News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google dusts off the failed Google+ playbook to fight Cha... by jimbob45 on Thursday March 09, 2023 @11:15PM (#35090305)
It wasn’t meaningfully better than FB (at the time) and there was no reason to switch.
Re:Google dusts off the failed Google+ playbook to fight Cha... by hyperhopper on Thursday March 09, 2023 @11:23PM (#35090359)
100% was. I mean look at the modern usage of Instagram.

You have your Instagram, then your close friends list on Instagram. Then your finsta. And the close friends list on your finsta.

All of these are just g+ circles.

Re:Google dusts off the failed Google+ playbook to fight Cha... by llampx on Thursday March 09, 2023 @11:32PM (#35090413)
Facebook had lists (don't quote me on the name) which was very similar to Circles, without needing to be on the sahara desert of content which was Google+.

The advantage of FB was also that you saw content, whereas on Google+ everyone would have it locked up and you couldn't see it, great for the less popular types.

Re:Google dusts off the failed Google+ playbook to fight Cha... by j45 on Thursday March 09, 2023 @11:35PM (#35090427)
This comment reminds me of Google wave too.

Parts of it made sense, maybe a bit too early, not enough people using it.

Re:Google dusts off the failed Google+ playbook to fight Cha... by erik_seaberg on Friday March 10, 2023 @01:30AM (#35091115)
I thought extra Instagram accounts are used as pseudonyms, which G+ was never willing to accommodate.
Re:Google dusts off the failed Google+ playbook to fight Cha... by hot_gril on Friday March 10, 2023 @12:43PM (#35098003)
Instagram only implemented "close friends" after years of a solid user base to research the usefulness of that feature. It's not that they couldn't think of it; ideas are cheap. A lot of it has to do with the stories feature, an innovation stolen from Snapchat that G+ predates. And G+ Circles was way more complicated.

Circles feature was also marketed the wrong way. The G+ ad showed a lady bad-mouthing her boss in a circle that doesn't include him. Who's gonna put that much faith in the separation? The entire point of a finsta is that it's not a supported feature, so you can believe that it's totally separate and also has a different name. You'd use the finsta to bad-mouth your boss or perhaps even less wholesome things.

Re:Google dusts off the failed Google+ playbook to fight Cha... by Semaphor on Thursday March 09, 2023 @11:22PM (#35090348)
It was faster, had more features, and many of those were about your control. It was meaningfully better than FB in pretty much everything but active user numbers.
Re:Google dusts off the failed Google+ playbook to fight Cha... by AbrahamParangi on Thursday March 09, 2023 @11:40PM (#35090457)
It was worse in the only way which mattered which was the content.
Re:Google dusts off the failed Google+ playbook to fight Cha... by lukeschlather on Friday March 10, 2023 @12:15AM (#35090652)
The biggest problem with G+ was they replaced GChat, and Hangouts was emphatically slower than GChat. Maybe the G+ product itself was fast - the only part of the product I actually used was a huge downgrade from what they had before. I actually stopped using GChat for years as a result, just because it was so slow.

Also I think Messenger may have been faster than Hangouts. It was not faster than GChat, but it didn't matter because Google killed it and that definitely drove me to use Messenger more.

Re:Google dusts off the failed Google+ playbook to fight Cha... by hot_gril on Friday March 10, 2023 @12:46PM (#35098067)
Content aside, it was way more cumbersome to use than Facebook. My friends and I tried it cause one guy was a huge Google fanboy, and even he said "this sucks, man."
Re:Google dusts off the failed Google+ playbook to fight Cha... by browningstreet on Thursday March 09, 2023 @11:34PM (#35090419)
Scoble loved it /s
Re:Google dusts off the failed Google+ playbook to fight Cha... by lern_too_spel on Friday March 10, 2023 @07:24AM (#35093515)