Google+, we hardly knew ye
Well, it's been fun while it lasted. Google has pulled one of my best friend's Google+ account over Google's stupid name policy (he legally changed his name years ago to a single name, but they won't accept someone with just one name). Their asinine name policy is getting a lot of heat on the web, and rightly so. Consider me collateral damage.
I've been thinking about how disappointing it's been on g+ since first showing up there with high expectations. But even as a rabid Facebook hater, I am still actively posting and reading there multiple times a day, whereas I have to make myself post something to F♭, especially since most of the people in my g+ circles are on Facebook already, too. So I haven't figured out what its "niche" is supposed to be versus the other social networks I'm on (Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter).
The following two posts say it much better than I am:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/08/15/a-eulogy-for-google-plus/http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/08/15/the-rise-of-the-google-plus-faithful/In the end, I've maintained for a while that Google doesn't "get" social, and F♭ (and Buzz and Orkut before it) just prove it. In fact, here's my (growing) list:
- Google doesn't "get" social
- Microsoft doesn't "get" mobile
- Apple doesn't "get" enterprise
- IBM doesn't "get" consumers
- Sony doesn't "get" ecosystems
- Facebook doesn't "get" privacy†
- Politicians don't "get" honesty†
Anyway, Google, you had your chance, and you blew it. Pity.
8 comments:
Actually I changed my name to "Aaron" about the time Larry and Sergei were trying to decide between Stanford and MIT, and well before they thunk up Google and tried to sell it.
I knew that, but I was sorta anonymizing this to protect your privacy. :)
Well I think that's a bit Big Brother, but I think we all knew that about Google anyway. I feel bad for those who have legitimate complaints.
On another note, I haven't found a niche for G+ yet, either. I go on there, and have friends on there, but have yet to post anything. I think it has to do with the amount of brain power it takes to learn something new over the tried and true Fb. And everyone is already on Fb, so why spend precious time posting TWO places? I'm pretty meh about it.
I haven't really followed the whole Google+ thing at all. Is it still in beta, or has it been released? Obviously you know I'm on it (because you're one of, like, three friends I have on there) but so far I haven't done anything with it, or even had the time or energy to explore it. Or to care.
I guess I'm an odd bird anyway. For me, Facebook is just a way to "stay in touch" with people, not a lighted stage to live my life out in front of everyone else, like it is for some other people (at least, judging by the status update thingies of some of my friends).
I'm still successfully resisting the overwhelming (not) urge to tweet or twit or whatever. And my reader has just about the right amount of daily blog content for my reading pleasure, without feeling overwhelming.
Overall, I guess I'm still trending gradually toward Luddism. And quite happy with it, thankyaverymuch. :-)
Erin,
Yup. And without ping.fm support (so I can post to ONE place and have it flow to multiple places), g+/Fb loses.
CH,
For me Facebook is both (keeping up with people, living on a lighted stage :). Twitter is different. It is more of a "clipping service," mostly (not all) professionally oriented. So I end up thinking of it as: Facebook = personal, Twitter = professional, LinkedIn = professional Rolodex.
And you know me, I understand Luddism quite well. :)
What if the Anti-Christ is the Google server once it achieves consciousness?
Mac,
What makes you think it hasn't? :)
I apologize, I should not make comments when I am tired. Left field is too kind.
Post a Comment