Why did Google+ Fail?

Most people have heard of Google+ as the failure child of of Facebook, mostly because it was. Before it was shut down, Google+ was a disaster, and an expensive one at that. Google+ was the take at a social platform that combined all of Google's technology into one platform. The attempt to turn Google into a social destination was ultimately a not successful one. But why?

Image result for google+

With the already huge giant of Facebook, Google+ started at a disadvantage. Trying to beat a successful company at their own game rarely works, but as another successful company Google had a solid shot. But they missed.

A confusing system with circles instead of friends made the software difficult to use and alienated potential users, while a more company oriented view of combining gmail, hangouts, photos, and other Google tools was done in a way that wasn't deemed necessary and made Google+ seem like a Google advertisement rather than a social media platform. The end result was a Facebook clone that didn't work nearly as well as Facebook already did.

All of these elements combined into a terrible experience that did not live up to the already popular standard, and never took off as a result. Facebook already existed, and people weren't keen to move into Google's bad attempt at a hostile takeover.

A kick in the already down Google+ is the reveal of severe security issues that lead to the recent deletion of Google+ entirely, ending it's never began reign as social media platform.


https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/et-explains/heres-why-google-failed-to-take-off/articleshow/66136713.cms
https://mashable.com/2015/08/02/google-plus-history/

Comments

  1. AnonymousApril 21, 2019 at 12:34 AM

    Nice post Oz, it's interesting how Google, which is often revered as the paragon of tech companies, failed so miserable with Google+. A subpar product thrust into an extremely competitive market was doomed to fail, and the attempt to integrate it with other Google services, which may seem like a good idea on paper, was executed poorly and ended up seeming like a desperate attempt to force users to use Google+. After the failure of Google+, I doubt that Google will try to create a social media site again.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousApril 21, 2019 at 11:02 AM

    This is really interesting Oz!! I read another article that put the failure of google plus into more comprehensible numbers which said that 90% of google plus visits last less than five seconds. Which is crazy to think about because I remember using google plus back in sixth grade! And I also wanted to know more about the security issues you mentioned and found that Google supposedly had an error in their code that let about half a millions users' information marked as "private," visible to all other users.

    https://www.economist.com/business/2018/10/13/the-social-network-shuts-down-in-disgrace

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousApril 21, 2019 at 3:35 PM

    It was cool to read your article because I've always been curious about this! The way you put it made a lot of sense specifically that it failed because google tried to link combine a social platform with google existing one. I was also surprised to read in Kaitlyn's post that the majority of the calls lasted for less than 5 seconds. Overall. Great post.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AustinApril 21, 2019 at 11:54 PM

    As someone who used Google+ during middle school I really enjoy reading your article. The combination of all google products sounds feasible but ultimately does not play out as an efficient tool. The users lack incentive to be loyal to the product when preexisting products can do just as well as Google+ if not better. Google is competition with itself and Facebook by pushing out Google+ and trying to maintain it just does not sound economically smart.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousApril 22, 2019 at 8:56 PM

    Great post! I remember using google plus back in middle school and enjoyed reading this post! Agreeing with Austin's comment, I think Google plus also failed because of the competition. Around this time, Instagram was coming into the scene and lots of people our age gravitated towards that and away from the Google Plus/Facebook model.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousApril 25, 2019 at 11:01 PM

    Awesome post! I am also often confused about Google+, but I had the same ideas as you voiced in your blog post: the features that made Google+ different (such as circles) were very confusing and deterred some people from using it. However, how did Facebook get away with changing so many things that did feel alienating at first? For example, when the concept of the "timeline" came out, everyone was horrified because of how much everything had changed. However, it ultimately ended up being for the better because people started to like it. Why was this different than Google+?

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousApril 26, 2019 at 3:49 AM

    Interesting article! It's very relatable for us, since much of us used Google+ when we were younger (probably). Facebook is simply superior in the interface, while Google+ was very confusing, like you mentioned. However, I do believe that trying to beat another company at their own game does work in many instances, even if not likely. Discord managed to beat Skype with a much cleaner interface, less lag, and very easy to use group chats (and chatbots). Facebook might have failed with stories, but Instagram copied Snapchat's model well and is gaining more and more popularity.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Cost of Inelastic Goods

Image
Many goods that are inelastic in terms of demand are ones that are essential or, in other words, necessary to one's self. There are several examples: basic foods, gasoline, or even medicine. I was interested in how producers can manipulate the prices of these goods and how the total revenue can change over time because those goods are inelastic. The first example I thought of was insulin. Considered inelastic because, without it, those who are diabetic might physically suffer, I looked at the price trends in the past couple of years. Just as I predicted, the price has been rising dramatically in the past decade or so as producers are taking advantage of the consumers' essential need for this good. There are about 7.4 million Americans that use insulin and many struggle to pay the costs of this increasingly expensive drug. So, while rising prices benefit insulin manufacturers, those same prices come at a serious cost for patients as the demand for insulin is inelastic. Other...
Read more

The New Taxi: Ubers

Image
In recent years the transportation industry has begun to change dramatically. At first, ride-sharing companies did not have much hold over the industry as taxicabs and rental cars dominated the needs of business travelers as they searched for transportation so they could reach their destinations. However, recently this industry has suffered a loss has rates of people using these amenities have dropped, but the rates of people using Uber have dramatically increased. Uber is a ride-sharing platform where you can request a ride from an app (sounds familiar right?) it's almost exactly like a modernized taxi. However, there are a couple key features that services like Uber provide in which taxis and the traditional temporary transportation do not. One of the key factors that draw its consumers is the easy use of the app and its services. Before you would need to take a chance and wave your hand in the street to see if you can catch a taxi or even call the number of a taxicab comp...
Read more

The Hidden Monopolies of the World

 Monopolies are all around us in the world, and not all of them are  obvious on the surface level like Google and Facebook. For example, you might be searching for hotel rooms and browse multiple "competing" sites like Travelocity, Trivago, or Hotel.com. What you most likely do not know however, is that all three websites are actually all owned by the same company; Expedia group. This illusion of free choice is used to hide the fact that Expedia essentially hold a monopoly over the industry and all hotel bookings actually go through them. These fake competitors which are all owned by Expedia Group controls 75% of the US online travel agency industry, Similarly, apple fans and Microsoft fans stubbornly stick to their respective brands of computers; not knowing that the laptops all come from the same Chinese manufacturer. Throughout all types of industries such as the ones listed earlier and others such as smartphones, supermarkets, beer, and even sunglasses, hidden parent co...
Read more