Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers(blog.google) |
Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers(blog.google) |
(Also, small thin sans-serif grey body font means you hate your readers' eyes.)
"This data is limited to static, optional Google+ Profile fields including name, email address, occupation, gender and age."
It is also including a lot more than what they said above:
The json per profile is as follows:
{ "kind": "plus#person", "etag": etag, "nickname": string, "occupation": string, "skills": string, "birthday": string, "gender": string, "emails": [ { "value": string, "type": string } ], "urls": [ { "value": string, "type": string, "label": string } ], "objectType": string, "id": string, "displayName": string, "name": { "formatted": string, "familyName": string, "givenName": string, "middleName": string, "honorificPrefix": string, "honorificSuffix": string }, "tagline": string, "braggingRights": string, "aboutMe": string, "relationshipStatus": string, "url": string, "image": { "url": string,
},
"organizations": [
{
"name": string,
"department": string,
"title": string,
"type": string,
"startDate": string,
"endDate": string,
"location": string,
"description": string,
"primary": boolean
}
],
"placesLived": [
{
"value": string,
"primary": boolean
}
],
"isPlusUser": boolean,
"language": string,
"ageRange": {
"min": integer,
"max": integer
},
"plusOneCount": integer,
"circledByCount": integer,
"verified": boolean,
"cover": {
"layout": string,
"coverPhoto": {
"url": string,
"height": integer,
"width": integer
},
"coverInfo": {
"topImageOffset": integer,
"leftImageOffset": integer
}
},
"domain": string(from https://developers.google.com/+/web/api/rest/latest/people)
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/8/17951914/google-plus-data...
> Our Privacy & Data Protection Office reviewed this issue, looking at the type of data involved, whether we could accurately identify the users to inform, whether there was any evidence of misuse, and whether there were any actions a developer or user could take in response. None of these thresholds were met in this instance.
So basically, they decided that because:
1. The data exposed wasn't very sensitive (name, email address, occupation, gender, age, etc) 2. They couldn't identify any specific users whose data was leaked 3. They couldn't find any evidence that the bug was actually exploited 4. There were no actions you could take to remedy the problem (no software to update, no passwords to change, no CC numbers to revoke)
that they weren't going to notify users about the bug.
Still, I would have appreciated at least a blog post or something so if I started suddenly getting more spam emails or something I could at least identify the source.
Interesting how this is all happening right before midterms. Could these companies be trying to impact the elections and they need plausible deniability? Announcing an exploit seems like an easy way to cover ones ass.
I deleted my Facebook and Instagram three weeks ago and haven't looked back. I removed Chrome and Chromium from all my computers. No, I don't want to sync using your servers. If you let me host the sync servers myself like Mozilla does I'd consider it.
If my friends want to talk to me they can make an account on my privately hosted Matrix.org chat server and use the open-source Riot.im client.
It works flawlessly and I don't have to worry about being spied on.
Next is Gmail. I find the new UI atrocious. I'm keeping my eye on Maps alternatives as well.
The faster I can get rid of all this crap the better off I will be.
Like what happens if I remove all google plus code related from my sites right now? My guess it's that in the short term will have some kind of negative impact, but I don't know.
What is our relationship to Google? Are we really consumers of Google? Content creators? Ad targetees? Impressionees? Folks? Lemmings?
I can imagine Google doing it that way. "The majority never used our platform, so we'll abuse the few that did (and really liked it) by only giving them X amount of time to notice and save their data."
If Google+ becomes archived my jaw will hit the floor - and I'll be very appreciative.
There will also be a software graveyard with the 1,000+ dead projects that google launched and then shut down years later.
Interesting, wasn't this basically the same problem that Facebook had with Cambridge Analytica?
Oof. Good on them for finally admitting it, but who knew the data would be even harsher than G+'s most vocal critics.
Isn't one of the stipulations of GDPR that a company must disclose privacy violations of this nature?
I'd say let's have a moment of silence for Google+, but that is clearly too generous
> Finding 2: People want fine-grained controls over the data they share with apps.
While I personally 100% agree, I would have guessed that the vast majority of Google users (i.e., non-HN crowd) wouldn't care about fine-grained controls. I wonder if they found that some people passionately care and most didn't care one way or another. In other words, perhaps the people that click/tap through permissions prompts are going to continue clicking through, but the change could win back some privacy conscious consumers.
IMHO
That is pretty hard to do.
Conversely, if Bing was shut down at the same time, Microsoft would shrug and keep on rolling.
The good will from the OSS community in maintaining G+ can be easily paid for in the 250% growth you referenced. And please, save me from the 'we need to double down and focus on products that matter' - no, you need to maintain some credibility for your product ownership.
That's why I don't spend a single dollar with GCE.
Google is evil.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/020515/busin...
I mean they are in all of history the fastest to a $100B market cap and since started in 1998 it was right at the .com bust. Then the fastest to $200B.
Does that not take good management?
So they have both the #1 and #2 most popular sites now.
Heck they are rolling out the first robot taxi service in Arizona later this year.
Hopefully this will put an end to that nonsense?
But it's because I've also been a long-time user of the service, signing on in July of 2011, and continuing to use it, often through gritted teeth, and desperately hoping something better would come along, and yet ... nothing really has, at least not that I've been aware.
There's a long litany of mistakes and errors (and many successes) in the service, and I might eventually sit down and write my own post mortem of what I thought went right and wrong -- I've written a few, most of which still stand, though the cooption of media, social and otherwise, for propaganda and disinformation purposes could be expanded on.
There are several groups formed to look at exodus options, presuming people want to go to any one platform (something I'd actually somewhat discourage). It may be that the age of centralised social networks is over, though self-hosting and federation also have considerable challenges. Or, maybe, we go back to other models. Hacker News is an exemplar I've referenced more than a few times. It's not a personal network the way G+, FB, Twitter, or a personal blog are, but it has a (usually) high level of discussion of an interesting array of topics. Thanks in large part to active moderation and flying slightly under the radar.
If you're on G+ and want to discuss next steps, stop by Google+ Mass Migration:
https://news.google.com/search?q=google%2B&hl=en-US&gl=US&ce...
Google+, with all its missteps, was one of those products that even a company with Google's money, resources and people (like Luke Wroblewski) that couldn't get better at all. I liked the concept of "circles" as opposed to the concept of "lists" on Facebook that most people don't know about or use. The only mistake that Google+ did was not copying Facebook on its features. That increased the barriers to adoption and made the product almost worthless. Even something as useful as creating an event was buried in a classic G+ interface, and in the new interface it's buried under profile. Treating vanity URLs as very scarce commodities and letting people live with long unspeakable links, not implementing a groups like functionality well (called "Communities"), and many other things could've been handled if they just copied what Facebook did and took the good lessons from those.
It's sad that Google+ would be gone soon, though it could've been a viable competitor for Facebook as far as centralized, ad supported platforms are concerned. But it's good that an abandoned product gets a quicker death, and that's exactly what Google+ was — an abandoned zombie product trying to figure out whether it was alive or dead.
I'd take this as one less commercial social network to worry about, and await the adoption of a decentralized social network.
I really felt the need for Android like permission model for my Google account, where you can reject a permission request and still use the app.
Much appreciated change, that allows more refined control over account privacy.
[1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/google-%201-button...
I think in the back of their minds, possibly subconsciously, people like me probably make decisions against other technology they provide even if it is in a completely different category and pretty much never going to shut down.
For example, I'm not sure I haven't decided against their cloud services because my subconscious remembered the reader being shut down and thought "they better not shut down some part of the infrastructure I rely on".
Let me throw wood on fire ... the reason Google+ is a failure has nothing to do with any of its features:
1. they killed Google Reader for it, which was more successful than Google+ ever hoped to be, forever tarnishing Google's reputation
2. they had the Real Name Policy ... by the time they reversed and apologized for it, the damage was already done
3. they shoved Google+ down on everybody's throats, like YouTube users, exposing their real identities in the process
There are no other reasons that matter. Google+ could have been at least at Twitter's scale. Twitter still understands their audience, but Google never did.
In YT they already had a massive user-based; (for a time, not sure if it's still true) the second most searched search engine in the world.
In Wave they had threaded conversations. That is a communications UX that was closer (than Slack et al) to natural / traditional human conversations.
Toss in some of the better G+ features (e.g., Circles) and they likely could have been a contender. The problem (I suspect) was they saw FB as "competition" instead of stepping over and beyond FB, as FB had done to MySpace and Friendster.
Further proof that Google isn't a product company, but an algorithm company (per Thiel, trying to hide from regulators)?
It is very hard to believe that they can't track when exactly the bug was introduced. All code changes are tracked in the source control.
----------------- I can understand this position, but I'd be curious what your thoughts are on how to best (I realize there is no perfect) keep your data private from snooping employees, hackers, or law enforcement.
I've thought about this over and over, and it's hard to come to a solid conclusion about keeping personal data safe (in this context I mean emails and files you may store in the cloud, not browsing history, social media posts, etc.). There are so many options with downfalls for each, and I'm not a security expert. So every time I get excited about trying a new service geared towards privacy, or setting up my own instances, inevitably somebody points out the terrible pitfall in it and I get discouraged.
1. Don't use the internet or internet services, period. <- Not tenable for most of us.
2. Use services who market themselves as geared towards privacy. <- Can't actually trust those services, even with E2E encryption because they could be running different code from what you think they're running.
3. Use regular cloud options, but stack stuff on top - VeraCrypt volumes or Cryptomator with Google drive, GPG for email, etc. <- Really difficult to setup and have a nice reliable way of accessing data on mobile/desktop/etc. No security audits on a lot of the open source software.
4. Host your own services - i.e. a Nextcloud 14 instance on EC2 with an S3 backend, then use client-side E2E <- Difficult to make sure you set the service up in a safe way, and not even a fraction of as much resources in auditing code as, say, a giant corporation.
5. Spread what you do out over multiple services - FastMail for email, DropBox for cloud storage, Standard Notes for notes, etc. <- A real pain.
I know there will never be a consensus on this, but I'd love to hear what your thoughts are on the best way to keep my personal files and notes personal to me. Let's assume I'm not a target of any spy agencies or whatnot, but I want to make it very, very difficult for anyone to read my person notes and files but me.
