Why Google+ Still Has Huge Potential | Hacker News Reader

Why Google+ Still Has Huge Potential

static.matthewlmcclure.com

When Google+ came out I was blown away by just how well designed it was, but then slowly Google ruined it. Andy Hertzfeld created an amazing product, but then Google worked their "magic" just like they did with Blogger and watered down every strong feature like circles.

The problem at the end of the day is that Google just doesn't understand "normal people". If you read up on their corporate culture they're filled with former gifted Montessori kids who make amazing engineers, but the dark side is that they may have a low social IQ. In fact Google goes out of its way to not have to interface with people: Have a problem with a Google product? Well good luck if you want to talk to a human.

So yes Google+ has amazing potential; but not with the Google management team. I'm sure over time if they're lucky they can turn it into Pepsi to Facebook's Coke -- but that's only if they figure out how to focus. And if you want to see their latest failure just try using their mobile app: When put next to Facebook it's terrible, and when put next to Instagram (now owned by facebook) it looks like student project.

And I say this as someone who loves and uses G+ every day!!!

> When Google+ came out I was blown away by just how well designed it was, but then slowly Google ruined it. Andy Hertzfeld created an amazing product, but then Google worked their "magic" just like they did with Blogger and watered down every strong feature like circles.

How have they ruined circles? They work the same as they did on day one as far as I can tell.

> In fact Google goes out of its way to not have to interface with people: Have a problem with a Google product? Well good luck if you want to talk to a human.

Let's not confuse two separate issues. Social IQ has no relevance to their customer support. Their customer support is non-existant for free products because doing support at their scale is nearly impossible. And while I'm not familiar with their support for paid products overall, I've had a decent experience dealing with Play support when I purchased my Nexus 7. Anyways, point being that the engineers were never going to be customer support in the first place.

> And if you want to see their latest failure just try using their mobile app: When put next to Facebook it's terrible, and when put next to Instagram (now owned by facebook) it looks like student project.

First off: which platform? Because on Android, G+ far outstrips Facebook's generally terrible mobile app. I've also seen some pretty positive reviews of the iOS app, but I have no direct experience with it.

1. Circles: They did a redesign at one point where you can browse specific circles by clicking on well hidden buttons buttons at the top. Of course the buttons don't stay there, so you have to keep clicking. Facebook displays everything on the left nav so it's easy to see their version of circles — and having wasted too much time on both sites i can tell you that in terms of functionality (not ascetics) Facebook wins.

2. "Their customer support is non-existant" This works great for search, but not for every other product they offer. Also it's not great if you're a professional who is using a product. But what kills me is if you are a top brand they do the hand holding, but if you're not in that league well good luck with that! So this sort of blindness reflects a low social IQ. I'll grant you that they aren't the only ones guilty of this, and in fact maybe amazon first invented this approach (but they've learned and have purchased companies like zappos that get it).

3. I'm on iOS looking at my iPhone and the Facebook app is better than G+: Of course Instagram blows them both away. If you forced me to hand out grades it would be: G+ with a C-, Facebook with a B- to B and Instagram with a A. Of course Instagram was designed to be mobile so maybe they cheated? Now I'll grant you that the G+ app looks the most pretty, but it's a pain to use.

But keep in mind I'm ranting because how much I loved the original G+ — if they had a wayback machine setting all would be forgiven.

1. Really the question I should've asked here was for example where their strong features got watered down. I'm less interested in the specifics, but as far as I can tell, the webapp has gotten better over time, not worse. As for the circles thing, are you talking about seeing the contents of the circle themselves, or the posts shared with you by the people in that circle? If the first, on the left hand side there's a button for circles. If the second, on the home page at the top is your list of circles, just click on the one you want to see. So I guess I'm not really seeing what you're complaining about.

2. Are you using one of their free products or paid? If you're using Google Apps for Businesses, for example, there are support phone numbers to call.

