How the IPO Ruined Google

I think the article incorrectly assumes that Google is investing in social media because of shareholders' expectations.

It's become clear to Google that social cues are the next generation of ranking factors for Search.

What the heck does G+ have to do with the end of the twitter firehose deal?

http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/13/twitter-google-firehose

I can't express how much I want to be ruined like Google.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time on Easter on a TC article, but oh well.

The "Suspicious Timing" bit is the typical "Google has had failures" gambit. Yes, they've had failures, they're not perfect. That's not an argument that leads anywhere, let alone to me accepting the premise that Google is only engaging with Plus because they think it will please Shareholders.

The "Success is besides the point" does no work what-so-ever to show that social-in-search is bad, it simply says that Plus is no Facebook or Twitter, which while true, is a bit out of Google's control. (The bit about Twitter's firehorse is just outright inaccurate to my understanding anyway).

As many of Google doomsday folk do, this author has missed the point as well. I think Google is well aware of the five bullet point "strengths of Google" at the end of that article and I can see how each of those is (supposed to be) enhanced by Plus or vice-versa.

If you don't think Plus is about acquiring information and enhancing search, then you're not paying attention.