Encrypt before you send/upload, decrypt after you receive/download. If you transmit or receive unencrypted data you are placing trust in someone else and there is no way to really avoid that unless you created and control the chain end-to-end.
So you can use Google Drive, etc., just encrypt your data before uploading if it needs to be secured. A 7-zip file protected with AES256 is decently convenient (from a PC) and secure.
Maybe they should start getting back to the roots - try to secure that first comer advantage by launching experimental products. Oh wait google glass, inbox...
For a company that is praised for biggest software talent they sure fail to deliver anything of value to the medium time and time again.
If I saw something I thought a friend would enjoy or made me think of them, I'd post it on their wall. This is drastically different than sending a message or e-mailing in that my friend's friends will also see it.
In Google+ (at least when I tried it), there was no way to perform this action. So I never used it again.
"Minimal maintenance" is often harder than it sounds, especially when privacy and security is involved.
Given that they are going to close this down for us as consumers, what is our best alternative? I would rather not have to have the headache of running and maintaining software myself, but what options do you recommend?
Or do we just have to bite the bullet and set up the Shaftoe e-mail list?
Your family Twitter? https://masto.host/
Your family Facebook? https://www.oxwall.com
If the product is good, people will use it. If it's not, they won't, in the end. G+ wasn't good.
They built a platform designed with no sharper focus than "for everyone", because that's what will supposedly generate the DAUs. But you have to try to bolt community on top of it and that's what generates the actual stickiness.
There are a galaxy of far stronger communities out there-- ones that were there long before Google+ and will be there long after. It's because they're clearly focused, themed communities-- newsgroups and forums.
If you provide some thread to bind the membership-- whether it's "People who Maintain Vintage Sansui Stereo Equipment", "People Who Really Liked The Animated Series 'Gargoyles'" or "Class of 1977 at Francisco Franco High School", it means people will generate content compelling to future users, and come onboard with attainable expectations.
These communities solved a lot of the problems that stymie many hypothetical Facebook killers:
* Selling new users. Just post the archives-- you can sell what you have, rather than promising "if we get aggressive enough and steer people into inviting enough loose acquaintances, somehow magic will happen and real community appears."
* Since they're more-or-less decentralized, you get very nice data partition models. On the outgoing side, you know that your messages are clearly restricted to one circle of potential viewers by default. On the incoming side, you're either viewing one community at a time, or aggregating yourself via RSS or the like under rules you know and understand. You're not going to be worried about a NSFW moment if you pop open "N-Scale Model Railway Enthusiasts Forum".
* The psychographic mix. You started with a clear message of value for participation, a give and take. In contrast, the classic social media feed appeals, by default, to a very specific type of self-promoter/narcissist type who just wants to bellow into the void "Look at me eating a burrito by the Eiffel Tower" and wait for validation. Think of all the people who never got on FB/Twitter/etc. because they saw no value in this type of interaction, or joined but have just a vacant profile after realizing it wasn't offering anything for them.
What the "community first" model doesn't do is scale to infinity. There are only so many people with any given interest. I think this is why Reddit is a success-- it's got a feel like a constellation of independent forums, that happen to use the same tech backend and SSO.
I bet G+ has more active users than your average indie developer could ever dream about. But Google is not that kind of company. It's all or nothing. World domination or shut it down and try again (or buy a company that succeeded).
Overall I'm not sure how to feel because I didn't realize how bad it was. How many apps have required access to my contacts for legitimate reasons, and I wasn't aware I was providing access to our interaction data?
> Finding 4: When users grant SMS, Contacts and Phone permissions to Android apps, they do so with certain use cases in mind.
> Action 4: We are limiting apps’ ability to receive Call Log and SMS permissions on Android devices, and are no longer making contact interaction data available via the Android Contacts API.
Something like the automatic generation of circles in Google Mail, and integrate some kind of generalized wall posts for Google Mail users.
Google+ was never a go-to social network like Facebook, but many of its features became successful products in their own rights.
[1] https://www.sgaumc.org/files/files_library/technical_vs_adap...
- Google Reader
- Google Buzz
- iGoogle
- Picasa Web Albums
- Google Talk
- Google Latitude
- Google Wave
Now the latest victim was added to the list:
- Google+
[0]: https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-takes-a-break-f...
90 percent of Google+ user sessions are less than five seconds.
Their own stats seem to back this: people arrive by mistake and immediately go somewhere else
Yep: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-says-it-found-...
"As many as 438 applications might have used the API. Google maintains that it didn’t uncover evidence developers were aware of or abused the security flaw, or that profile data was misused. However, it acknowledged that it has no way of knowing for sure because it doesn’t have “audit rights” over its developers and because it keeps a limited set of activity logs." (https://venturebeat.com/2018/10/08/google-security-breach/)
Google wrote: “Our Privacy & Data Protection Office reviewed this issue, looking at the type of data involved, whether we could accurately identify the users to inform, whether there was any evidence of misuse, and whether there were any actions a developer or user could take in response. None of these thresholds were met in this instance.”
--
From 2016: "The search engine company publicised a critical Windows bug 10 days after informing the software firm about it" (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/01/google-mi...)
From February: "Microsoft misses Google's 90-day deadline, so Google has published details of an exploit mitigation bypass" (https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-security-google-exp...)
And then: "For the second time in a week, Google reveals another unpatched Windows 10 vulnerability" (https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-bug-google-again-re...)
In August: "Google discloses vulnerability in Fortnite launcher that allowed possible malware installation" (https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-08-27-google-dis...)
Again in August, reporting Samsung bugs: (https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-project-zero-heres-the-...):
"Two terms irked her and simply clashed with Project Zero's practices. "You MUST hold off disclosing the vulnerability in reasonable time, and you MUST get Samsung's consent or inform Samsung about the date before disclosing the vulnerability," said Samsung. "In some cases, Samsung may request not to disclose the vulnerability at all." Again, this clashes with Project Zero's insistence on disclosure."
It's a weasel word. The way to say this is in plain English. We're closing, shutting down, turning off, discontinuing, or something.
And, sure, it might not make the top list of 1000 words you might hear on the street on any given day, but it's also very easy to search for. That doesn't make it a weasel word.
It is therefore presumably not the primary consumer-facing announcement of the shutdown.
Hopefully they will use one of the terms you noted, or something similar, for that announcement.
> Action 1: We are _shutting down_ Google+ for consumers.
Does this mean they are just shifting the social network features over to other products?
'Use this service/product because you now have to in order to access something you like' is not a good way to endear your company/service/product to users, and usually has the exact opposite effect to whatever you were intending.
Then recently they tried to make it better by redesigning it, and apparently gave some graphic designers free reign. This lead to a significantly worse user experience, so much so that I and many others who were still clinging on stopped using it almost entirely.
That said it had some good ideas, and the signal-to-noise ratio was much better than on Facebook. I'm guessing the active communities I visited will migrate to Facebook or similar, but it won't be quite the same.
- Create a way to communicate with your friends.
- Try to monetize it by adding feeds of ads and irrelevant junk.
- Users get annoyed.
- Double down on the ads.
- More users get annoyed and leave.
- Usage shrinks.
This used to be called "pulling a Myspace". Since then, Twitter, Google+, WeChat in India, and Facebook have followed Myspace's lead.
It works out OK for the founders if they cash out around step 3.
It's a classic case of google dipping their toes in a service and if they don't reach critical mass in 3 months just ignore it until it becomes a liability and shut it down quietly. I would love to hear if they ever pushed updates for it or just had some intern maintaining the code up until now.
Google can filter this perfectly on image searches, but not on their social networks?
It's a shame, I really liked the concept of circles. Where am I going to get my Buzz now?
A memo reviewed by the Journal prepared by Google’s legal and policy staff and shared with senior executives warned that disclosing the incident would likely trigger “immediate regulatory interest” and invite comparisons to Facebook’s leak of user information to data firm Cambridge Analytica.
Chief Executive Sundar Pichai was briefed on the plan not to notify users after an internal committee had reached that decision, the people said.
.... The document shows Google officials knew that disclosure could have serious ramifications. Revealing the incident would likely result “in us coming into the spotlight alongside or even instead of Facebook despite having stayed under the radar throughout the Cambridge Analytica scandal,” the memo said. It “almost guarantees Sundar will testify before Congress.”
https://t.co/DExCeKTGHX (seems to link directly to the WSJ article):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-exposed-user-data-feared...
> software types
> weasel word
Pull the plank from your own eye first.
"We are shutting down Google+ for consumers."
> this is fucking infuriating
Comments like yours are much worse.
> Well, hardly anyone was using it. How long should a company maintain something for free that not many people are using?
You misunderstand. He's not necessarily saying Google should maintain Google Reader or Google+ forever; he's saying that users can't trust Google to keep all but its most popular services online. If you like some new/niche Google service so much that you'll be unhappy when it's shut down, you should seriously consider not using it in the first place.
I'm not sad to see Google+ go, but the aggressive rate of metrics-driven product shutdowns by modern SaaS companies is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Users learn not get used to new services and hold of using them heavily, because they'll probably get shut down; that dampens adoption so services inevitably get shut down.
IMHO, SaaS companies need to embrace niche products, otherwise they're eventually going to kill off a lot of consumer appetite for innovation.
What useful features does MobileMe have, that iCloud doesn't? I just looked up the list of features and the only thing missing seems to be publishing a personal website with iWeb.
I don't know a single person using iTunes Ping, or heh, Game Center's social features.
Reader was an active product for 8 years. What more do you want?
Plus Chrome not going anywhere as well as the Google home. But would still expect them to iterate. So even though Android has over 80% share still would not be surprised to see them move to Fuchsia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_smartphon... List of most popular smartphone apps - Wikipedia
Years later, I was at a museum/gallery/archive/library tech conference and the Google Cultural Institute folks were running their sales pitch. Multiple people asked them where their institution would be “when you cancel this like Google Reader”, a sentiment I’ve heard in enough other contexts that I doubt is fully appreciated by Google management even if it has been good for getting users to think about lock-in.
after that you can click on [friends] and youll get a [friend me] url
I realize this usage is becoming an official usage, but the original meaning was something that would end by design and automatically unless it was renewed. Like a law had a sunset provision if it already had an ending named at the time it was created. So the ending is built into the original plan from the beginning, it's bound to happen unless something changes.
