Re:Inside the sad, expensive failure of Google+
by waterlesscloud on Sunday August 02, 2015 @02:08PM
(#9991646)
Google+ came from Google.
The attempts in this thread to retroactively attribute this failure to something other than Google are...interesting.
Re:Inside the sad, expensive failure of Google+
by hga on Sunday August 02, 2015 @02:16PM
(#9991687)
While that wasn't my point, it manifestly wasn't developed in the traditional Google style.
Here I'm just talking about Gundotra likely having the conceit from his time at Microsoft that he could make a Facebook replacement that wasn't 10x times better, but through tie-ins to other parts of the Google ecosystem would draw people in (vs. a lot of Microsoft's success in that period coming from other companies failing to execute, which Facebook did not).
Re:Inside the sad, expensive failure of Google+
by socrates2016 on Sunday August 02, 2015 @08:44PM
(#9993144)
Hmmmm. The way I read it, you and the article are deflecting the blame away from Page and at Gundotra. The buck stops at who is in charge and that is Page.
Re:Inside the sad, expensive failure of Google+
by dredmorbius on Monday August 03, 2015 @08:55PM
(#10000969)
Agree and disagree. I've got a very strong sense that many of G+'s issues had something to do with Gundotra. And that it was decidedly non-organic. Rather than an internal useful engineering hack created out of desire and practicality, it was a fear-driven reaction to Facebook.
But: the policies clearly ultimately came from the very highest level at Google. Biggest consequence is an exceptional blow to my trust in the company.
Or rather, series of blows.
And Google+ came from a Microsoft veteran who started back in 1991, when Microsoft succeeded in supplanting a lot of one trick pony companies. But those had limited network effects and the big ones also manifestly failed at software development, and Facebook continues to run that part of the company well (enough).