Google+... Bing's greatest asset?
Google has always been about crunching big numbers. But only recently has it begun to apparently fudge them. That's the impression one gets when looking at Google's attempt to convince the world that Google+ has been a runaway success. Even as Google missed analyst sales and profit estimates for the first time in Larry Page's …
Monday 23rd January 2012 19:24 GMT Pat 11
analysis not necessary
If g+ was going anywhere we'd be hearing about it. We're not. Nobody needs it, nobody is using it, if they were, we'd notice.
Circles is a great innovation, but fb and even twitter can implement that. What i really want is circles for everything...all my channels (email, phone, sms, twitter,) with time profiles so my work stuff cant reach me out of hours
Monday 23rd January 2012 22:09 GMT kevin2011
you are very wrong. it is going places, you just aren't listening. Man people really are on the Facebook, Twitter Fanwagon. It's pathetic. One day you will all deny ever having said that G+ wasnt going to be a major player. In fact, if you were a myspace user, you probably would have thought that about facebook in the beginning. Because it paled in comparison to features already in myspace. I get it though, people don't like change. And how many times do i have to say it. They are not the same kind of platform. G+ is a mix between the two, with much more features for businesses, and a knack for delivering for the user experience. Facebook is not, twitter is about the new users, not the old, hence their lame redesign, which i still havent gotten for myself. The game will change, and facebook isnt always going to be where your friends are. You might as well start accepting it now.
Tuesday 24th January 2012 11:55 GMT Jared Hunt
Friday 3rd February 2012 22:38 GMT kevin2011
No, im not a G+ fan boy, but i do use the service as often as the rest. Im just sick of the comparisons between twitter and facebook. There is plenty of sharing going on on G+. I see thousands of post per day. I only have just over 300 people in my circles. If there is 90 million users on the service, it wouldnt take much to equal over a billion shares per day. even at 10 million it wouldn't take much. Of course friends and colleagues will be slow to adopt the service, the same as the rest of us were to adopt Facebook. I have been on Facebook since it was available for edu signup and you had to find people in your network. None of my friends were on it, and only part of my friends and family are even on it now. Oh and i forgot to mention that i was rarely active on the new social network. When your friends begin to post more on G+ and or they post more on G+, you will concentrate more time G+, its just that. You go, where your friends, colleagues, and family go. The service is still under a year old. And yes, the other services do have fanboys, and its ridiculous as Apple, Android fanboys. Im just saying that all these negative remarks about the service, people read, and maybe you are and may you arent intending to, but you are making people's choices for them by saying it sucks and noone is there. In other words, G+ has alot of options to offer its users, but they stupidly rely on media to tell them what is good and what is not. Ive even heard from people i know, that they are hesitant to join the platform, simply because they heard on the news or from opinions that there isnt that much going on there. Its simply not true. Its crap journalism that stifles growth, and the migration or sampling of new services. That's why i hate opinion news, its crap.
Saturday 28th January 2012 23:57 GMT Mike Flugennock
Ouch, my head exploded
"...One day you will all deny ever having said that G+ wasnt going to be a major player. In fact, if you were a myspace user, you probably would have thought that about facebook in the beginning. Because it paled in comparison to features already in myspace. I get it though, people don't like change. And how many times do i have to say it. They are not the same kind of platform. G+ is a mix between the two, with much more features for businesses, and a knack for delivering for the user experience..."
Phew. What a great, steaming plopper.
Monday 23rd January 2012 19:31 GMT amanfromMars 1
Sticky Sweet Fingers ....
Did Google's free spending binge really show the capitalist system how mercantilism works with user input/information output .......... every man and his dog begging Google for virtual treats with their desires textualised and coded for programming and reprocessing/fine tuning and upgrades .... is an inside track for the Administration which is being terribly handled and fumbled.
Monday 23rd January 2012 20:16 GMT Gary F
Follow the sheep
If sheep are grazing happily in a pasture why would they bother to move to another pasture? Given that there's ample of grass in the first pasture and all their sheep friends are there too, if any sheep were to move they'd no longer be part of the flock.
Unless Google can think of a totally different kind of social networking that's as different as Twitter is to Facebook then they should stick to what they're best at - search, maps, email, analytics, Chrome and Android. Why do they feel they have to move in on everything else?
Monday 23rd January 2012 22:08 GMT Matthew Anderson
Do you think Becks n Posh are there all the time because they have a social media team? :X
The pair of them can hardly string two words together without sounding like mongs (thanks Gervais), even logging in to arsebook/twunker/G+ would probably cause their brain cells to explode, never mind actually using them.
Monday 23rd January 2012 22:08 GMT AnoNymousGerbil
Well, G+ still as useless as chocolate teapot.
They were supposed to roll in ability to use nicknames/pseudonyms. But haven't seen that happen yet, and that's pretty much biggest issue I've seen many people have with em. besides regular "twitter and facebook works already".
