Comment by georgemcbay | Hacker News Reader

Comment by georgemcbay | Hacker News Reader

Re: Google+

Is their overall strategy to drive adoption working these days? I know their number of users must be quite large now, but AFAICT it is pretty much hugely inflated by being a catch-all for anyone with any kind of Google account.

I actually like Google+ quite a bit and have a lot of people in my circles and I'm in quite a lot of other people's circles, but I never actually go to Google+ anymore (unless I'm following a link to some Linus post or something from somewhere else) because it simply never hit the required critical mass of actual mainstream usage for me to switch. Everyone I know and want to keep up with IRL is still stuck on Facebook, ergo I'm stuck on Facebook even though I don't particularly care for it. Even among the smallish subgroup of people I know IRL who did embrace Google+ at first, they are virtually all like me now, with accounts that scarcely ever get used.

I'm not sure what Google+ has to do to make converts of the masses, but at least among my circles they aren't doing it currently despite whatever collateral damage they are causing in trying to force people there.

Google+ must be one of the most misunderstood things Google's ever done.

It's not supposed to be a social network like Facebook. The thing you see when you visit G+ - people microblogging and sharing pics etc - is just a fraction of the whole point of G+.

G+ is Google's social layer. In data terms, it turns people into "first-class citizens" across Google's estate, instead of every project just shoehorning in their own "user" structure. That's why you see G+ in Play reviews, YouTube comments, integrated into email, and so on.

That may be Google's internal philosophy, but their external face on it is a service that looks just like Facebook, at the website plus.google.com, with a title of Google+. They couldn't be trying any harder to make it misunderstood.

I've heard some of their executives explain it as a social layer for Google, but you're right that the messaging is predominantly about the actual Plus website/apps.

The problem is that Google built it to function like Facebook, and once it was released into the wild it was used more like a hybrid of Twitter and forums. Maybe they dogfooded it wrong.

I'm increasingly feeling like the problem with Google+ is that it didn't start with a minimum idea. They went straight for the concept of 'Facebook' and didn't give users enough incentive to make the switch.

Maybe they could have made a "Facebook Export" importer to populate streams with existing posts, friends, and photos. Maybe they could have made it more social and personal.

Or maybe Facebook's momentum prevented people from actually making the switch. Enough people are satisfied by Facebook that they wouldn't abandon it for a couple of friends.

Google just didn't play the cards right, and I feel like Google+ has gotten too complicated for anyone to just jump in and figure it out.

Your explanation hasn't helped me; I still don't understand the point of G+. Why can't my "YouTube comments" persona be different from my email persona? (Actually, it is: YouTube has asked me several times to retire my old YT username in favor of my @gmail, but it hasn't forced the issue yet.)

Re: The point of G+.

Because one day, you're going to type into Google's Search engine "what's for dinner?" And it is going to tell you.

How? Because it knows who your wife is, and it knows your wife's phone number, so it texts her saying "what's for dinner."

Example is crude, I know. But I can't think of a better way to explain what I see Google's end game is with G+.

> Because one day, you're going to type into Google's Search engine "what's for dinner?" And it is going to tell you.

The idea is really more that you'll go to look at Google Now when you wonder what's for dinner, and there'll be a card telling you that, and you won't even need to ask.

Though the search bit might be an intermediate step on the way there.

My goodness, that sounds awful.

You kinda nailed the theme of the Google I/O keynote.

> Everyone I know and want to keep up with IRL is still stuck on Facebook

FB is for IRL friends/family, G+ as long-form Twitter. It's Twitter for people who don't get 140 characters. I'd say the strategy is working, given the amount of G+ links I see. Personally I'm more interested in what my G+ links say than FB (because they're interests of mine, not just IRL'ers talking about their nail polish), although I check both every so often.

Isn't tumblr the long-form twitter? Real names gives G+ a very different tone.

Tumblr is more of a pics-form twitter. Other types of content don't get much love there.

I don't know what social network would qualify as long-form twitter, to be honest.

Honestly, I think long-form twitter is just twitter + a personal blog. When you want to write an article, you post a link to your twitter.

"Don't get 140 characters" . . . congratulations! That's glib and dismissive.

The G+ posts are basically blog posts that are in Google's walled garden. Not much unlike Twitter or Facebook. You have the power to say what you want. For now. As long as you use their systems. And don't expect to own your data or your own online presence.

Regardless of how you separate all the food on your own personal plate so that it never touches, the problem is the proprietary lunch trays. Not everyone likes those.

I feel like Richard Stallman at lunchtime.

> "Don't get 140 characters" . . . congratulations! That's glib and dismissive.

Many people don't like the 140 character restriction and I've read many who don't get Twitter. For about two accounts I didn't either and only found it "working" on a third, partly due to the people I was interacting with. That doesn't diminish those who don't like or get it, it just means they don't. Life goes on. I personally prefer G+ for depth. For example, neither your nor my replies would fit into Twitter, so we'd be stuck with glib and dismissive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com