Well if Google+ becomes just another platform for stupid apps it will fail, at least with me and my circle of friends. I'm not a huge fan of 'social' media. I don't really use twitter and was dragged into FB by my friends.
But so far I actually do like Google+, it makes it easy to organize my different circles of friends and very easy to tell who can see what. I even went so far as to fill out the profile, something I have left blank on Facebook.
But apps will kill it for me if they are able to spam me (or my circles) with posts.
It's weird that you claim to make predictions about what will succeed and what will not while simultaneously deriding an industry segment you claim to avoid.
What makes you an expert, and can you share this insight with us? I, one for, would benefit greatly as I would no longer have to spend hours dissecting UI's, measuring user behavior, satisfaction, engagement level and repetition fatigue; not to mention actually doing the work of designing, building, deploying and maintaining applications that enable people to share and communicate without, you know, being dragged into it by their friends.
With your methodology I could perhaps save myself a lot of trouble and just focus on my hobbies. Like drinking.
He didn't say it would fail overall. He said it would fail for him and his friends. That is a judgement he is totally qualified to make; a demographic whose desires he is very much in touch with.
I think it's very legitimate to say "I don't normally like social media; so far I like Google Plus; if Google Plus becomes more like Facebook I will like it less".
I read it to say "I don't use anything unless my friends think it's cool and I'll rapidly abandon something if they don't because I don't want to be an outlier."
That's a very narrow view of the world and it's my opinion as both a vim user and a software developer that one actually needs to use and tinker with applications before developing an informed opinion with research data that validates. Otherwise you're just bloviating.
I think that social applications like Facebook or Google Plus are a fantastic example of a case where "my friends all use it" is the primary draw, though.
They exist so that you and your friends can interact (and view ads, of course). So if your social circle refuses to use Social Platform X you have very few reasons to use it yourself. Regardless of how silly you may think the reason you friends have for avoiding it, the fact of their avoidance is enough to make it not particularly useful to you.
Sure, you should still understand the reason that other people want to use these platforms. But, having understood that, there's no reason to use them if they aren't actually of use to you.
There's a lot of wishful thinking in these G+ posts of late. People hope that G+ won't have to make the painful compromises FB has, though without much justification. The two are so very similar, if G+ catches on most everything people hate about FB is going to reappear in some form.
Regarding the post, I expect Google to be even more restrictive than FB with 3rd parties. They'll refuse to have their name tarnished by crappy apps. iTunes app store style review wouldn't be surprising to me. Spam free feeds are a selling point for G+, after all.
I'm ok with apps on G+ if they provide an option to turn off all notifications / spam. You can "turn off platform apps" in Facebook but still have to hide the posts individually. I've probably manually blocked 30 apps at this point, which is annoying.
Current Zynga games aren't that bad. The production values and gameplay are a lot better than the werewolves/vampires style games that they started with. Given a few more years, their games might even be comparable to traditional, non-social games.
I think the HN set is unfairly hard on companies like Zynga. The entrepreneurial of mind should know that a start-up can't always afford to act nobly or to invest in quality. Sometimes the right strategic decision is to make cheap crap and spam now, and reform later once you're out of mortal danger.
I know they did shady things in the beginning. A lot of businesses have to do that, and many don't stop. That's just how the game works.
As a user, of course you don't have to take it. Just don't buy what they're selling. There's no reason for outrage. Let them scam people dumber than you, and with that money maybe they'll develop something you like.
No, they cannot in all cases. But they can afford to not steal from their customers or direct them into a trap where they'll be stolen from on a recurring basis. It's not about the quality of the apps as the majority will be shite anyways, it's about the ethics of the people involved.
Basically everything this guy wants is at odds with my own desires for a social network. Facebook's previously countless virality loopholes were what almost turned it into some bizarro version of MySpace, with polluted News Feeds and endless wall requests to send people coins and sheep. If G+ goes down this path, I will certainly not follow.
I want to get your input as to where distributed social networks like your appleseed (and the now completely off the radar diaspora) stand now. Google has been really wonderful about letting us use our data any way we like, such as to the point that I would not describe them as a silo or walled garden.
Do you think Google's entry into social networking helps or hurts the case for and adoption of decentralized systems? What's your take on all of this, and where do you go from here?
Although I believe that Google+ is still a walled garden (there is no comprehensive protocol I can implement in Appleseed to let Appleseed users connect with Google+ users), I do agree that it isn't a silo (since you can move your data in and out).
I'm very optimistic for three reasons:
1. Google has a much better track record in the open web than Facebook. I don't think Google, due to it's market position, is nearly as threatened by the idea of being the one of the biggest fishes in a distributed pond than Facebook, whose bread and butter is social networking dominance. I don't see Google fighting an established social networking protocol, whereas I think Facebook would til the bitter end.
2. The world still needs a solid open source social networking package, and decentralization is icing on the cake. The current options are pretty awful, and software that can be used to start a niche social networking site is going to be a big deal, no matter how popular Google+ gets.
3. If Google+ pulls a plurality of users away from Facebook, it proves an important point that I've been fighting against for years: That nobody is ever #1 forever. Ever since Facebook got big, nobody could fathom that anyone could knock them down, even Google. And that's something that, as a free software developer, I have to push against. No hegemony is eternal, every empire falls.