I know lots of people online by nick/pseudonym, not by their "real names", and I know that to be case for many other people too. It's next to impossible to find "friends" from G+ users when they still have that stupid only "real name" policy. I ain't gonna go around asking everyone what is their "real" name, just so I could add them in G+ incase they're there and I don't see them doing that either.
So, G+ is useless as it now is.
Monday 23rd January 2012 22:08 GMT kevin2011
G+'s growth is exponentially greater than any other social network, in the same time, ever. Its still growing and still evolving. And who doesnt ignore robert scoble now? G+ is very much an alive social network, many of the people i follow and who follow me are very active on the platform. And i will bet that time spent and adoption of the service into everyday users will continue to grow. I remember the first time i set up my facebook or myspace, i didnt use those platforms either. Not nearly as much,until i realized my friends were on them. That is beginning to happen. Even in my family, as they find they like G+, they will use it more often. I don't think larry was overshadowing them missing quaterly "estimates" since Google, didnt make that magical benchmark for themselves. If they are confident in their numbers, and they no what's going on. Who are we to judge. If they miss 3 and 4 estimates, it may be a problem. But here's the thing. Because they under earned this quarter, investors are going to lower their outlook. Then come next quarter Google will blow that away. And then investors being greedy a holes will expect a little more, and a little more. Until maybe another 2-3 years from now, they will exceed Google's growth potential once again. There shares will sink a little again, and back through the viscous circle of greed we go. And by the way, Larry last quarter also opened with remarks about G+, reaching 10 million users, and they earned over the benchmarks investors set before them. Was he overshadowing then? No, you dear journalist, just like to hear what you want to hear.That's it. FAIL
Monday 23rd January 2012 22:15 GMT Charlie Clark
@Matt what is Twitter's business model again? Fill the interwebs with shit and get paid to clean it up? Invent "Green"? Or be bought out by the Coalition to Protect Internet Sanity and subsequently shut down?
And, even if Google didn't meet analysts forecasts, would you care to run those numbers by us again: vast increase on cashflow and profits. I bet Larry is inconsolable.
I think that Google + has a fundamentally different and long game approach to things so the usual Silicon Valley metrics of quarterly growth at all costs might not be applicable.
Tuesday 24th January 2012 00:08 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Google is a great company, and will continue to help define the future, along with Twitter, Facebook, and other Silicon Valley titans"
Sheep herders. The lot of 'em. BahhHHHHhhhh!
As Marcus Tullius Cicero would no doubt say, 'Every Google+ or Facebook can tell how many goats or sheep it possesses (even if it lies).'
But perhaps Einstein would say it best, "In order to be an immaculate member of a flock of sheep, one must above all be a sheep oneself. "
Tuesday 24th January 2012 03:57 GMT zanto
it's just a fad
I don't have a facebook account, although I am on g+. Not that it matters because I don't "do" social networks. With an average life, a job and getting through the week only to sleep most of the weekend, I don't see what the fuss is all about.
To keep in touch, I call or email. When I feel the need to ramble or spew forth my wisdom, I visit the comments section of el reg.
Thursday 26th January 2012 22:18 GMT Michael Wojcik
More than a fad for some - but not everyone
I know a number of people who use social media - Facebook, mostly - to communicate with a large number of people with whom they have real relationships, and couldn't stay in touch with on a one-to-one basis (ie by phone or single-recipient email), because there's just not enough time in the day. Facebook is fairly good for that sort of thing.
But personally I have little use for any of it either. I have a Facebook account, but only so that my friends can include me on event announcements and the like. I have a Twitter account, but I only use it to read my wife's tweets, so I know how her day is going (particularly when she's away on business). (I've never sent a single tweet myself, but I have three dozen or so "followers". I don't know if that's funny or sad.)
I have seen some useful applications that use Twitter as part of their workflow, both as an alternative to RSS for notifications to multiple users, and as a command channel. So there's that, for what it's worth.
I have a Google+ account, because a bunch of people sent me invites and it took no effort to accept, but I've never used it, and I can't see why I ever would.
Tuesday 24th January 2012 10:12 GMT min
i opened G+ once...
and probably have never been on it since. every so often people invite me to circulate among their other connections, but it just seems superfluous, since the same people (or most of them) are also on my facebook, which i use less and less anyhow. it will be hard for G+ to convert this kind of apathy into anything earth shattering. best of luck to them. i'm sure they'll find a way.
Tuesday 24th January 2012 23:45 GMT Jolyon Smith
I wish the classification of Twitter ...
.. as a "business information tool" had appeared nearer the top of the article, then I needn't have wasted as much time as I did reading an article written by someone who I presumed byt their ability to operate a keyboard might actually have a brain rather than just an axe to grind.
Clearly I was wrong, and much time was thus wasted.