Google+ Opinions?

djfunz

Interested in discussing the addition of a new fighter in the social networking world. What does everyone think of the search engine giant taking on the social networking giant? I personally like the idea because it introduces a bit of competition. Now that Myspace is officially being buried by being sold to an advertising company, I think it's nice to see a fresh face in the game to give Mark Zuckerberg a run for his money.

Here's the link:

The Google+ Project

DevilWAH

I would like to see it take of.. And before people say face book has to much of an avantage and people will never leave.

Remember Myspace at one point we the hip place to be, and non one would bleive that face book would ever make inroads in to it...

I am not a face book usr really my self, but I would like to see this survie, it would be good to have two players in the social networking world. If enouhg people get on board with Google, then face book might eventuly have to open up there service to allow 3rd parties to share data (much like yahoo chat clint and MSN messenger can now talk to each other)

I would love to be able to have a face book account, but still talk to Google+ friends or any other social network sites that might be around.

As long as face book remains so dominate though there is not reason for them to do this. So for this reason if no other I would like Google+ to succeed.

jtoast

I hate facebook but have a page simply because friends and family bitched until I made one. It sits unused. I applied to Google + but haven't gotten an invite yet. I'm curious.

EuclidJones

I'm interested in how "Circles" will work. If you can selectively share different things to different people, I might actually use social networking.

As it is, I like my privacy. I don't need my coworkers or distant relatives knowing every facet of my life.

NOC-Ninja

I want Google to eat facebook for breakfast.

tiersten

Google+ has promise but it'll be difficult to get the majority of people to shift away from Facebook and/or Tumblr. Its got a few rough edges regarding integration with other services like Buzz but I expect Buzz to eventually get dropped since Google+ does everything Buzz does but better.

EuclidJones wrote: »

I'm interested in how "Circles" will work. If you can selectively share different things to different people, I might actually use social networking.

As it is, I like my privacy. I don't need my coworkers or distant relatives knowing every facet of my life.

Thats how Circles work. You can share stuff to the public or specific circles. So photos of you partying can stay restricted to your friend circle and your family and work circles won't see it. Stuff for work can go into the work circle and you won't bore anybody else with it etc...

I got an account a couple days ago but I'm unable to generate any invites currently. Google have said that this ability gets turned on and off randomly without warning. What you need to do is get a post tagged with your email address and then you'll get the email with it. That email will let you sign up assuming sign ups are enabled.

Lizano

Did I hear somebody say Umbrella Corporation? or was it Skynet?

hiddenknight821

I honestly think it's a stupid move for Google to jump into the social networking game now since we have Facebook and Twitter dominating already. Why bother trying to make people switch. I'm pleased with what I have, and I don't feel like creating another account. I don't use multiple search engines, so why bother with Yahoo and Bing when I am already comfortable with Google. So the same goes for my social network preference. Does that makes sense to you?

The only way I can see Google+ win if they actually have majority of Facebook users that have gmail accounts. As long as Google+ remains collaborative with all other "G-apps" such as gmail, docs, calendars, search engine and so forth. I mean people would like the idea of one click, and then the next thing you know is that you can use all those services simultaneously without switching tabs/browsers or signing off. I can see that Google Apps for Education would get interesting. My only concern with Google is the privacy issue, and I already gave away my information in my gmail accounts (including Education gmails), but not sure if I want to give in more information with Google+.

tiersten

hiddenknight821 wrote: »

I honestly think it's a stupid move for Google to jump into the social networking game now since we have Facebook and Twitter dominating already. Why bother trying to make people switch. I'm pleased with what I have, and I don't feel like creating another account. I don't use multiple search engines, so why bother with Yahoo and Bing when I am already comfortable with Google. So the same goes for my social network preference. Does that makes sense to you?

Same reason why Facebook started. Why would you bother making a social networking site when you could use Myspace? Or Friendster? If its the next big thing then people will switch. Yahoo was the king of search engines back then but Google came along with some new ideas and new technology to take over.

hiddenknight821 wrote: »

My only concern with Google is the privacy issue, and I already gave away my information in my gmail accounts (including Education gmails), but not sure if I want to give in more information with Google+.

If I'm going to give my details to somebody then I'd prefer it go to Google than Facebook. Both have made some dubious decisions in the past but the stuff Facebook has done is considerably worse. Saying Google is the lesser of two evils is a pretty weak argument but I'd still consider Google to be significantly more trustworthy than Facebook.

There are a lot of people who are disillusioned with Facebook and rarely use it or have completely stopped using it. Google are hoping to encourage them to switch over.

djfunz

tiersten wrote: »

Thats how Circles work. You can share stuff to the public or specific circles. So photos of you partying can stay restricted to your friend circle and your family and work circles won't see it. Stuff for work can go into the work circle and you won't bore anybody else with it etc...

I really like this idea. I grow tired of every Tom Dick and Harry "friend requesting" me or particular individuals spamming me with their daily journal through postings. I would like to add an acquaintances circle so I can spam block half of the completely useless or uninteresting info from them.

