Hacker News Reader

Comment by hypercube33 | Hacker News Reader

These limited closed betas seem to really kill hype on a lot of their products, which leads to them not having a lot of use, then google killing them...

View on HN

To be fair, the beta, invite-only status of GMail was, at the time, the definition of Internet Cool.

Yeah, in 2004.

So was having a facebook account

Facebook's early exclusivity was great for college kids and spreading amongst certain young people - making it cool. You had to have a .edu email to log in! It was also much better than Myspace.

Google+ was mediocre and not better than the competition. Young people didn't care about it. The exclusivity was generated by a company - it didn't appeal to the user's inherent bias. Facebook initially appealed to narcissism - the early users "knew" they were "better" than myspace users.

What was Google+ appealing to? Being a nerd?

Don't know about others but I really enjoyed Google+. The tech groups around there were pretty great, heck even Linus Torvalds used it to post some rants at the time.

Reader and Google+ were services I really enjoyed using for content.

Google+ was excellent. I liked the social graph that was the "circles" (nice data mining of my effort to create the circles google) - this was in the days where when you posted to social media you were posting to people no to public.

Now that I think about it, my whatsapp groups intersect in a similar manner, and people post (manually) the same thing to multiple groups, but not every group we have in common.

Was Google+ invite only initially?

I don't think so, but Google Wave was.

And stayed that way until after the hype died off, murdering their own chance at network effects.

That plus the real name policy[0]. One month after launch:

> Conflicts regarding Google+ began in July 2011 when the social networking site began enforcing its real name only policy by suspending the accounts of users it felt were not following the policy.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymwars

I recall that it was though I could be wrong and getting confused with a dozen other products of theirs.

The big difference is that beta gmail could communicate with email from other providers. So it was exclusive but not really closed - you had a rare domain name, a huge inbox and the ability to send other people invites - that was pretty cool for 2005.

That's nothing like the Google+ launch - making that a closed beta was death from the start because you could only interact with the few other people in the closed beta.

GMail was a huge leap over existing web mail providers. Where others might give you tens of megabytes, GMail started with a gig and showed a ticker for its growth on the log in page. They offered keeping emails forever and making them searchable. People were willing to wait.

Agreed.

The point is, invite-only isn't inherently counter-productive to hype. But you need to bring the goods.

Gmail was so much better than the competition... in fact, it still is.

Bard, on the other hand...

Sure, when it launched. But in 2023? I don't think there is a single feature that makes Gmail that special anymore. I would have preferred Outlook over Gmail these days anytime.

On Episode 01 of The Social Radars podcast [1], Paul Buchheit, creator of GMail, explains that the Gmail invite-only beta was actually due to shortage in hardware and difficulties to scale the service, rather than a just a "growth hack". It seems they were running the service for a long time near 100% capacity.

[1] https://open.spotify.com/episode/0oRAHcP9g41jcEzpDtOa4b?si=1...

It was also far ahead of the competition. From the early reviews I’m seeing here, this isn’t

I think Gmail was a special case: a highly anticipated product that was better than anything else out there, it had a killer feature that was unheard of (1GB of storage and growing!), and you could immediately use it as your main email.

It didn't work out so well when they tried to reproduce that success by making Google Buzz invite-only. My feed consisted of a few people posting "buzz!" and then never posting again. Google+ was similar.

And Google Circle.. (r.i.p)

I paid $.99 on eBay to get an invite back in the day!

They don't need the hype since they are "Google" after all ( At least it's how they behave ).

My opinion is that they are hostage of the image/ego they built around themselves, to the point where they say "incredible" things like: "ChatGPT? oh yeah we have those things internally and ChatGPT it's child's play comparing to what we have. We just don't release it to the public because we are responsible and the good guys.. We also have a girlfriend but she's in Canada."

My take is, regardless of how "good" Bard is, they will make a fool of themselves because their past, present and honestly, people are kind of fed-up with their "Googleness" bs..

Imagine your company had 2 B users. Would you launch a new compute-intensive experimental feature to everyone? or would you put a mechanism to control the gradual rollout?

Ask Microsoft. I heard they pulled it off

I can only assume they want to limit numbers so they can control the experience more effectively, but like you said it kills the hype and after their missteps at launch they need some momentum behind their product.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com