

Google+ Is Dead - GiraffeNecktie
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/11/google_had_a_chance_to_compete_with_facebook_not_anymore_.html

======
joebadmo
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...](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_plus_users_2-3_times_more_likely_to_post_privately.php)

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.

~~~
rbright
I agree that his argument is flimsy at best, but why do you only associate
Coke and Pepsi products with brands?

What about rock bands, video games, movies, radio stations, operating systems,
charity groups, regional festivals, political parties, etc., etc.?

I think most people are emotionally invested in at least a few of these kinds
of non-person entities and it's not unreasonable to think that they would like
to follow them on G+.

~~~
joebadmo
You make a fair point. Some people do care about brands, and would like to
interact with them.

But I don't think this is the primary or even a very important part of social
networking. My point was that TFA far overestimates their importance, going so
far as to cite it as a deciding factor for G+'s success or failure.

------
r00fus
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".

------
brainfed
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.

------
berberous
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.

------
atarian
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..

------
joejohnson
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.

------
yanw
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.

