• macrocephalic@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t really get what the hate was for Google+, it was better than the alternative/competitor at the time (Facebook)

    • crunchpaste@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It was definitely much better than Facebook at the time. Especially the concept of circles that they implemented.

    • assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Google wasn’t comfortable in letting it grow naturally over time. They tried really hard to push on people by combining it with other more popular google products when it didn’t really make sense (i.e. Youtube). Also, as a teen at the time google plus just felt nerdy and weird. It didn’t really feel like something they cool kids would use so no one used it.

    • twistedtxb@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The concept of who you chose to share your status was cumbersome. It at least not auntie or uncle friendly

      I don’t remember what it was called? Spaces?

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t remember what it was called? Spaces?

        Circles. It was a killer feature at the time, the idea of different feeds for different groups, all in one profile. Too bad there weren’t enough groups to make it useful.

    • debounced@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      and from what i remember, staying true to typical google fashion, they fucked it up by not opening up the “beta” when they had a critical mass forming behind it. then only to force everyone into having a profile a year or whatever later. lol, too late. i think most of us understood that anything associated with google is assumed to be a never-ending “beta”, so no idea what they were thinking or waiting for.

      • MetalFingers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it was definitely the super long beta period where you needed an invite killed it. I knew a ton of people who were interested that gave up

        • kadu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s easy to say now, but Orkut (another Google social network, mostly used in Brazil) also had a beta invite system… And that helped it grow tremendously. The secrecy and “status” of getting invited made people go wild - they would even sell invites.

          The strategy can work. It’s just very timing sensitive.