Like... a sunset.
It's not something passive that's happened at Google though. They're saying we are going to close a service that is open, and has been expected to stay open indefinitely. It's not a thing that is just kind of happening, it's a decision that was just made and is being newly announced.
And even knowing what it means, as I do now, I wouldn't say that sunsetting is any clearer in communicating that it's "going to" end than "shutting down" or "stopping" Google+. It's not as if the proposal said "ended" or "shut down" Google+, the "are" in something like "We're shutting down Google+" signals continuation to me.
The idea of "circles", where you had a circle for "acquaintances" "friends", "family" would be great on, say, Facebook, as it would allow me to filter down my feed to just the people I really care about but still have a connection to more distance acquaintances.
Currently on Facebook the news feed is automatically generated, and the only control you have over it is to subscribe/unsubscribe from particular friends. Given hundreds of acquaintances, this is a pain, and made me give up on Facebook altogether. I wish social networks would trust me to decide what I want to see rather than just let an AI attempt to understand it, which in the end just ended up spamming my feed with clickbait and baby pictures from people I barely know.
Except they did in 2011 in response to Google+ by adding Friend Lists, which you can use to filter your News Feed down to stories and news items from just friends in certain lists curated by you. This is still in existence today in 2018.
Edit:
Here's a link to someone asking for help when I guess they started to pull the plug on custom friend feeds:
https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=1020258...
Friends List is here apparently:
https://m.facebook.com/help/ipad-app/204737159568794?helpref...
It was nice for keeping my World of Warcraft friends separate from "Family" and "College" and "Highschool" etc. As there were things I'd maybe want 1 group to see, but things I'd rather others didn't.
After ~4 years I just started unfriending people as it was easier then bothering to curate posts for specifics lists, and soon after I just deleted the account as I could SMS-text the people I wanted to chat with easier then bothering with facebook.
You know, I read this, and I thought "gee, Facebook is behaving a bit differently at the moment for me", because the last time I checked it, it showed maybe six posts and a message at the bottom that basically said I need more friends to see more posts.
And then I realized...I installed uBlock Origin the other day and promptly forgot about it, so of course Facebook hates me. It's like the Soup Nazi - no dopamine for you!
I was creeped out recently by how Facebook recommends people I've never met as friends; I've read some things that suggest it may be utilizing GPS data to try to match people in physical proximity, so I have to wonder if the recommendations are from the apartment building I live in.
Why on earth would this be the "point" and what product manager is being paid for this BS.
Groups only. And even those are just an occassional check in.
The presentation was amazing and I can definitely believe is influenced leadership at Google to make a product that was "better" for people who have complicated social networks (the "I want to go to a rave on the weekend and share those photos with my friends, and then go to a wedding and share the photos with my parents" problem).
it's unfortunate the the leadership (mainly Vic but enabled by a bunch of other people) ran with this idea but ended up making such a dislikable product.
Anecdote: when Google+ Events launched at IO, I had to give up my practice spot on stage so that Vic could practice his product demo. Events is now gone- it wasn't very popular- but the product I demo'd (Google Compute Engine) is now a major source of growth. Oh, and the other reason I didn't get to practice was Sergey practicing the launch demo for Google Glass (the amazing parachute jump). That's also a product that is in the dustbin. AFAICT the leadership just didn't understand how badly it understood the market for social, cloud, and consumer products.
Maybe Facebook for general friends and family posts, Snapchat with friends, WhatsApp chat with another group of friends, Twitter for truly public posts, Slack for work, etc.
We learn both of these from early childhood. We all at some point go through the realisation that our best friend may not always see us as their best friend and vice versa. Not forcing a two-way connection or nothing is an essential part of how humans actually relate.
Secondly, allowing easier more precise control of who we share what with. I don't want to share pictures of my son with everyone I have some sort of relationship with. I want to share them with at most family and maybe a few others. I don't want to share pictures of a night out with work colleagues. And so on. Facebook basically forces you to reduce yourself to the lowest common denominator of what you're prepared to share with everyone unless you're very careful with permissions or make socially awkward distinctions about who you accept as friends.
And then, when you've reduced yourself to that, it forces your "friends" to wade through a bunch of stuff that you may well know a lot of them will have no interest in, as you point out.
Facebook is basically trying to force human relationships to change shape to suit their ad targeting, and eventually someone will figure out how to leverage that weakness into dethroning them.
Don't really have a point, just wanted to brag. :-)
That is, you are not subscribing to circles on various topics of things to receive, but you are creating circles of people you can send things to: so you can send family stuff to your family, technical stuff to technical people, etc.
Hypothetically a good idea but it is still seeing the world from a sender's perspective as opposed to a receiver's perspective.
The more immediate problem though is that we are all getting hit with a large number of messages (in the most general sense including e-mail, physical mail, social media, TV, ...) and I think we could use our own filtering A.I. that we control.
Another principle I see is replacing "scanning" (eg. loading a feed over and over again) with a workflow based on "say something once, why say it again?" That is you should never see anything in your feed more than once. Maybe you could go back and search or browse for it, but you should not be reloading just on the hope that you'll see something new and interesting.
While I agree with your points, nobody ever mentions how hard it is got get people off of FB and ONTO their social media platform.
I remember when this came out and I did like a number of the features over FB. After some, "Hey, Google+ does this so much better than FB, you should swtich to G+!" posts, and nobody switching. I just found some friends used both, but eventually went back to just using FB exclusively.
This has always been the Achilles heel of anybody who wants to compete with FB. It's not about features, it's about how are you going to get all these people, with all of these deep rooted connections, to leave FB and not just join YOUR network, but to stay and bring all their friends in the process.
Insanely, insanely hard.
Facebook was the first of this type of social network to get just about everyone to join. MySpace and Friendster and the like got the kids and the heavy web users but Facebook got your mom and your grandma. They got your boss, your barber, and your barista. They got the people who designed websites and the people who never did anything more complex than pointing at a picture on their iphone to launch an app.
It didn't matter if you or I liked some feature or other on G+ (or another competitor) because you can't just switch platforms like you can switch webmail providers. In order to work, you all have to be on the same platform and a good chunk of the potential userbase will simply never deal with switching platforms. How many people in your family or friend/acquaintance group still use their old hotmail (or AOL) email account? Probably not zero.
So even if they did "build a better Facebook" (which I think they did in many ways) it doesn't matter. A nicer layout and some improved features aren't enough to move the entire user base away from the default option. As long as it's a winner-take-all system, it will take a lot more to replace Facebook. It's more likely to become irrelevant than replaced.
Which, IMHO, means Google didn't understand what it was doing when it started G+.
At some point, it's up to the product. If you can't succeed with that much exposure, the product wasn't right. People didn't get it, didn't care or didn't want it.
Circles (and other ideas, some going back to wave) is more like goals than ideas. The goal is to have different categories of friends to control what you see, and who sees which of your stuff. You still need an idea for achieving that goal.
Google's idea put too many confusing choices in users hands. It's like the difference between Gmail's search-centric UI and outlook's folders.
Folders are great, if everything is in folders. Search works no matter what, no inbox management necessary. The folders that work best, work by default too (updates, promotions, junk...). No sitting down and pondering how one would like to use email.
Google's "idea" for achieving their goals was asking users to think of how they'd like to use this thing they've never used before and do some preparatory work, like categorising friends they might connect to in the future.
Abstract questions are always harder than they seem. Asking users to create abstractions is tricky.
Requires 2 things: - feature to classifying your followers into circles (unbeknownst to them) - feature to select target circle for a tweet/retweet/like (or, more comfortable, classify people I follow into the same circle, and making retweets/likes per-circle).
AFAICT, gab.ai does not have anything like this, either.
You can do that already, with lists.
Unfortunately, the UI for lists isn't great, but when you figure out how (it took me long enough), you can view a feed of just people on a certain list or post to just one list if you want.
If your feed is spammy you should unfriend/unfollow the users who you don't want to see.
Microsoft is the biggest offenders in this, since time immemorial, with an almost sad sort of attention-seeking "Look look we made this!" by prefixing every product and service with their name.
Of course I see why they would want to do this; it entices your existing fans to check it out and bolsters confidence.
But the problem is that your company's reputation and "image" is then immediately projected onto your new product before anyone even tries it.
In Microsoft's case it's their sterile 90s-suit-and-tie-office-workplace, wannabe-cool /r/fellowkids image (in my view at least.)
Even Apple does this and it adversely affects their new products too (like Apple Music) for people who hold some kind of brand grudge against them.
I and I'll assume many people use Google out of necessity than any brand loyalty, and in spite of disagreeing with their privacy-hostile core model. If they hadn't bought YouTube and if other search engines were as fast and provided as relevant results (though Google Search has been slowly crapping out in that regard since the past couple years), I would be using no Google products or services.
Google were hardly associated with the word "social" and "Google+" doesn't say anything about anything social. The first impressions of most people when hearing about it very probably did nothing favorable for the service.
[0] No idea if anyone on the Google team had actually used Lycos Circles but it's not unreasonable to think they might of.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/09/facebook-is-shutting-down-...
I don't think Facebook will add them, but Diaspora has them.
From my POV, the release was terrible because it let people in too fast. Social networks need to go through a period where only the "cool kids" are there. It creates a network effect. It was kind of impossible to go through that, so being on Google+ conveyed no status...in fact, it kind of did the opposite.
https://www.facebook.com/help/204604196335128
Sadly it seems they've hidden this to push their more tailored feed so they can push whatever ads and things through there aka filter (censor?) your friends posts better.
I still wish these had caught on more, or at least that Facebook hadn't implemented Friend Lists as an answer to this that they all but bury in their UI. It would be a much more tolerable place if they made it easier to use this, but similarly, if you have to categorize people in such a way that you rarely see their posts, what is the point of "keeping in touch" via Facebook in the first place? At least for me, if I don't care enough to see your updates (or at least the memes you like) on my news feed I may not think to look at your profile.