Lizano wrote: »

Did I hear somebody say Umbrella Corporation? or was it Skynet?

I thought the same thing earlier today. Google is really trying to be the jack of all trades. Sometimes that can bite a corporation in the butt though. Anybody remember Ed Hardy? Christian Audigier thought he could pump every fathomable form of Ed Hardy merchandise down the consumers throats and where did that company end up? I see Ed Hardy shirts that went for $200 in the $20 bargain bin these days. Tommy Hilfiger and Ralph Lauren have a different approach and it keeps them fresh and in fashionable. I'm rooting for Google but they have to be careful.

hiddenknight821

tiersten wrote: »

Same reason why Facebook started. Why would you bother making a social networking site when you could use Myspace? Or Friendster? If its the next big thing then people will switch. Yahoo was the king of search engines back then but Google came along with some new ideas and new technology to take over.

You're right. I remember the day Yahoo was the beast in the game, but at the same time, they were so limited. They did not pull out much results as Google. I remember when I had Yahoo, I tried to find the answer, then I figured I can give Google a try, and there I got the answers I wanted. Before broadband and dual-core processors became a common place, innovators were pretty much limited by the technology we have back then. Google has the advantage over Yahoo (I dunno how).

Myspace and Facebook is a completely different discussion. I would probably stay on Myspace if it wasn't for the bloated HTML/CSS profiles and fake profile names rather than real names. Facebook and Myspace are clearly different from each other, and I can see why Facebook has the advantage. I like how I get updates from the people that I interacts with and I can see their real names rather than trying to figure out who the heck it was behind the alias. Myspace is really for immature kids in my opinion.

Today we have search engines that practically gives same results, we have social network sites that are pretty much similar to each other (I revisited myspace a year ago and I can see they were desperate enough to copy off Facebook a little). So what gives? That's why I thought it was stupid unless Google+ is suppose to blow us out of the water. If not, then don't bother creating the same thing.

Forsaken_GA

hiddenknight821 wrote: »

I honestly think it's a stupid move for Google to jump into the social networking game now since we have Facebook and Twitter dominating already. Why bother trying to make people switch. I'm pleased with what I have, and I don't feel like creating another account.

If you ever decide to run your own company, reconsider it. With this attitude, nothing would ever get done.

If you think you can do better than the competition, you go out and put out a product. If you have some good ideas, and implement them, then it was probably worth doing - if I introduce some cool new feature, and Facebook implements it because they're worried about losing people to me, then I've improved service all around. Obviously, my intention isn't to make the competition better, but even if my business fails, i've made a contribution.

The entirety of advancement of human history has come because of people trying to step over each other. Were you around when Yahoo was dominating the search market? Who remembers Alta Vista? Why should Google have tried to step into that realm, we already had search giants!

The fact that Facebook is so huge makes them a PERFECT target. Your entire target audience is consolidated in one place, so you only have to beat out one competitor. This is an infinitely more preferable position to be in than having to deal with a saturated market (for example, video games).

hiddenknight821

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

If you think you can do better than the competition, you go out and put out a product. If you have some good ideas, and implement them, then it was probably worth doing - if I introduce some cool new feature, and Facebook implements it because they're worried about losing people to me, then I've improved service all around. Obviously, my intention isn't to make the competition better, but even if my business fails, i've made a contribution.

I do not intend on running a business someday, but I was just a little annoyed with how they are trying to monopolize everything. They got their web browsers, search engines, operating systems, and many other things. Why do they have to step here? I think they're gonna be like Microsoft and AT&T. I think they should continue to try to improve their Wave application rather than risking a failed project. If it's what it takes for them to keep on thriving, then be it. I think they can come up with something else other than jumping into this social network game.

SteveLord

As long as I can continue to do the following, I will hop aboard the Google bandwagon.


-Tell people what and where I am eating every 4hrs,
-Tell people how I hate work,
-Tell people how much I hate Mondays
-Tell people how I am so excited on Thursdays, because Friday comes after
-Tell people how I am so excited on Fridays because it is Friday
-Make "is feeling sad" posts. So I can go into attention-whore mode and have people start talking to me.
-post pictures of myself holding an alcoholic beverage every weekend. With most of the pictures being 3-4 duplicate takes of the same picture.
-Take surveys about which member of Jersey Shore I am most related to
-Become a victim to LikeJacking because I am such a gullible fool when it comes to videos possibly showing something scandalous involving Justin Bieber.

Forsaken_GA

hiddenknight821 wrote: »

I do not intend on running a business someday, but I was just a little annoyed with how they are trying to monopolize everything. They got their web browsers, search engines, operating systems, and many other things. Why do they have to step here? I think they're gonna be like Microsoft and AT&T. I think they should continue to try to improve their Wave application rather than risking a failed project. If it's what it takes for them to keep on thriving, then be it. I think they can come up with something else other than jumping into this social network game.

