longer to reach 10 million users.
http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/millions-of-buzz-users...
Also, in reference to the quickie TC chart, those of number of users who opted-in to a feature their provider activated. In other words, it's a voluntary rollout versus their previous social offerings.
Also, if it's growing so fast why does it still feel like a graveyard?!
Just thought I'd balance the comments about it being empty and inactive.
"Metcalfe's law states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n^2)"
"The law has often been illustrated using the example of fax machines: a single fax machine is useless, but the value of every fax machine increases with the total number of fax machines in the network, because the total number of people with whom each user may send and receive documents increases. Goods characterize the first component or intrinsic network effect. Services fall under the second component of network effects known as complementary.[6] A social networking site works the same way as the fax machine described above. The greater number of users with the service, the more valuable the service becomes to the community. Deriving from Metcalfe's Law, every new "friend" accepted or added on these social networking sites makes the user's profile ever more valuable in terms of the law. Positive and negative outcomes take place with all network effects involving a service of this sort. New jobs, relationships, and opportunities arise with more people coming together, however, if not used correctly, services of this type can lead to distant relationships."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfes_law
(If you read the Wikipedia entry, also read about "Reverse Effects")
These stats are a complete joke. Almost any major google launch gets this type of initial surge. That google is happy to celebrate and even cite this type of stats tells me they are looking at the wrong metrics.
How about: how many people have given up fb for google plus?
Once terms begins I suspect people will form around one network or another as their primary tool, so if Plus hasn't managed to get full social groups across and active by then, they may well default to Facebook as their primary social network for organising and sharing. Alternatively, I could see Hangouts managing to grow as a chat/skype substitute even if social groups were generally staying on Facebook as their Events and Sharing site.
Ugh...actually it does: http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/weblogs?blog=/pub/wlg/25593
Google+ is still a novelty. That doesn't mean it won't eventually become something useful, but right now I have 20 people in my circles, and not one person posts anything. It's more accurate to say there are 10 million accounts on Google+, not users. Users implies people actually use it.
About 1/2 my friends that have moved stopped posting on FB and have let everyone know they have moved. They still check FB, but only post to G+.
I've definitely seen a swing towards G+.