3. That's too bad then. The Android app certainly has problems, but overall is pretty good.

1. I come from a design background so I'd need to look at a working version of the original G+ to give you a proper answer. Sadly at the time I didn't take screenshots for my own reference (and I wish I did!!!!!).

2. This is based on my experience over the years with a number of products. My most recent issue was being a publisher and having an issue with AdSense -- so I was making them money, had an issue and couldn't reach a human. Yes if I was a bigger fish that wouldn't have been an issue, but then again big fish don't use AdSense.

3. I guess to be fair they should make the Android app better than the iOS one -- and maybe to be even more fair I'm lucky as an iOS user that they have a G+ app at all. And maybe looking at Instagram one might argue that a good mobile social network needs to be mobile first, and that it's super hard to go from the web to mobile.

> Now I'll grant you that the G+ app looks the most pretty, but it's a pain to use.

This! I can't believe that Google, out of all companies, would go "form over function" on a mobile app. Scrolling through a feed is so distracting that I wouldn't even want all my friends to be in there. (So far I've only scrolled around the food pictures in the public stream.)

Just curious - what do you find so distracting?

The 3D fall-down animation for every news feed item (or is that limited to some feeds?)

I think only people from Google, or related to Google, because they love Android, see potential in it.

I'm from Germany and I know a handful of people who use it, but only because they are Android fans and hate Facebook.

But everyday people give a shit about G+. It offers nothing to make it more interesting to average Joe. I have strong problems to convince people using Twitter. They think its useless too.

Therefore, I don't believe all the positive media about G+. Where are the markets apart from the groups I mentioned above?

And I have to agree about the social IQ. I've read it before, but its good to see it coming back again. Google is a place of engineers. I get that feeling when I use Android or other Google products.

Compare that to iOS, I feel charmed when using it. Using it, is despite all limitations more satisfying, because it feels like a new age. Taking an end to all the negative experiences on a pc.

Android on the other side wants to bring all the experiences you can have on a pc together with new touch/mobile paradigms to make everything happen. But that drags down the whole experience.

Well, from G+ to iOS, to Android. I just wanted to give an example of that social IQ. They need to think about the next thing and start searching for the social life of the next decade. Facebook is the social center of this decade.

I'm not sure why you mix Android, iOS, Facebook and G+. Sure, Android systems tap into existing Google products for some features, but this is not exclusive. The Facebook app, as far as I can tell, works nearly the same on Android and iOS and can also tie into the other infrastructure like contacts. In my experience nothing on Android makes you more likely to use G+.

Especially because G+ is more technical in its uses it caters to another target group than Facebook which I find really refreshing. I don't use G+ for my "real" social life at all, but mostly for my social activities related to technology. Getting those two things separated was a huge step forward for me. Now I don't bother my real-life friends with technology related posts anymore and can take them to an audience that is more likely to be interested.

Does Facebook offer extensive human tech support?

Nope[1], nor reasonably could they. The cost of doing tech support for 1 billion people is just massive.

[1]: https://www.facebook.com/help/?page=220217228006012

But think about it: If they're going to get in the business of selling things that may have to change. Also on a meta level they sell ads to big customers which does require a human touch, so if they want to do more of that they'll need more humans. Granted I don't see Facebook opening retail stores like Apple, but at some point my guess is that you need humans. Even Amazon had to buy Zappos...

What are the on about? Amazon had famous customer service and built endless.com before buying Zappos. Zappos main feature is that they price in return shipping as part of the first retail markup.

I wonder if it would be worthwhile for them to sell support as a service—say, $25 or $29 per support call. I suspect a lot of people who are locked out of their accounts for whatever reason, even temporarily, would pay for this.

Facebook will automatcally send you a password reset link if you mistype your password or sneeze while trying to login. Anyone who gets locked out of their Facebook account is certainly not competent to operate a telephone.

I think he means if Facebook locks you out/suspends your accounts, not that you've forgotten your password.