Personally, I think this also releases some pressure on open source projects. Now, instead of an adversary in the form of Facebook, we have a potential ally. We may need to clang some pots and pans in the street for a while to get their attention, but that's a much better situation to be in than dealing with an entity like Facebook, whose relationship with the open web has been cynical and superficial at best.
In that regard, I'm more optimistic now than I was 6 months ago.
Besides just circles having different interest targets, they also vary greatly in character depending on size. After adding in the HN circle^[1], I see it streaming fast with diverse posts. If I click on my family circle it acts more like live journal did, slow but personal. I imagine that apps will need to be diverse in these ways as well.
I'd be very happy if this developer, and all the others like him that are interested in "viral distribution" (read: spamming heck out of everyone's streams) were to stay right where they are, on Facebook.
If G+ never supports a single app, and everyone who thinks Facebook is the Internet stays there, I'll be very happy on Google Plus.
Google+ compares to facebook as facebook once did to myspace. Fb feels like a cluttered mess of ads and years of design add-ons. Whether all my people will get on G+ is another story, but its got the functionality to allow for a much cleaner, easier experience.
23 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 52.1 ms ] threadBut so far I actually do like Google+, it makes it easy to organize my different circles of friends and very easy to tell who can see what. I even went so far as to fill out the profile, something I have left blank on Facebook.
But apps will kill it for me if they are able to spam me (or my circles) with posts.
What makes you an expert, and can you share this insight with us? I, one for, would benefit greatly as I would no longer have to spend hours dissecting UI's, measuring user behavior, satisfaction, engagement level and repetition fatigue; not to mention actually doing the work of designing, building, deploying and maintaining applications that enable people to share and communicate without, you know, being dragged into it by their friends.
With your methodology I could perhaps save myself a lot of trouble and just focus on my hobbies. Like drinking.
I think it's very legitimate to say "I don't normally like social media; so far I like Google Plus; if Google Plus becomes more like Facebook I will like it less".
That's a very narrow view of the world and it's my opinion as both a vim user and a software developer that one actually needs to use and tinker with applications before developing an informed opinion with research data that validates. Otherwise you're just bloviating.
They exist so that you and your friends can interact (and view ads, of course). So if your social circle refuses to use Social Platform X you have very few reasons to use it yourself. Regardless of how silly you may think the reason you friends have for avoiding it, the fact of their avoidance is enough to make it not particularly useful to you.
Sure, you should still understand the reason that other people want to use these platforms. But, having understood that, there's no reason to use them if they aren't actually of use to you.
Regarding the post, I expect Google to be even more restrictive than FB with 3rd parties. They'll refuse to have their name tarnished by crappy apps. iTunes app store style review wouldn't be surprising to me. Spam free feeds are a selling point for G+, after all.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/10/google-secretly-invested-10...
I think the HN set is unfairly hard on companies like Zynga. The entrepreneurial of mind should know that a start-up can't always afford to act nobly or to invest in quality. Sometimes the right strategic decision is to make cheap crap and spam now, and reform later once you're out of mortal danger.
As a user, of course you don't have to take it. Just don't buy what they're selling. There's no reason for outrage. Let them scam people dumber than you, and with that money maybe they'll develop something you like.
No, they cannot in all cases. But they can afford to not steal from their customers or direct them into a trap where they'll be stolen from on a recurring basis. It's not about the quality of the apps as the majority will be shite anyways, it's about the ethics of the people involved.
This is definitely one of those times where the needs of Developers and the needs of Users are at odds.
Do you think Google's entry into social networking helps or hurts the case for and adoption of decentralized systems? What's your take on all of this, and where do you go from here?
I'm very optimistic for three reasons:
1. Google has a much better track record in the open web than Facebook. I don't think Google, due to it's market position, is nearly as threatened by the idea of being the one of the biggest fishes in a distributed pond than Facebook, whose bread and butter is social networking dominance. I don't see Google fighting an established social networking protocol, whereas I think Facebook would til the bitter end.
2. The world still needs a solid open source social networking package, and decentralization is icing on the cake. The current options are pretty awful, and software that can be used to start a niche social networking site is going to be a big deal, no matter how popular Google+ gets.
3. If Google+ pulls a plurality of users away from Facebook, it proves an important point that I've been fighting against for years: That nobody is ever #1 forever. Ever since Facebook got big, nobody could fathom that anyone could knock them down, even Google. And that's something that, as a free software developer, I have to push against. No hegemony is eternal, every empire falls.
Personally, I think this also releases some pressure on open source projects. Now, instead of an adversary in the form of Facebook, we have a potential ally. We may need to clang some pots and pans in the street for a while to get their attention, but that's a much better situation to be in than dealing with an entity like Facebook, whose relationship with the open web has been cynical and superficial at best.
In that regard, I'm more optimistic now than I was 6 months ago.
[1] - Hacker News Circle: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2717503
If G+ never supports a single app, and everyone who thinks Facebook is the Internet stays there, I'll be very happy on Google Plus.