Having circles, which is in essence tags, to place your contacts in is a great feature, but if a social networking site did that and also let you sort them by how meaningful those contacts are to you, it would allow the site to do more meaningful content filtering and promotion, as well as let people express the importance of those contacts within the tagged groups.
I can't think of one piece of Google software, except maybe YouTube that is enjoyable to use or at least decent. Even then, this doesn't exempt Google from being idiots with how they treat content creators on YouTube. Everywhere you look they do some absolutely terrible thing, or some completely incompetent thing.
Take email. I loved Inbox. They killed it. Like most of their acquisitions or other projects, they kill everything. It would make sense if they integrated Inbox features into Gmail mobile and desktop apps and then killed it, but no. They just killed the useful application and kept Gmail an ancient turd of a client the way it is.
So you would think it's no big deal - just switch to another email client. The only problem, they all suck. Edison molests your data unless you opt out of every app install for sharing your email or useage data, and then if you want to scrub your info from their servers (which I'm pretty sure is BS) you can't actually use their app. So... Switch to Spark and it seems decent but you can't do inline images in emails on mobile - only attachments. I need to send customers inline images while on the go so that's the end of Spark. Meanwhile on the Mac you CAN send in-line images. But guess what? The Spark Mac app has every option EXCEPT a taskbar icon and badge count (you can look in your MenuBar but are SOL if you prefer to have it hidden. Next up, AirMail3 is another turd. AirMail3 seemed awesome, but the first time I tried composing a simple email to family it found every damn contact EXCEPT the everyday contact I would use. Maybe it needs to learn over time so I give it some time... Well, it still decides to match every possible iteration of something I search for - for any type of search. I think I'm typing an email from "XXXX YYYYY" and I get back every email or contact from every duration that somehow even every possible match that might include a variation of XX YY.
Jebus. Seriously Google - F U. It's incredible to me that they don't seem to give a S@#$ that they're making people go through all this. People are spend monthly on email clients from some 3rd party that is doing god knows what with our data and Google refuses to improve their own stupid products but also insists on killing any they own that are actually useful.
Forget "Don't be Evil" you clowns, maybe just focus on "Make Uncompromised Products" - Google: you suck at writing decent software applications. Period.
Google+ was dead in the water from day one. You don’t beat Facebook at social by building a slightly different product with some cool ideas like Circles. Going for feature parity was a mistake. Instead they should have tried to identify a niche where Facebook was failing (say, intimate private sharing, or the antithesis of the narcissist fest) and build up a loyal core of rabidly passionate users, then slowly expanded from there. Kind of like how Facebook started out as a platform for elite universities, then high schools, then workplaces, then the world.
This approach would have been hard to sell internally at Google given the pressure to release a “Facebook killer.” But people always forget that the way to build a platform is to start by nailing a niche use case and then expanding. Even the Apple App Store only came to dominate because it was based on a hit product, the original iPhone.
Anyway, kudos to Google for finally admitting defeat. Hopefully management learned something and they hire some people who understand humans so that their brilliant engineering capacity doesn’t get wasted again.
Internal resistance to aspects of G+ was enormous. People outside the company get this idea that Google acts as some kind of singleminded (possibly nefarious) entity when "herding cats" is so often much closer to the truth. In G+'s case, the rank-and-file was largely against things like the Real Names policy yet leadership went ahead with it anyway (Vic often quipped that you didn't want everyone named "Dog fart", which was a pretty ridiculous argument).
And while it may have been Vic driving this, Larry backed him so has to bear shared responsibility.
Probably the worst decision made in this whole mess was (again, IMHO) trying to unify the account model. Youtube accounts have different permission models to Gmail accounts, etc. It would've been sufficient to simply link them (and not require they be linked) rather than jamming single-sign-on down everyone's throats, which really gained nothing except a lot of user backlash.
The worst part of this was that the for the longest time some policy violation (like your name not being "real") could lock you out of your entire account. Whoever made this decision needed to be fired. Deciding someone's name wasn't real enough should NEVER lock you out of your Gmail (or Youtube or any other service).
I was reminded of this in a thread yesterday about the disaster that was the Snapchat redesign. Leadership ignoring user feedback as people start to attribute luck to skill and vision (people have a tendency to socialize losses and privatize wins). Is this merely hubris? Because it's very reminiscent of the dismissal of internal feedback that is now routine (at Google).
It's unfortunate how much Google-hate is on HN these days because I think it's largely unjustified. There are definitely some bad (IMHO) leadership decisions but the rank-and-file are still culture carriers for a lot of the things that made Google great.
Still, as the Chinese say, the fish rots from the head.
Disclaimer: Xoogler. All opinions are entirely personal and I don't speak for this or any other company.
EDIT: TIL the origin of "a fish rots from the head" is disputed and possibly Turkish not Chinese: https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/fish-rot-from-the-head-d...
That immediately stopped me posted anything. It's almost write-once, read never sort of medium. It's too bad, there were a few good ideas and so on, and I had a bit of traction of a few good 'circles' but I'm pretty sure that like me, everyone else stopped.
Now, I have to figure out a way of re-importing all that content to something else, probably homebrewed this time.
IN FACT I've just checked, and G+ seems to have forgotten every single post I've made, but one. https://plus.google.com/+MichelPollet
EDIT: Now the posts are back. I must have been archived on CDs or something ;-)
I left Google Plus after Google Search kept turning up private posts that I had opted to remove from search.
They keep moving the functionality, but I can still get to it on desktop. Search for something, "Posts" tab, change "From Everyone" dropdown to "From just you".
(Disclosure: I work at Google, on other things)
I am not surprised they are killing the service, and I'm reminded of all the damage it did to the company both inside and out[1]. If there is one thing I could say I miss about not working at Google it is seeing how the organization internalizes what they did and why. These sorts of things can teach a lot of really good lessons to an organization if the retrospective is done well.
I was also thinking about the recent love letter to Google that came across here about Google Cloud. In it was the admission that Google tried to hard to "copy" or "follow" AWS in the early years.
Allo, Inbox, Gchat, Reader, Wave, Etc. It feels like they are trying to hard to be "amazing" and missing out on just being good at what they do. Meanwhile the beat of the jungle drums, "More ads, more ads, more ads..." continues on relentlessly.
[1] Inside there were good projects that got killed because they either conflicted with or competed with G+, outside the company it seemed Google was deathly afraid of Facebook and Twitter and had no credible answer, their real names fiasco, their forcing of people to use G+ if they used other services, all of it damaged the Google brand and user trust.
I think they were attempting to encourage new connections, but that's not how to do it.
developer adoption
Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because they never released a usable write API and were basically just a little less developer-hostile than Twitter?
G+ had a lot of potential, had Google chosen to truly embrace Open Standards, federation, and usable API's. As it is, they shot themselves in the foot by creating JAWG (Just Another Walled Garden).
Anyway, maybe this will just help prod more people to join the Fediverse.
Poor G+.
1. They save face a little by not publicly confessing it was a failure.
2. Big tech (Facebook, Google, etc.) is facing privacy-related criticism right now. They can say, hey, this is yet one more step we're taking to improve the situation for everyone.
And they might even be partially right about both. Maybe they would have shut it down eventually but privacy challenges caused them to do it sooner than they otherwise would have.
Edit: here are some other articles providing coverage:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/8/17951914/google-plus-data...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/08/google-reportedly-exposed-pr...
https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/google-plus-hack/
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45792349
https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/google-plus-shut-down-...
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-says-it-found-...
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-shutters-google-socia...
Source: https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/google-plus-shut-down-...
Google+ started out as the best social network. Unfortunately Google has taken every opportunity to ruin it, remove popular features, force ill-considered integration, remove that integration once people are used to it. Lately the spam filtering has been utterly broken, alternating between leaving painfully obvious spam, and marking and hiding comments from people you were following. It seemed like it was an experimental testbed for them where they didn't care if people were using it.
Despite all of that, we hung on because of the great communities, the people we got to know, and because frankly there's no good alternative.
It really seems to me it shouldn't be too hard at this point to design a sane social network. Google+ had all the elements, but refused to apply them correctly.
Facebook is a horrible mess of privacy violations with no control over your feed (though G+'s control often doesn't work as intended either), and besides, there's family and co-workers there. Twitter seems designed for screaming into the void. Tumbler and Instagram don't seem to be my thing.
There's a specific Diaspora node for Google+ refugees: https://pluspora.com
At the moment, G+ers seem to be gravitating towards MeWe.
C'mon Google, why'd you have to try and hide this...
Google has always had amazing scientists and engineers working for them, but building a new social network requires less math/science and more of a human focus. (Of course, Facebook's data centers and ops are now the 6th wonder of the tech world, but that came later.)
Events were eventually added much later (like a year after launch?), but at that point interest had already died down.
Why they did not delay the launch until it had parity with Facebook's core features is beyond me.
At the risk of not being taken seriously, er, what are the first 5 wonders of the tech world?
Is AWS #1? Is Google's huge swarm of web search indexing machines #1? What makes it onto that list?
It somewhat acted like a better version of Twitter for me, where I can write a lot more on the post, and actually engage a meaningful discussion with people.
I don't know, even with relaxed character counts on Twitter that it will accommodate same use cases, and I don't like to use Facebook for this purpose as I really don't want introduce a total stranger as my friend...
I'm fine with it shutting down, though. At least I no longer have to feel like I'm missing out on anything for not using a Google product (for various reasons, one of them being that it might be cancelled any minute).
The early adopters reached enough of a critical mass that others used it solely because of who was already there, making it an actual social network for at least that purpose.
Much like when Reader folded, G+'s critical mass is going to spread out to a half-dozen other places and refragment. And like Reader's exit, there's a vacuum right now for someone to jump in with something better and charge a nominal amount for it.
If they'd made public read & write APIs from the start, they could have picked up a massive initial user base as people used the tools they were already actively using. You've got to either:
1) Offer an amazingly compelling product with features that provide _significant_ reasons for people to compel people to use you
2) Go to where people are, and bring them to you.
G+ failed on both scores. It had good features, but they weren't _that_ compelling.
