Inside the sad, expensive failure of Google+

Re:Inside the sad, expensive failure of Google+ by mark_l_watson on Sunday August 02, 2015 @12:19PM (#9991220)

Sure Google made some mistakes with Google+ but it is a success as far as I am concerned. I use Google+ about an hour a week, Twitter about 20 minutes a week, and Facebook about 15 minutes a week.

If Google+ has a few hundred million regular users, that sounds good. Why the need to comptere with Facebook on numbers?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Inside the sad, expensive failure of Google+ by AreaGuy on Sunday August 02, 2015 @12:31PM (#9991271)

By that logic, they never should have shut down Google Reader, though, right?

Reader was my top visited site daily by far. Nothing replaced it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Inside the sad, expensive failure of Google+ by EarthLaunch on Sunday August 02, 2015 @12:59PM (#9991369)

I still have a reflex to type 'rea' in the url bar when I'm looking for interesting content. And every time it makes me irked with Google+.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Inside the sad, expensive failure of Google+ by jsnell on Sunday August 02, 2015 @12:43PM (#9991315)

If it did have a few hundred million actual regular users, that'd be really quite successful. But it seems incredibly unlikely to be true, but must instead be some kind of bogus definition optimized for hitting your OKRs. For example counting as users things like people logging onto third party sites using a G+ account or Youtube comment activity being artificially funneled into G+.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Inside the sad, expensive failure of Google+ by quonn on Sunday August 02, 2015 @12:43PM (#9991318)

> If Google+ has a few hundred million regular users

Yes, but that seems unlikely.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Inside the sad, expensive failure of Google+ by dredmorbius on Monday August 03, 2015 @09:34PM (#10001126)

It's simply not true from public posting activity.

[ Parent | on HN ]