Well, Google's not a one-trick pony. Part of the Google culture is that they give their people time to pursue their own projects, and some of them turn into full blow services. That's not a bad culture. Their people are going to be working on this stuff anyway, and if you get a marketable product out of it, why not try and bring it to market? From what I've been understanding, Google+ is basically the next improved iteration of Buzz

DevilWAH

hiddenknight821 wrote: »

You're right. I remember the day Yahoo was the beast in the game, but at the same time, they were so limited. They did not pull out much results as Google. I remember when I had Yahoo, I tried to find the answer, then I figured I can give Google a try, and there I got the answers I wanted.

Remember before Google came in to the search engine market. Yahoo was not just the king of searches because they got in early, but because every one at the time thought they where the best and delivered every thing needed to stay at the top. Every one had the same arguments against Google then. No one would ever leave Yahoo, there was no need for another search engine, no one could possible do it better. At the time every one was on the Yahoo bandwagon.

Then out of the blue Google showed up Yahoos failings, and took search engines in a different direction. Now even the competition has far exceeded the old standards of yahoo, because of competition Google brought to the field.

Facebook is in no way the perfect social media service, If some one else can start to give them a serious run for there money it can only be a good thing for the development of the social side of the internet.

Ryan82

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

If you ever decide to run your own company, reconsider it. With this attitude, nothing would ever get done.

If you think you can do better than the competition, you go out and put out a product. If you have some good ideas, and implement them, then it was probably worth doing - if I introduce some cool new feature, and Facebook implements it because they're worried about losing people to me, then I've improved service all around. Obviously, my intention isn't to make the competition better, but even if my business fails, i've made a contribution.

The entirety of advancement of human history has come because of people trying to step over each other. Were you around when Yahoo was dominating the search market? Who remembers Alta Vista? Why should Google have tried to step into that realm, we already had search giants!

The fact that Facebook is so huge makes them a PERFECT target. Your entire target audience is consolidated in one place, so you only have to beat out one competitor. This is an infinitely more preferable position to be in than having to deal with a saturated market (for example, video games).

Very true. Remember MySpace? It took about 3 minutes of using Facebook before I realized I would never use MySpace again.

Devilsbane

I've never used Twitter, so this could likely be wrong, but it seems to be very similar. The whole following thing just makes me feel like that. I don't see it really replacing Facebook. (But It's early and I'm often wrong)

djfunz

Ryan82 wrote: »

Very true. Remember MySpace? It took about 3 minutes of using Facebook before I realized I would never use MySpace again.

What's interesting about Myspace in case some are not aware, is that it was never developed as a social networking tool for the masses. It just evolved into that. It was originally developed as a free tool for musicians and bands to expose the masses to their product. This was always my use of Myspace. In fact when people started using Myspace as a dating site and for popularity contests, I always had my "top friends" as my favorite bands. Normal contacts weren't listed.

Never being close-minded however, I watched it evolve began loading pics and gave minor descriptions here and there and sure enough, I met my girlfriend of over 2 years now through Myspace. I will surely use Google+ without hesitation because that's just how life works.

tiersten

djfunz wrote: »

What's interesting about Myspace in case some are not aware, is that it was never developed as a social networking tool for the masses. It just evolved into that. It was originally developed as a free tool for musicians and bands to expose the masses to their product.

The history of MySpace that I know was that it was setup as a social networking site and the parent company had contests to see which of their employees could sign up the most people. They even spammed their mailing lists to get people to sign up.

http://gawker.com/valleywag/tech/myspace/myspace-the-business-of-spam-20-exhaustive-edition-199924.php wrote:

Recognizing the potential of the Friendster concept, a plan was hatched to quickly mimic the appealing features of the site, re-brand it as MySpace, and then out-market them using eUniverse's resources. According to internal emails and documents provided by Brad Greenspan and sent between eUniverse executives and the team at MySpace, DeWolfe's squad worked fast: MySpace 1.0 was ready within ten days. As part of the internal testing and promotion of the site, the company held a contest to see who could sign up the most people. The hope was that if all 250 eUniverse employees brought on 10 friends, they would have a starting user base of 2,500. Even self-proclaimed loner Tom Anderson took part, stating in an email, "I am as anti-social as they come, and I've already got 20 people to sign up."

JDMurray

Looking at the trend of Friendster->MySpace->Facebook, I would hope that Google+ stays out of that genre and carves it own niche, like LinkedIn has. The problem is that Google hasn't shown to have an extraordinary amount of genius in marketing trendy services. Most of us started using Google Search because it returned the best search results, not because it was fun or sexy. iGoogle is interesting and useful, but it doesn't have any particular allure that I see.

Now let's see how Google+ will be not-just-another-Facebook.

Kasor

Web 2.0 now you are officially calling us a lot of trouble. Another social network...! It's the only way that we can communicate or we love Google that much. Maybe we all inflect by this disease called, "killer app."