- announced no API access - real names policy debacle
Between those two things they completely destroyed all good will and within months it was essentially dead. I actually think it was a larger turning point that made developers significantly more cynical about Google overall.
They also blew a lot of time tinkering with minutae / fringe features while fairly basic functionality was sub-par.
Still, on balance I've found G+ both useful and fun, and I'm annoyed it's shutting down. I'm growing more + more wary of relying on any Google services to be around in N years' time.
As opposed to trying to take advantage of the opportunity and improve it -- fixing the bork-headed management design shoved onto it prior to external launch.
Facebook has shown how it's failing its users. Google has the opportunity to make a big show and potentially market share gain by doing the opposite. But, nope.
Instead, 'our market share is corporate'.
Which is fine. But, it tells you a lot about where Google has been going.
(And, if I were corporate Worldmerica, I'd be hesitant about investing too much good will in and dependence upon +.)
As an individual Google user, unfortunately I have little hope that this unwinding will also back out other changes co-morbid with the + deployment, such as the account "unification" that allows a single "mistake" to lock you out of everything. And a single Google "mistake" in execution to haunt you across all their properties.
I'm in the process of exiting Facebook, except for a mostly placeholder presence. A lot of my friends don't have the wherewithal to set up and maintain privately implemented social presences. But, we won't be switching to +, I guess.
Maybe an old-fashioned bulletin board -- with otherwise unlinked pseudonyms -- will do. Back to the Future...
As I think about this, maybe there is a strongly implied message in this. Assuming parts of Google still emit good will. Namely, that, these days, NO commercial network can escape the pressures -- governmental as well as commercial -- to compromise their users.
We aren't making it, because we can no longer do so honestly and securely.
An interesting alternative perspective.
(And, we're even less inclined than Mark and Co., to try to ride herd on all the nut jobs out there.)
They will keep it active as an internal network, but regular old joes won't be able to use Google+ anymore.
Probably, but the key point made in the article is that it will continue as an enterprise product, not just an internal one (though presumably Google is one of the enterprises that will continue using it.)
FTA: Action 1: We are shutting down Google+ for consumers. seems pretty obvious that's the case.
I think Google+ had great marketing and release. Good enough to create a social network with 300 million monthly active users out of thin air.
However the product did not provide enough value for people to keep using it. The circles idea was good, but the improvement is too incremental. I am also wondering if the average user really understood that idea and cared enough to put in the effort to separate their contacts.
I'd say, rather, "out of Gmail account users"
On the other hand, this can enforce echo chambers, but as long as one is aware of that effect (and sadly, most wouldn't care), I really like broadly selecting my audience.
Sounds like you need https://circles.app
It's the reason why I never used Google Plus. And it's the reason why when I had a facebook account I never friended coworkers or professional contacts.
For most of the posts users would make, users would probably spend more time thinking about which circles to enable than actually writing the post. It's a headache and it leads to a poor experience, it feels like a hurdle, something you must do; it makes posting less natural.
Facebook on the other hand offers the same functionality but it's "buried" so you can use it at your convenience.
How low have we got, capacity wise, when this is even considered "a hurdle"?
At one time, people had to walk to the TV to change the channels...
And before that, they had to have candles and be good with finger shadows to entertain themselves...
Google has ML based version of circle where depending on who is on the photo or whom you have added as recipient it suggests additional recipients.
To me that is a better UX.
a. They don't have to explicitly create circles.
b. If you keep adding someone new or remove someone over a period of time, the model would learn that and act accordingly.
c. If user wants to explicitly create a circle, they can probably do it as a group.
The choice of how to restrict your audience was placed below the 'new post' entry box, and was something you'd usually think about after writing your post. Which was more likely to be a multi-paragraph thing than the short fragments we're so used to tossing off on all the commercial social networks now.
I'm not sure why this is harder than choosing an email address to send an email to. Some things I'd share with FAMILY, some things I'd share with EVERYBODY, some things I'd share with MY QUILTING GROUP.
Seems like the easiest thing in the world.
Also seems weird to say that even selecting a group to share to is a massive hurdle, but the fact that facebook buries the same functionality behind 5-6 clicks for each post is convenient. Seems more like it was too easy, and had to be made harder.
Heck I wish Facebook forced you to provide at least one tag with each post, just so that we could unfollow e.g baby posts/political posts and then maybe get something useful out of Facebook (my current solution is to unfollow the annoying person, but that is a bit too crude).
Absolutely this.
It is, however, not the marketing strategy that failed them. G+ was hyped for some time before release and it became a hit since day one.
With the level of attention any Google product gained at that time, there was no need to focus on a niche. The issue were their horrendous decisions in UI and product design as well as feature integration. In short, it was a product for the tech savy user, yet aimed at the mainstream. It wasn't satisfying anyone.
I still can't understand why they would not cap the most valuable resource they had, GMail, GDocs, GCalendar, GReader, etc. Zero integration.
I do agree that there was a missed opportunity to integrate their other awesome products you mentioned. But to me even with those integrated Google+ would have needed a raison d’etre that was substantially different than facebook.
As Google Reader history shows, Google does not care about the passionate users.
I basically stopped following most blogs when it shut down, and reverted to individual bookmarks.
Big companies go after niches all the time. Many microbrews are owned by massive multi-national breweries. Huge drug companies chase niches every day. Giant food companies release ethic niche foods every month.
Whomever told you that there isn’t big money in niches or that they’re not worth going after is someone you should stop taking advice from.
Paired with the missing backward compatibility with email those two are the most important aspects of why Wave failed IMHO.
At least they could incorporate the tech they developed and used for Wave in other products, notably Docs and G+.
Great advice for a YC startup, but not how big companies that already have large user bases operate. Big companies have a metric they want to drive, then look for big opportunities, simply because dominating a “niche” is too small an opportunity to make a dent in a big-company metric like DAU, time spent, etc. If you do want to start with a niche, it can be super hard to justify continued investment from management, given that there are so many other bets that can drive larger near-term changes to metrics.
But there was no feature parity, not even close.
When G+ launched it was more like a tech demo, interest died down when people discovered that there really was not much to do.
They added more features over time, but at that point the hype was already dead.
If it had copied Facebook shamelessly, it would've given an alternative for all those people fed up with Facebook for the last decade or so, and thus increased usage too.
If they had done something different, like say restricted you to X number of friends, for any small X, or focused on groups, or done something anonymous like Secret - now that at least would have been different. It may have still failed but at least it would have been trying to scratch a different itch on the social spectrum.
Doesn't Google Wave live on as Google Docs?
Good Docs had this to a degree before Wave, but it was unpolished. Two people could definitely edit a sheet together, but editing a document was more cumbersome (whole blocks of text would update at once). After Wave, they took the concepts and you could then see everyone editing the document as they typed or simply moved around the document.
Not so much defeat , but more avoiding future liability. They sure could afford to run it , but under the current circumstances, a data leak like the one they claim they didn't have would be very damaging to their image and their moneymakers.
To me it seems like google is forcing more and more on selling services rather than user information.
#1, they're shutting it down to avoid a massive backlash after being hacked, because otherwise they might steal the crown of "most disreputable Big Tech co" from Facebook, which could begin to affect their stock price much like it has Facebook's.
#2, they are making inroads in every other part of their business sacrificing user privacy for nebulous features/benefits. See the recent debacle over Chrome auto-sign in. They basically tried to change the definition of Chrome from "it's a browser" to "it's Google" without anybody noticing.
Not particularly consistent with a company ostensibly moving away from a business model relying on targeted advertising.
The median Googler works there for something like 1.1 years, and gets recruited straight out of college. Combine this with the fact that Larry Page almost immediately abdicated after being handed back the reins from Eric Schmidt around this time, and a lot of other influential old timers like Marissa Mayer are long gone, it's no small wonder, I guess, that the sensibilities and follow-through of early Google are dead.
This is a ridiculous claim and should be discarded without sources. Do you have any?
It would have been better if they had competitors to keep them honest.
Kind of describes Google Wave in a sense - private collaboration and passionate users. But it couldn't expand out of that niche set of users/use-cases.
This was a case where a very large number of Googlers tried to advise leadership on some of its more boneheaded decisions and had to work overtime to deal with the problems and fallout.
For many, Google search reduced to a search engine for Wikipedia and StackOverflow and a couple of other big sites. This poses a long-term threat for search.
The fairly small number of people I know who are Googlers or Xooglers are all pretty awesome as techies and as people. That does little to change my opinion of Google itself. Sometimes it makes me even more cynical, thinking that management might take special care in internal messaging lest the rank-and-file revolt.
But from my perspective, from the outside, what Google does as a company is what counts for me and for society. All the good people inside don't ameliorate the external behavior of the company.
The rank-and-file are extremely well compensated, with cash, with stock, with on-the-job perks. Why would they bite the hand that feeds them? A lot of people will put up with incredible violations of their principles before they'll risk losing a comfortable position.
Trying it at all after realizing it was not going to be complete. I think the unified account was an all-or-nothing strategy, and they met with early resistance from every dedicated user silo on all of their previously very separate products.
But instead of launching some big unified account thing to really force Google+, they did a kind of half-assed thing. Some accounts migrated and auto-signed up, there were some weird account-links, people had multiple accounts (youtube, gmail) etc etc. They backed out, pandered, etc. It was an absolute shit-show from the perspective of a power user.
If someone would have had the prescience to say "our products are too silod for a successful merger" at the onset, and then either spent 5 years slowly breaking down those silos FIRST, or just tearing the walls down AT ALL, it might have worked.
The next big social network -- the one that turns Facebook into MySpace 2.0 -- will be one that lets users maintain not just multiple 'circles' but multiple identities. I don't just want to separate what my parents see from what my coworkers see, or separate what my (hypothetical) friends from church see from what my (hypothetical) fellow members at the local underground S&M club see. I want to be different people as far as they're all concerned.
This will scale in interesting ways. For one thing, advertisers will actively benefit from this model because it will let them target individual personae.
The notion of keeping the name you were born with and using it forever, everywhere, is the original "single sign-on" paradigm. To the extent single sign-on, single identity is suboptimal in cyberspace, it will eventually be seen as such in real life. The use of real names online already ranges from a useless practice to a hazardous one, depending on how common or how obscure your name is.
