

Why Google+ Has Already Failed - jase_coop
http://blog.jasecooper.com/post/7085943572/why-google-has-already-failed

======
cryptoz
Facebook makes ~100% of its revenue from advertising-related deals too, no?
Google's mission is to organize the world's information - there's a lot of
money in that. So far they know that comes from advertising, but don't bet
that it'll stay that way forever. Knowing about people's interactions is best
done by knowing people, and so Google did indeed build + for people.

Also, if Google+ fails it won't be because of anything mentioned here. It'll
be because I've been on it for 2 days unable to add more than 1 friend. I
can't believe they're trying _another_ invitation system for _another_ social
network. Guys, just let me add my friends already!

~~~
jase_coop
Have Google really built Google+ out of a real human need/problem? I don't
think so.

I'm not excusing Facebook and how they make money today. These aren't the same
motives that influenced their reason for being, which were a lot more focused
on people and universities.

~~~
sek
> Have Google really built a product out of a real human need/problem?

Are you a troll?

~~~
smoove
Maybe he is too young to remember the pre-google search experience ;)

------
sek
Why can't i downvote this, Google+ didn't succeed already but there is no
single reasonable argument in this article.

Facebook being humble is the biggest joke ever.

------
michaelpinto
Something that I've realized is that any project that Google does which feeds
into their search engine results is much more likely to be flooded by spammers
than any project by any other company. This could mean that Google has closed
the doors to anything involving content without realizing it. For example from
the point of view of a spammer there's no real gain in hitting a like button a
thousand times — but abusing a Google One Plus button seems like a worthy
target. Google may just be polluting their own ecosystem by trying to do
this...

~~~
michaelpinto
...I take back what I wrote here! I've now been playing with Google+ and it's
killer. It may still get killed by abuse, but perhaps the Google team with
some luck and hard work can prevent that.

------
capnrefsmmat
I'm not sure I see why "I think Google has suspect motives" leads to the
conclusion "Google+ Has Already Failed." The Internet has already shown that
people trust those with suspect motives far too much.

~~~
jase_coop
I don't think their motives are suspect. I'm fine with how they handle my
information and conduct their business.

I just don't think their motives will lead to innovation.

~~~
widget
Innovation isn't the only thing that leads to success, not by a long shot.
Polish, ease of use, a large feature set, security, and any number of other
factors can have just as big an impact on users as innovation.

People don't use Google search because it's innovative, and people don't use
Facebook because it innovated and people won't make their decisions on Google+
based on its innovations.

~~~
jase_coop
> Polish, ease of use, a large feature set, security, and any number of other
> factors can have just as big an impact on users as innovation.

Not if it's something people don't need or want in the first place.

If Google have 'innovated' then it means they've created something original
and new that is useful for people. Only time will tell, but my personal
opinion, based on what I've seen so far is they haven't.

~~~
widget
Well yes, if the users don't want the product then nothing else matters, but I
don't see what that has to do with innovation.

I have no problem with your argument that Google+ will need to be useful in
some sense to be successful, but originality is hardly necessary for that to
be the case.

If what they're going for is "Like Facebook, but better!" then they certainly
are going to have a difficult time convincing many users to switch, but I
wouldn't say it's anything approaching impossible.

------
j_r_
I disagree.

First, Google has a decent track record in keeping personal data and
advertising separate. For example they claim that their tracking cookie used
across the web is not connected in any way to your Google profile. They can
make use of a lot of data to show decent ads. Whereas Facebook will obviously
make use of all your data because that's all they have.

2\. Google makes most of its money by showing ads based on search terms you
search for. They also use recent mails in GMail for ads within Gmail. They do
not depend on any revenues from Google+. They likely see it as a defensive
measure against Facebook which seriously threatens its real revenue model.
Their competitive advantage is context, not primarily information about users.
Again, for Facebook ads within the social network based on personal
information are their sole competitive advantage.

It makes more sense to trust Google, at least as far as I am concerned.

------
widget
If your criteria for failure is that the company is more interested in making
money than you, personally, then there isn't a successful product on the face
of the earth.

Of course Google is trying to use Google+ to make ad revenue. You know,
exactly like Twitter and Facebook, who you hold up as opposition to Google+.

If Google fails here it will be because they didn't make people want to use
their product, plain and simple. Not because the people ultimately paying them
aren't the people using their product. If that were the case, half of the web
wouldn't exist.

------
watmough
If Google+ fills a need for people, especially allowing people fine-grained,
easy-to-use control of what is shared to who, then it should succeed.

Facebook is the big target that most people perceive, but surely LinkedIn is a
huge target also, since Google+ circles should allow you to have work-oriented
Sparks and pictures, versus personal-oriented status updates and pictures.

This shouldn't be a big deal for Twitter, since you might have many Twitter
contacts where you simply don't know what their email is, but you still can
read, message and retweet them, all within Twitter.

------
immortalbeast
"But it’s the fact you see us an audience, rather than as users is what
worries me about you."

i like Google and i like what i see in Google+ so far (great job guys). But I
kinda agree with this.

