U
User 189
Guest
U
User.191
Guest
Don't think the lack of anonymous access initially was the issue as Facebook still make that very very hard even today.
Circles though were most definitely confusing and did nothing to compel anyone. Also the columnar nature I think also didn't help. In the end it felt very impersonal and therefore most folk stayed away.
Added to this was the spectacular own goal that Google scored when they initially decided to force EVERYONE to have a Google+ account if they had a Google account. Given that was their initial answer to 'anonymous access' it rubbed a large proportion of the audience the wrong way.
There was another platform that I cannot remember the name of now that was around at the same time that I thought could have been a winner, but it faded into obscurity and was eventually shut down 4-5 years ago. At least that felt like it could have been a happy medium between Facebook and Google.
Circles though were most definitely confusing and did nothing to compel anyone. Also the columnar nature I think also didn't help. In the end it felt very impersonal and therefore most folk stayed away.
Added to this was the spectacular own goal that Google scored when they initially decided to force EVERYONE to have a Google+ account if they had a Google account. Given that was their initial answer to 'anonymous access' it rubbed a large proportion of the audience the wrong way.
There was another platform that I cannot remember the name of now that was around at the same time that I thought could have been a winner, but it faded into obscurity and was eventually shut down 4-5 years ago. At least that felt like it could have been a happy medium between Facebook and Google.
U
User 189
Guest
For a while, you needed a Google+ account in order to comment on YouTube videos. Google+ was sort of like the "Windows Phone" of social networks. Everybody hated it because of something else and nobody used it. Google+ failed to differentiate itself from Facebook and Twitter because nobody was using the exclusive features that Google+ had.
MeWe? YikYak?
MeWe: The best chat & group app with privacy you trust.
Brilliant features with no BS. No Ads. No Spyware. MeWe is the Next-Gen Social Network.
mewe.com
U
User.191
Guest
For a while, you needed a Google+ account in order to comment on YouTube videos. Google+ was sort of like the "Windows Phone" of social networks. Everybody hated it because of something else and nobody used it. Google+ failed to differentiate itself from Facebook and Twitter because nobody was using the exclusive features that Google+ had.
View attachment 7503
MeWe? YikYak?
MeWe: The best chat & group app with privacy you trust.
Brilliant features with no BS. No Ads. No Spyware. MeWe is the Next-Gen Social Network.
Nope, wasn't that - need to hunt it down because it's bothering me now not remembering!
U
User.191
Guest
Found it. It was Path!For a while, you needed a Google+ account in order to comment on YouTube videos. Google+ was sort of like the "Windows Phone" of social networks. Everybody hated it because of something else and nobody used it. Google+ failed to differentiate itself from Facebook and Twitter because nobody was using the exclusive features that Google+ had.
View attachment 7503
MeWe? YikYak?
MeWe: The best chat & group app with privacy you trust.
Brilliant features with no BS. No Ads. No Spyware. MeWe is the Next-Gen Social Network.
Path (social network) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Wasn't Google+ invite only at first? I think they shot themselves in the foot with that. Just because that strategy worked really well with Gmail doesn't mean it will work with everything. And then yes, there was the whole privacy concerns, especially with forcing you to have a Google+ account for Youtube and forcing you to use your real name.
U
User 189
Guest
I've never heard of it before. This is the first image that came up when I searched for it on Google.
This is the part that interested me the most (it's worth mentioning that Google+ was launched in 2011).
U
User.191
Guest
It had a nice UI - but it was mobile only so that probably didn't help it. IIRC it also limited you to the number of followers and had no advertising and a paid for option for more features.I've never heard of it before. This is the first image that came up when I searched for it on Google.
View attachment 7515
This is the part that interested me the most (it's worth mentioning that Google+ was launched in 2011).
View attachment 7517
Real shame it vanished - I really liked it myself.
U
User 189
Guest
They didn't have a web version for computers? That explains a lot...
Actually, does anybody remember Google's first attempt at social media? Orkut?
The "invite only" period lasted for a short amount of time. Google couldn't handle the traffic.
Google+ invites shut down after 'insane demand'
Interest in Google's new social networking service has exceeded not only the company's expectations but its ability to keep up with demand. For now, it's not allowing new users to join.
So no, I don't think the "invite only" period harmed Google+ whatsoever. If anything, Google expected there to be a lot of demand beforehand. Their expectations were significantly exceeded.
They eventually changed that too (in July 2014).
Nymwars - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Privacy options were available in Google+ while it was still around.
Google+ Privacy: 5 Settings You Need to Know
Whether you're lurking around Google's new social network or are already actively using it, knowing your Google+ privacy and security settings is essential. From disabling email notifications to ditching your Google+ account, check out these five important settings.
www.cio.com
Here is a little snippet.
It was the "invite only" at first that did them in. People got tired of waiting to be invited. I can't remember how I got an invite but I created one...but then no one I knew had one so I got bored with it pretty quickly.
We need something to replace Trashbook.
We need something to replace Trashbook.
Eric
Mama's lil stinker
I think they tried to compete with FB and failed, outside of being just another platform and hooking up with your gmail what did they really bring as a game changer? I also agree the long drawn out invite process played a role as well.
U
User 189
Guest
How long was Google+ an "invite only" platform?
Google+ had a number of unique features.
Google+ - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
U
User 189
Guest
Path actually looks really cool. I wish I had known about it earlier!
Last edited by a moderator:
This is exactly what happened. Once you finally got in, no one you knew was also on it so people just forgot about it.
Google+ did have good timing in the fact that a lot of people were looking for Facebook alternatives at the time, but because of the invite only thing, it killed it.
U
User 189
Guest
I don't remember the "invite only" period lasting that long though.
It was long enough to impact its popularity. It should have never been invite only, even for a short period of time.
How long was Google+ an "invite only" platform?
Google+ had a number of unique features.
Google+ - Wikipedia
I don't remember how long it was, but it was long enough for people to lose interest.
U
User 189
Guest
During the launch of Google+ back in June 2011, how was Google supposed to manage the massive amount of traffic that they rightfully expected?
I just did some research and found out that Google+ was opened to the public "later in the year" during the same year when it first launched. Google+ wasn't shut down until April 2019, so I can't imagine that the "invite only" system was an actual issue.
Russell Jackson
Russell Jackson
Looks interesting!