This was a half-arsed attempt at inflating user numbers by counting every user of YouTube as a login to Google+.
This is exactly what made me nope-out of Google+. At the time my gmail account was my primary personal email accoun, everything went there. There was no way I was going to take any chances with it.
What is frustrating with plus though, it was clear from outside Google that the company wasn't completely behind it. It also seems like it was good enough that they could have played with it to find the right recipe. I haven't followed it that closely, but from the outside, it looks like it launched, it didn't achieve facebook-like popularity immediately, they just sort of babysit it for a while and now it's shutting down. I know better, but it doesn't seem like the company tried very hard... Where were the stupid drug dealer games or some kind of fantasy football apps? It was only part social or something.
I think a lot of this is because of Steve Jobs. He did this but was for the most part successful at it. Everyone wants to think they are the next Jobs.
(So: maybe that's an origin. Or perhaps there's something vaguely similar in some Chinese traditions. Or perhaps it's just a common mal-attribution, as there's a tendency in the west to ascribe various highly-figurative or riddle-like pearls of wisdom to "the Chinese", or "the Arabs", or "the Buddhists", etc.)
Funny, that YCs motto is "make something people want".
Underlining this, as part of our Project Strobe audit, we discovered a bug in one of the Google+ People APIs:
Users can grant access to their Profile data, and the public Profile information of their friends, to Google+ apps, via the API.
The bug meant that apps also had access to Profile fields that were shared with the user, but not marked as public.
This data is limited to static, optional Google+ Profile fields including name, email address, occupation, gender and age. (See the full list on our developer site.) It does not include any other data you may have posted or connected to Google+ or any other service, like Google+ posts, messages, Google account data, phone numbers or G Suite content.
We discovered and immediately patched this bug in March 2018. We believe it occurred after launch as a result of the API’s interaction with a subsequent Google+ code change.
We made Google+ with privacy in mind and therefore keep this API’s log data for only two weeks. That means we cannot confirm which users were impacted by this bug. However, we ran a detailed analysis over the two weeks prior to patching the bug, and from that analysis, the Profiles of up to 500,000 Google+ accounts were potentially affected. Our analysis showed that up to 438 applications may have used this API.
We found no evidence that any developer was aware of this bug, or abusing the API, and we found no evidence that any Profile data was misused.
I do believe the problem here is that they didn't disclose it in March or April. Disclosing it six months after the fact does not help trust.
I don't understand why it's being reported as a breach.
It's clear that it failed. It's less clear that the reason is necessarily any of the ones you gave. Every dominant social network has been a walled garden, and, contrariwise, every attempt to create a major social network based around federation and open standards has, so far, failed.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see one succeed, and who knows, maybe Mastodon will overtake Facebook one day, but I don't see any evidence in the Google+ shutdown that suggests that this is the case.
I didn't say "it failed because it didn't do X". They said "... failed to gain developer adoption ....". To that specific point, I contend there is a clear and direct causal link between the decisions they made, and that lack of adoption. Of course I can't prove that in the strictest sense, but it's not hard to see that a lot of (potential) G+ developers kept asking and asking and asking for usable APIs and never got them. Speaking only for myself, as somebody who was initially a G+ fan and might have been inclined to build things on top of G+, I never did so for exactly this reason. Yes,"n=1" and all that, but a lot of other devs were very public with their position on this as well.
Obviously their decision to close it down involved multiple factors, but the lack of developer adoption was specifically called out by Google as one of those factors.
It was a catastrophic misjudgement that killed the platform at birth.
- linking their accounts (yep, bad)
- shuttering Reader (didn't care personally but I really doubt they calculated how much it would cost them in goodwill)
- etc
... and decided to use Google+ the social network as a target for all that frustration.
Google+ was really nice. And I'm gonna miss it.
Twitter? The place where I need to have 5 accounts to avoid spamming someone with things they don't care about?
Facebook? The place that 1.) Tries to make everything everyone puts into it public and 2.) makes large scale data harvesting possible and then say "didn't see that coming" after CA.
I've since been on Whatsapp (until Facebook bought it and destroyed the single reason why I was a walking billboard for it,) and later Telegran (don't like it either and I won't write anything there I cannot comfortably send on a postcard, but at least it is not proven yet that they will mine every ounce of metadata out of my connections and then try to kill me with spam, (including on my 2-factor address like Facebook will).
Mastodon? I don't know. Haven't tried yet. It might be brilliant but when I first heard about it it was presented as a twitter thingy and twitter is one of the more useless services I have a relationship with (of course, this is personal, for everyone who likes twitter that is more power to them I guess.)
They're shutting it down precisely because no one was depending on it. How would anyone depend on a social network without any users?
Them: "We're shutting down X because too few people use it. Also, announcing Y!"
Users: "I'm not using Y. You'll probably shut it down."
[months pass]
Them: "We're shutting down Y because too few people use it."
It did have users. I have no idea the exact number, and clearly it wasn't as many as Facebook, but it wasn't the ghost town people always made it out to be. Some of the Communities were actually quite active.
G+ has been a laughingstock in terms of actual usage numbers for years. Nobody is using it. The fact that it was still supported is amazing. Is Google supposed to support failing products until the end of time?
For a definition of nobody that includes hundreds of millions of active users. Ie, more people than you will ever meet in your lifetime, possibly more than all the people those people will meet in their lifetimes.
No doubt this is a failure for Google.
For comparison, Bing turns over only a twentieth of Google's 60B per year.
Point and laugh if you like, but I'd be happy with considerably less than three billion a year.
But, if they're outside Google, and therefore didn't screw up account merging, real names, search, native apps, etc? Potentially quite a bit longer!
This is, I think, a really key point. It’s debatable to what extent people are willing to try something new (it may be that they’ve soured on social media in general), but it’s certainly true that Facebook has lost a huge amount of trust, and that a company with vision might be able to take advantage of that weakness.
I really liked G+; I even left Facebook for awhile in favour of it. But the great masses didn’t follow, and eventually G+ turned into a wasteland. There was a lot of potential there, IMHO, but it was never really exploited and was ultimately squandered. Very sad.
What? They spent a decade on G+, launched it with much fanfare, annnd it just didn't pan out. Sure, they didn't drive it down Google users' throats as aggressively as they could have (via e.g. Search, Chrome or Gmail) but that really wouldn't have helped them - Facebook didn't grow like that either. Social networks need to grow via organic growth, via word of mouth.
Anyway they're cutting their losses finally instead of indulging in the sunk cost fallacy, I say good riddance. You also mention Maps, Gmail, YouTube and Android but these are all highly popular - and profitable - services and have been since the start.
Social is absolutely the most important space for Google, even more so than cloud. FB is eating up large chunk of their ad money and putting biggest chunk of content out of their reach. For a company out to organize world's information, this is unthinkable. And this is a company with $100B in bank, accumulation of largest talent pool, ability to attract the best. And it's not that FB is perfect and strongest at this point.
There is no "cutting losses" in tech when product category is this important. It takes years of struggle, experimentation, patience and competition to win. They gave up within an year after G+ release, left it on "maintenance mode" and now finally kissing good bye.
To me, Google has lost its charm as company that makes big bets and goes all-in until they win. Now they are company which does half-assed product and if they don't see traction right away, they cut off the oxygen and then just kill it. There is little or no reflections, learning and applying it to do course corrections.
After Larry Page arrived at the scene and flew out to his Caribbean island on extra-extended vacations, the company has failed to produce any big new product category. Eric Schmidt was able to start new product category virtually every year and become undisputed leader in it. That wasn't coincidence or luck but sheer drive to win. For example, in maps they had to invest huge amount of money with multi-year milestones and constant innovations to displace existing players.
Some engineer at Google found a bug in Google Plus that could be used to access private data. The issue was investigated by the security team. They find that no harm was done. Incidents like this happen somewhat regularly at any tech company. Normally nobody thinks twice about it or even thinks about disclosing it to the public.
However, Google wanted to shut down Google Plus and wanted to avoid a backslash like with Google Reader. They used this bug as a pretext. Before Google releases this blog post, the post gets leaked the WSJ. The WSJ then puts a spin on it that Google didn't expect, because the narrative fits well into the current news cycle.
"If you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold."
Network effect is always going to be a problem. But beyond that, Diaspora is pretty functional. And pretty easy to use - the docs make it look a lot more complicated than it is. It isn't as featureful (no galleries, no events/calendars). If all you want to do is post and share, and have the privacy of Google+'s circles, Diaspora will do it for you.
How do you imagine you would spend that much time managing them?
ML suggesting or guessing groups automatically would lessen the requirements of the user, but it was already pretty easy I thought.
They just tapped into one of the basic tenets of the human condition; the desire to be connected to another human.
Does this date to TheFacebook (Harvard)?
So many old apps and services are just forgotten now, it's hard to prove any claim about who stole what idea. Kind of a shame really, so much of our digital history is effectively unknowable and lost forever.
Too bad it failed. I liked g+
In fact including wave buzz and orkut, Google had to date at least 4 abandoned forays into the social market.
I'd go so far as to posit Google:social::Microsoft:mobile
If I just want to chat with friends I might just a well use a messenger with a group chat.
Big part of the reason is that finding the next job after Google is nowhere near a hard problem. Chances are you might even get paid more by the next place.
Source: I'm a Googler that has signed some of these petitions, never got his red lines crossed and is still happy to work here.
You can have semi-multiple identities based on the pages you manage/control, but most sites don't want to make it easy to switch accounts because it could lead to ambiguity to their data.
For example, to use multiple accounts on Reddit, you need either The Reddit Enhancement Suite (RES) plugin or some type of cookie isolator like container tabs in Firefox or multiple browsers. I think you need to do something similar for Twitter (or use a desktop client).
Federated Social networks that use either ActivityPub or OStatus (like Mastodon, Pleroma and GNUSocial) are interesting because you can have independent accounts on multiple instances, and be logged into all of them without browser tricks (since they're all on different domains).
That doesn't make prevent the social network with the same name from being good though, although ironically the fact that it never became as popular as Facebook might have been part of why it stayed so nice for so long.