It is funny how you think engineers are involved in the UX design of G+ or even approve of it. The cry I hear is that G+ s getting dumbed down and spammified to attract more Britney Spears fans.

Don't hit me.

I visit G+ if

- some post here links to it (seriously, I have more or less no other source that points to that stuff, and_very_ rarely a search hit leads that way)

- I check, in vain usually, on the progress of a CM port for my LG crapphone, because the amazing guy behind most LG ports uses that site. I have a bookmark for his.. uhm.. posts? timeline? feed?

People in my non technical and environment don't know what G+ is. People in my geek community left it because it's worse than Facebook in trying to build 'identities'. I'm always surprised to see real world usage and will continue to be a skeptical observer. That huge potential might certainly exist, but I fail to see it.

I also follow Ricardo Cerqueira... and Jeff Dean, Brad Fitzpatrick and Linus Torvalds. It's like a small private space.

I sometimes do. But I don't have an account or need one for that.

Do you use Google+ at an enterprise?

If not, you seem to have missed the point of this article.

I don't, but nor do I use GMail or Hangouts at an enterprise (and this is a place that uses Yammer extensively). I would be surprised if many of the kind of enterprises the author is thinking of did, so I don't think the potential the author sees is really there.

I think Google+ and Facebook complement each other in some sense. Facebook is social network which is mostly used communicate with "friends" and Google+ to communicate with like-minded people.

Wouldn't it be fair to assume that there's a great deal of overlap between the two groups?

Sure, there is big overlap, because we all need both type of interaction.

I don't understand how this article talks about the future of Google+ in the enterprise, yet it makes no mention of LinkedIn.

That's because LinkedIn is not used by employees within companies to communicate like Facebook is used by students within a university to communicate. He's saying that there's a gap there that Google+ can fill.

Maybe I'll write another post about how LinkedIn is going to crush Twitter.

Because linkedin is spamming itself into oblivion?

I think people are slowly waking up to the idiocy of having an online "identity" that matches their real world one. If anything there will be a trend away from these spy networks as more people switch on to their purpose.

There's a place for that kind of online network. There's also a place for random usernames like radnation. There are a lot of games to play.

Yammer definitely does have traction. It may well be that the author didn't use Yammer at the two companies he worked at, but Microsoft wouldn't have paid a billion dollars for a company without traction.

They just wrote down $6.2 billion on their aQuantive purchase, so I wouldn't be too quick to say that...

Unless a company schedules and recognizes time and content that an employee puts into something like Yammer, it's useless. It's yet another informal communication method that won't be used.

"At first, it’s just a place to put notes to myself, but I share them so that others can find them too. Once a few people start doing that, or a small team commits to doing it for the good of the team, the game is over. It can’t help but take off"

And when one of your team members leaves and pulls your access to their company related content/documentation they've previously placed on Google+ what do you do ???

It is a company controlled G+ domain. More interesting is how Google privacy policies and company data retention policies interact when someone leaves a company.

Ok, their mobile app was once a beautiful thing. Then some retard designers got ahold of it.

- Now, there is hardly a text summary on posts. Just big ass pictures with hardly any content. - There's a delay when fetching new content. - They added really shitty scrolling animations that are just annoying.

You can install the older v2.5 of the app and bypass the crappy UI/UX, but you lose the newer features of G+. Sad tradeoff!

You can keep beating that dead horse, but I ain't gonna ride it. I was on G+ ver early, it's just not what I wanna use.

G+ has huge potential because it's Google's identity layer, the discrete social network thing is a byproduct.

I don't understand the distinction, isn't Google's account system still the same as before? So G+ is the need to attach a real name?

Yes - it gives google your real identity.

They've never had a proper picture profile integrated across all services, G+ solves that.

How about Google Profile before the G+? I actually find myself still using G+ in the same way I used Google Profile...

G+ is the overall system that links your Google profile to all your Google services.

It's Google Plus, and it does what the name says, it adds a new layer on top of all of Google.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com