Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by leftnode | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

leftnode

It's a bit easier when you already have a user base of billions.

Edit: So I disagree with the article entirely, it's not interesting at all.

View on HN

Agreed, that having a huge user base of another product helps.

But did Google Wave or Buzz take off that fast? I don't think Wave ever probably got to that many users.

Thats true,part of it maybe that we were a bit tired of FB . Also there was a sense of hype around the launch of Google + which we didnt have in Wave or Buzz.

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.

Google Wave and Buzz were published with minimal fanfare, and used a paradigm unfamiliar to Facebook users. Google+ is so familiar, and became so quickly wrapped up with everything else in your Google account, that transitioning and participating were easy.

In Google+'s case, would you say that a single blog post on the day it launched was anything beyond "minimal fanfare"?

But did Google Wave or Buzz take off that fast?

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."

What do you disagree with? The article hardly makes a point, just says that the graph is cool (their opinion), but unfair (obvious).

I'd like to see MySpace in the graph, it of course took them much longer to reach 10 million users.

Agreed. While I really want Google+ to succeed, this means absolutely nothing. Google could come out with something silly, say an Interactive Sandwich Maker (where did that come from??), and it would probably get 10 million users within a few weeks.

While it means nothing with regards to the ultimate success of the platform, it is much better uptake than wave or buzz. Will be interesting to see if people find different use for it than FB/Twitter. I don't see it yet, but if they get the groups angle right could mirror how real life sharing works to some degree.

As Tibbon pointed, you are wrong. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2793654

A better base metric would be to measure how long it took to reach a specific number of items posted or shared per day. Those posts on Google+ about Google+ would be disqualified outright, which right now account for ~50% of my stream.

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.

What? Tibbon's post doesn't disprove anything. It just asks if Wave or Buzz achieved that many users so quickly, and the answer is yes--Buzz had millions of users after two days according to Google:

http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/millions-of-buzz-users...

Yeah, like Toady said, not quite. Simply saying you don't think Wave got to that many numbers is by no means proving me wrong. Besides, Wave and Buzz came out at a different time, when everyone was still in love with FB. Now, users are clamoring for another option besides FB, and Google's simply giving it to them. The timing is much, much better than before.

Ok, I stand corrected.

And easier when you can spread the launch through other social networks. Most of my the people I follow/are friends with posted the phrase "who wants a google+ invite?".

If it was that easy, wave or buzz would have taken off.

Agreed.

Also, if it's growing so fast why does it still feel like a graveyard?!

Google+ is less a graveyard (see MySpace) and more like a new frontier full of pioneers but lacking the 'general public' that makes it feel built out like FB does.

If it helps, I'm a data point who's seen lots of Google+ activity among close and remote friends, embraced by many who were avid Facebook users (I wasn't). I can't compare it with others from my point of view since I joined other social networks late, but it seems to be doing quite well with people I know. The much feared group inertia was given a quick and solid kick by Google+ in my case.

Just thought I'd balance the comments about it being empty and inactive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com