If hacker news had 100 people working on it, it would need to do some tricks to stay alive.
So far, I'm pretty happy with the "isolated communities with shared identities" model of Slack/Discord. I feel like something that took that model and made it into a social network would be popular. (No, not like Reddit. Picture, say, Tumblr, but you can't reblog something if it's not from your community, instead only being able to create your own original link-post to it that doesn't propagate its interactions back to the community of the post it links to. So you have one shared piece of Original Content, but each community has its own sandboxed graph of likes and shares and comments and other interactions built around that Original Content.)
You mean IRC?
No one would directly attempt to be evil, it'd just turn out that way.
“The truly terrible thing is that everybody has their reasons.” ― Jean Renoir
There are lots of other sites competing for attention, and to sacrifice a good UX would be shortsighted, especially with all the “FB is dead” comments people have been making the last few years.
"Lard it up with debt, fire down to a skeleton-crew and stop all maintenance" sounds bad, like you're killing the company or something. "Unlocking value", hey, doesn't that sound better?
Similarly, "Let's get rich creating the second-coming of AOL by building a tacky nextgen panopticon" doesn't sound that great. "Creating a community of technical greats to bring people together and foster blah blah blah", while a completely bullshit nothing-statement, seems to shift focus off of the surveillance capitalism. For a bit.
Eventually, though, if you make your living sniffing other peoples' panties, eventually they notice and they take measures to limit your access to their laundry. FB and Google are both blocked entirely by IP at my gateway (along with a bunch of other surveillance shops), and the internet at home is so much nicer than what I see other people putting up with.
Really? Especially a FB PM you mean? Because PMs otherwise have been known to use exactly such techniques and worse:
Some low level PM was tasked with optimizing time-on-site. They had some negative user feedback, but it didn't show up in their low sample UR and segmented rollout. Since they had good results in their primary success metrics and the secondary metrics did not tell a consistent story, they rolled it out to 100%. Any negative feedback from there was chalked up to change aversion among a small segment of users.
See the Sean Parker interview: https://www.axios.com/sean-parker-unloads-on-facebook-god-on...
Increasing "time spent" means spreading out relevant posts. I'm sure that Facebook is tuned to optimize for some combination of "time spent without drop-off in engagement". This is a "Good" version of the algorithm because it nets them the most revenue, while still fulfilling the need for the larger user base.
It's milkshake marketing[0]. People don't want the most efficient method of content consumption. That's why most "feeds" are no longer chronological. People on Facebook want to scroll around, look at posts, comment on articles, like a few things, etc. for X minutes/day without seeing things they've seen before, and without seeing things that are boring.
The job-to-be-done isn't to consume a certain relevant piece of content, it's to waste time and not get too bored.
[0] https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/clay-christensens-milkshake-marke...
The thing to realize is that there's not actually a functional difference between that and the "numbers-driven" guy you describe. Evil isn't just the sadistic maniac; it's the affable businessman who doesn't care, doesn't even consider, whether his product helps people or hurts them, so long as it maximizes profit.
Someone else posted an interview with the former president of Facebook, and it's pretty enlightening: https://www.axios.com/sean-parker-unloads-on-facebook-god-on...
I thought g+ circles was a great idea, the reddit webdesign circle taught me I don't care about all of your kids.
The problem is in managing the people in these lists. I haven't found a place where it shows all users I have in a single list. Adding or removing a single user is easy though, as the available lists are available for selection/deselection anywhere you're allowed to change your friend status with that person.
But if you're truly disciplined about this, you never learn that your second cousin is interested in quilting too.
And in many scenarios, there is little reward to being disciplined; unless you're into rather transgressive quilting, you'll probably share your quilting projects with everyone.
The combination of circles and collections is very powerful, though the way G+ implemented it, they do overlap a bit, and don't entirely play well together. Slightly more flexible collections would help a lot.
AB Inbev, et al isn't targeting a niche by buying microbrews, they're building a portfolio that gives them access to growing and profitable craft brew market that's 1/4th of the total US beer market.
Retail dollar sales of craft increased 8%, up to $26.0 billion,
and now account for more than 23% of the $111.4 billion U.S. beer market.
Google isn’t really in the business of filling small niches. That’s why they kill so many products that have small but passionate user bases. It’s just not worth their time and money so they shut the products down. This is why I can’t see them trying to start with a small social media niche and slowly expand to a bigger market. It’s a great idea; but seems to go against everything they do.
I really admire Apple here a lot more than Google. They seem to have a stronger sense of who they are and who they are not.
My take is, they were justified in going for it, but it’s simply not in their DNA. Social information is different from the non-human information where Google dominates (eg search, maps, etc).
I do share your admiration for Apple vs Google. But I wonder how long they will be able to keep it up without a Jobsian product visionary to define their identity. Tim Cook is doing a good job so far but there is only so long they can coast on iPhone dominance and strong operations. Apple’s identity revolves around defining the future, and I’m not sure they still have that ability.
...right. Hence, them finally “admitting defeat” which you objected to for some reason in your previous comment.
My entire life workflow is screwed if it doesn't.
Google+ came out, if you'll remember, at the time that Page became CEO again and pivoted the company's direction away from standards and more towards product. In the case of social that clearly failed. In the case of Android it did not.
It would be fun to spend some time doing a more detailed analysis of the whole thing, including all of that historical context, but I don't have the time right now.
I disagree with the GGP (I think) about Facebook wanting you to wade throw a river of crap so you stumble on ads. Their ads have been spot on to my interests so far.
I think an onioned version of Google plus circles could help Facebok influence the AI without preventing discovery.
But TBH, had G+ really been a contender at this point? This sounds like the creak of an abandoned house by now.
The killer feature with circles is being able to post different things to different audiences IMHO, which Facebook can't do without different accounts.
And I want it simple and easy to understand and use, even for non-techies, such that it "just works". And a pony.
I never got the whole circles thing as a unique selling point... like that functionality existed in Facebook beforehand and the reason people didn't use it much is simply because for a personal social media it's not that useful. I've used it maybe a handful of times in 10 years.
I mean I guess maybe because circles are a nicer design concept?
Though let’s be honest here - anything you post on Facebook (or any other social media) you should assume is public, regardless of privacy controls.
Mine is set to "All Friends" except "DoNotShow" and there's about 3 people on my "DoNotShow" list.
Have also excluded family for a few posts.
IIRC, Facebook never really promoted those features or tried to make them easy and intuitive to use. Recently they've also made changes to make them less useful.
It's sort of like difference between having a well-designed and usable feature or a similar feature that only exists to check off a checkbox.
I remember Facebook having it first; this blog post (https://jessicavitak.com/2011/09/01/facebooks-circles-how-to...) confirms that.
At the same time, the minimalism pervaded the rest of the platform. Instead of giving its users reason to spend time on G+, the site seemed to expect for people to entertain themselves. As such, there was little that drove more activity, connected people, and gave reason to spend time to understand all the features.
One thing I misremembered. There was a serious issue with marketing. They didn't open up to the public for several months. By that time a lot of the hype died down.
If Google had pivoted 180 degrees and offered up a full featured social network with pseudonyms and, like, one other twist so that it wasn't just Myspace, then there's a reason to care about Google+. LinkedIn is facebook for professional identity... There have to be other identities not shown on Facebook that google could have gone after.
So when I got to joining what did it present? Welcome - connect to some famous people. Now add your friends. Not one mention of interests, and I'm not sure they even mentioned circles. So everyone joining was being presented a picture of Facebook.
I didn't last long.
But there was simply not much to do, contrary to what you'd expect with all the other Google services available.
I was still very high on Facebook kool aid at that time. It may have had a bad rep to some people, but this sentiment was years away from reaching people like me.
Note that I am about as much of a Facebook insider as possible without actually having worked there. I personally know most of their top execs, Zuck interviewed me in 2007, turned down a PM offer to join Bebo but stayed close with a number of them for years. I would have loved to be filthy rich with those options, but if I had joined I would feel guilty for the destruction I contributed to.
I think the bigger issue here us that Google did not report the vulnerability/breach when they discovered it. This could be looked into by SEC.
Google are unable to prove there was no breach because they didn't keep sufficient logs, which is also not acceptable in modern security practice.
No it isn't.
If every vulnerability in every product turned into a "We've been breached" disclosure the industry would be a disaster.
Yeah, they didn't keep sufficient logs and they fucked up really badly there. Still silly to call it a breach.
Everybody thought social growth was critical (5 years ago, everybody thought Facebook would eat Google due to growth in mobile ads), but it turned out that social growth was not necessary, instead maximizing watch time on youtube and maximizing app installs in Play both turned out to be far more important. Google isn't worried about Facebook like they used to be- they're worried about Amazon and Apple.
> "The consumer version of Google+ currently has low usage and engagement: 90% of Google+ user sessions are less than five seconds."
While i'm sure power law applies, 5 seconds is a hilariously low amount of engagement for the 90%
For active users, Google+ is basically the hub from which they strike out to the rest of the Web.
Their only advantage to Facebook groups was more natural (temporal, not recommended) sorting of data.
Some Linux kernel devs IIRC (I do not hang there).
Some local people.
One user I followed who was very into clean energy solutions.
Gardening (vegetables, chilies, general).
Ham radio.
The thing I never saw on Google+ was politics (I guess it is there but I never looked for it and never found it : )
I have friends who will post photos, and I'll love for FB to detect that they often post single photos, and allow me to subscribe to just those. Even if it means relying on FB's algorithms deciding what posts make the cut.
The same goes for friends who will occasionally post blog-style stuff. While I'd prefer it if they actually blogged, being able to go to their profile and getting a FB-suggested 'type' of post to subscribe to would be peachy.
Other algorithmic suggestions I can imagine: - the friend who consistently posts great links to longer-form journalistic articles - the friend who posts mostly 'funny comics/pics', but actually funny ones - the friend who seems to know half the town and diligently clicks 'interested/going' for events that I am also interested in. - and the above possibly with an option to drill down and get more specific suggestions (I'm sure FB could segment the events at least by a crude party/political dimension. - the family member who posts all sorts of weird crap, but also the interesting family-related updates. It can't be that difficult to detect which of their posts are the family updates (and perhaps there could be a 'suggest category/tag/whatever' feature so that my dad can diligently mark these updates (which I know he would!).
