Google+ Is Dead

I will never understand how Farhad Manjoo became an authority on anything.

I was an early Google+ skeptic. Shortly after it launched, I likened its main feature—the ability to divide your friends into discrete groups, called Circles—to the process of creating a seating chart for your wedding. In theory, it was appealing to send “private” messages to certain groups, but in practice I thought most people would find it tedious to categorize their friendships.

In practice I find it very compelling and use it for the majority of my posts. And so do most people. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_plus_users_2-3_t...

Which is also why he's wrong about:

Traffic-analysis firms have consistently reported Google+’s traffic to be declining from its early peak.

And yet, I’ve been surprised by just how dreary the site has become.

I don't follow anyone interesting on Google+. Therefore, Google+ is boring.

Why am I so sure that Google+ can’t be saved? Because there’s no way to correct Google’s central failure. Back when companies were clamoring to create brand pages on the network—or users were looking to create profiles with pseudonyms, another phenomenon that Google shut down—the company ought to have acceded to its users’ wishes and accommodated them. If Google wasn’t ready for brand pages in the summer, it shouldn’t have launched Google+ until it was. And this advice goes more generally—by failing to offer people a reason to keep coming back to the site every day, Google+ made a bad first impression. And in the social-networking business, a bad first impression spells death.

This is barely an argument. Brand pages? Who cares about brand pages, really?[0] Brands do. Not people. I promise you not a single normal user went on the service and said, "What? I can't follow Dr. Pepper here? I'm gone!" Google gives me a really, really good reason to return every day. There's a little notification box every time I use gmail or search or maps or docs.

Online social networks are very, very young. To imagine that you can predict success or failure based on your narrow experience of the very few successful social networks that have existed is pure unadulterated bullshit.

[0]: I really hope Google does start focusing on regular users more instead of very peripheral concerns like brands.

If the entire premise of Google+ is that it's supposed to be Facebook from the GooglePlex, yes, it's a failure.

However, the strategic intent of G+ may simply be to put pressure on Facebook and act as a fire-break to prevent Facebook from moving into Google's really profitable area, search advertisement (Facebook does well at display ads right now, but it's a smaller market than search).

By putting G+ out there, Google is basically saying to Facebook, "Go ahead, do your social search (and ads), we'll copy it immediately because now Google already have a social network in place".

I don't think Google expected to just magically kill Facebook.

Most (95%) of my friends don't use G+, they use Facebook. Whenever I mention Google+ they just say "ugh not another social network. I spend too much time on Facebook as it is". The majority of people in my circles are other tech industry people, because we find this kind of stuff interesting, but the average person needs a pretty compelling reason abandon Facebook. And I say abandon because they don't want to use both. I'm currently using both for different things because I want to be "part of it", but the average person on the street isn't interested. There's nothing on Google+ at the moment that's very compelling for normal people who are perfectly happy with Facebook, and "pages" aren't the answer.

But Google probably knows all that.

I seriously doubt there's ever going to be something that instantly causes everyone to abandon Facebook. But if Google can slowly build G+ into a better option by trying things and listening to feedback, then it's possible. I remember everyone saying they'd never abandon Myspace for Facebook.

So I'm gonna go with not dead.

Google killed Google+ by launching in a Gmail-like invite controlled manner.

They had crazy hype, and if they had let everyone in right away they might have had a real snowball network effect.

Instead, only techies joined, and by the time it went public it was a sausage fest filled with techies and no one else gave a shit anymore to bother actually trying it.

Obviously, there are millions of people using it and this is a bit hyperbolic; but I think it's true. They could have been a real competitor, instead, they are destined to be a bigger Orkut.

Google destroys almost everything they touch lately. Steve Jobs was mostly right; other than search, they launch terrible products.

The reason why I personally think Google+ usage is leveling off is because Google has been adding user engagement features like "What's hot on Google+" or the Youtube pop-over search. Why would they clutter the screen with this kind of stuff if they claim they have such a large user-base? Probably because there is a large number of people who don't have anything to do.

For me at least, I can definitely say I feel the same way about Google+ as I did about Buzz and Wave. They were kind of cool to mess around with in the beginning but eventually I forgot about them. The only reason why Google+ seems to be sticking around a bit longer is because of how visible it is on the top navbar as well as how invested Google has been into making it into some sort of central hub for all their products.

But who knows maybe it'll be like their search engine and gain quality over time. Doubtful though..

I agree completely. The important point in this article is this: there is nothing to do on Google+. I've tried very hard to use this service. The sad fact is that none of my friends use it. My feed is full of posts by Randall Munroe and The Next Web. It's basically a shitty twitter feed.

Sigh. It seems like every 2 weeks that same article is reprinted under that same headline only on a different outlet, with no apparent reason but to troll.

So it’s been a few month now and G+ hasn’t solved world hunger and Facebook still exists, then it must be binned! I have no proof but I would wager that these “articles” are printed at the urgency of interested parties who sent their PR pitches to the media akin to spear phishing attempts and someone is bound to publish some of it.