With the above, or even a crude version of it, I could see myself browsing FB quite a bit, and I wouldn't mind the occasional sponsored post (which could be targeted specifically to the feed/mood I'm in).
I'm sure there's a lot I'm missing about all this, but I feel moderately confident that FB is not doing this, not because of particularly good reasons, but because they're stuck in a particular 'mode' and a bit too conservative about it (shortsighted advertising). I can't tell if this is just because they're a big corporation at this point, or because of 'SV incentives', or going public, or whatever else.
The milk is still in the back, along with perishable juices. The difference between them and the aisles is that processed foods (frozen dinners, vegetables, snacks, brand name yogurt & cheese, ice cream, breakfasts) are all located near the front of the store, while fresh ones (milk, meat, fish) are located at the back, and perishable-but-non-refrigerated goods (fresh fruits & vegetables) are off to the back & side. So it really seems like a deliberate attempt to put the items you would buy frequently as far away from the door as possible, and make you walk through the goods that you might stock up on on impulse.
Although, maybe that's an argument for putting it by the checkout lines instead, which I suppose are by the entrance. Hm.
And are you sure milk needs to be stocked from behind? Is it at the back of the store because it needs to be stocked from behind - or is it stocked from behind simply because its at the back of the store?
Plus with thing like milk, it is a real pain to push several gallons uphill to put something else in front (ever try to put a milk container back on the sloped shelf? Takes a couple hands and some fidgeting to do it).
The distance from bay to fridge plus fridge to the exit is the same wherever it goes.
For example, in Aldi stores, the milk is usually kept quite near the entrance, along with the kind of things you'd keep in the fridge (butter, cheese, etc) and the bread. In the likes of MS and Waitrose, it's usually somewhere near the side of the store, not too far from the entrance but past the fruit and vegetables. Same sort of deal with Tesco, Sainsburys, etc. Smaller convenience stores are usually just kind of random.
Nah, if you want real exploitative design, note how many shops are designed to draw out your shopping time as much as possible, by having a nice Z pattern that 'encourages' you to trudge through the whole store before ending up at the checkout. I think in that sense, most over here seem to have taken inspiration from the likes of Ikea or Costco more than anything else.
There's also the obvious 'fake sale' dark pattern, as well as the 'move everything round every few weeks to disorientate regular customers' one.
Costco certainly doesn't Costco has aisles, and sections for each major product category. IKEA has a "tour the store" design which is nice for a store you browse because you want something for every section (room in your house). You can go directly where you want if you know what you want.
In the US, Trader Joe's does this.
The funny thing is that while it's obviously synergetic, up to 2012 it was a Urs' toy project on the back-burner. It was mostly run from SEA/KIR with MTV leadership largely oblivious. There were gems like this, for example: once they forgot to cover cloud organization in the company OKR meetings broadcasted to all employees :) Only when they realized that external clouds grow so fast that Big G can loose it's preferential access to volume discounts GCP suddenly became the priority (to detriment of TI, which now largely is after-thought).
I'm convinced that Google going to cloud too late is going to be seen in history books in the same light as Microsoft/IE fiasco.
Please don't do this. It's alienating for people not in your gang.
But I only have those conversations with a small number of people, so I can't argue against Google's usage conclusions.
I use and enjoy G+ more than Facebook, and I have no interest in Twitter. I probably just won't have those conversations anymore =\
- contextual ads OK with me, particularly if they are inline and not third party
- or a small yearly fee for no ads
- same features as Google+
- create the API that Google+ always lacked
- I and a lot of others don't really care about E2E for that kind of conversations so just don't data mine us, don't follow us around the web and don't sell out to Facebook and we should be fine.
But I'm gonna miss it. I haven't been too active the last few months so I guess I might be to blame too (but then again I've not been active anywhere else either lately except here).
Where else do you go to meet people who share interests in a more general sense? HN doesn't care about photography. Twitter doesn't allow me to chose to see someones photos but not their crazy posts about politics. Facebook... well, don't even mention it. It's less than a week since last time they let hackers access theirs users accounts, and even if they had a perfect security record wrt hacking, it seems they just can't stand the temptation to abuse data: change settings, do experiments on users to make them depressed, abuse 2-fator phone numbers for spamming, ask people to upload nudes - many of us couldn't make this up even if we tried..!
But it is too limited (Google+ lets you write and cite text posts etc.)
Also while I originally liked it I think it is too heavily tied into Facebook now.
I use their mail, as a backup, their maps, and search engine. But I'd think long and hard before I developed against one of their services, or came to rely upon any future-project they released.
For me it was Reader, and that was the only time. and yeah, i'm still a little salty about it. But every company shuts things down - google can't keep all their dead and unused failures running forever, and Google+ was obviously deserving of a shutdown.
"i don't trust google because they shut down things nobody uses" isn't really a rational complaint.
The new GMail is also helping me with that.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17848500/google-inbox-shu...
Since external-facing cloud projects have very simple and transparent metrics (unlike internal TI projects), Cloud/TI organization mostly concentrates on cloud projects nowadays.
If memory serves this was the PA (Product Area) originally responsible for GCP before Cloud became its own PA. But TI was headed by Urs and is responsible for the internal Google infrastructure (Colossus, BigTable, Spanner, etc).
I would bet on consumer psychology over logistics here.
Logistics: because then you don't need rear access to the cooler shelves. That's square footage that you can better use in other ways. (In school I worked in a supermarket that put dairy in the beer/soda cooler, and we stocked it from the back.)
Milk is heavy. It's stocked onto shelves slightly angled forward so the remaining stock slides to the front for ease of reach. This need isn't generally applicable, or desireable, for other refrigerated/frozen foods.
I know that I had to cope with some changes to their map-pricing recently too - so I moved to an alternative (easy to manage since I was using leaflet.js as a wrapper).
Rightly or wrongly though I now have the impression that their APIs/Services are not likely to remain.
Facebook insiders have admitted that it is. Mike Allen, Facebook's first president, said this in an interview:
“The thought process was all about, ‘How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?’,” he said. “And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever, and that’s going to get you to contribute more content, and that’s going to get you more likes and comments. It’s a social validation feedback loop. … You’re exploiting a vulnerabilty in human psychology.”
So that underscores their general attitude towards user behavior. The 'every once in a while' piece applies to the newsfeed too - it's designed to keep you searching for things you care about, and they carefully mix in things you don't, so that you're never too satisfied or unsatisfied, just constantly craving more.
Source (a slightly clickbaity-looking place, go at your own risk): https://www.axios.com/sean-parker-unloads-on-facebook-god-on...
Does that give it less weight or more weight? It's hard to see what you were going for here.
That quote reminds me of Louis CK's interview with Conan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HbYScltf1c) where he says about mobile phones:
"You never feel completely sad or completely happy, you just feel kinda satisfied with your product... and then you die."
There's almost always at least a software developer (or technical person of some sort) calling out "Hey, are you sure we should rank by $X? It will have this edge case in situations $Y and $X?". Usually they get steamrolled by a "product" person who's invented some new terminology for whatever shady shit they are pushing now. "It's just growth hacking" "complimentary contextually relevant ads will improve the user experience".
People know. They always know. They just choose to feign ignorance when they get busted.
There's been hand-wringing about Youtube funnelling users to extremist content, and it always comes to down to "the algorithm" as if there's nothing that can be done about it.
Someone had to choose to implement the algorithm. Someone had to choose the metrics it was optimized to meet. Someone had to go, "Children are being drawn to extremist videos after watching PewDiePie and that's okay."
It's also why Twitter wants to 'curate' your timeline, instead of simply displaying tweets from people you follow in temporal order.
I've given up every platform that forwent the chronological timeline because other feed algorithms are just frustrating, and Twitter is the only one I miss.
I've turned off the "show best tweets first" option, and I stick with using Tweetbot. But, like most people seem to indicate here, about Facebook (which I don't use at all), my continued use hangs by a thread. It wouldn't take much for me to cancel my account. Again.
As far as I can tell, Twitter doesn't hide anything from, instead showing me tweets from people I don't follow.
Other networks I watch, they still do the same thing. On the NHL Network, you'll see a story about a big trade coming up and they will continue to shuffle it down during commercial breaks until its one of the last stories they cover before the end of the broadcast. It's the same thing with highlights. You'll see your team's game in the left hand column like they're about to show the highlights. Come back from a commercial break and suddenly two more stories have shifted above your local team's highlights. Same thing with several ESPN shows like PTI (Pardon the Interruption).
It can be incredibly frustrating to watch sometimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planogram
You always want dairy and fruits/vegetables on opposite sides of the store since they’re perishable, hence they get purchased the most often, and you want people to walk past all the other aisles every time.
You enter into the comment section and it's automatically sorted by Controversial. At least that's how I see it.
If it were all about sales, then I could buy widgets for $100 a unit, sell them for $50 a unit, and call it a success.
Obviously positioning matters too (hence all the garbage food at checkout), but I wouldn't by default assume that this is the case, and especially not the only driver, behind dairy placement.
He talks about how at the time they really didn't foresee the foreboding future implications of what they were trying to build at the time.
And just like a Slot Machine you are always left wanting to come back to play some more and even if you do your best to quit facebook, you are always being constantly reminded that of its existence everywhere you go.
> This has been the MO of mass entertainment since the gladiators fought the lions.
Absolutely.
Lots of early proto-social media companies were already doing things like that back in the 90s. Like when AOL was king and "You've Got Mail!" was a household catchphrase and featured in their marketing. They knew that people were thrilled to get stuff from other people.
Probably the most obvious and recent antecedent to gamefied social media would be, uh, well, games. There were a few decades of ideas to cherry pick from the game world.
Edit: brevity
Although I think the reaction continues and we can't tell exactly what's happening even now.
not quite concerned enough to give back the
millions of dollars they earned
Or do you think they should just get rid of the money, K Foundation style, regardless of whether doing so would reverse the effects of the work they did to earn it?