Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • My take on the decision to bin G+ because of privacy lapses was it lacked credibility.

      If G+ was leaky, you would fix the leak rather than throw the bucket away.

      My suspicion is the platform was not monetising its subscriber base to sufficient degree.

      Ironically, this is one of the many reasons why users did like G+. There was not the sense that you were being used as data-fodder for someone.

      I would be interested to hear what the panel thinks.

      Hi @CygnusX1 :) I agree the "angle" to shut down G+ because of a minor privacy breach doesn't pass the sniff-test. I would have appreciated if they were more forthright and simply said, "We have decided it's not in the best interest of Google to pursue a social network at this time." We're all grown-ups and can appreciate a clear, solid statement like that.

      I don't agree with you that they shut it down because they wanted to monetize it, though. Google makes so much money from its ad sales that they can run many of their other sub-businesses and experiments at a loss. Facebook must monetize their social network with ads because that is their only business.

      When thinking about the "demise" of G+, I have a few good ideas about that... I'll share them in a bit. I'm waiting for a few other panelists to come online and talk about all the good stuff first, and why we loved it at the very beginning.

    • I think Google looked at the data and didn't see it getting big enough to threaten Facebook's dominance and a decision was made to stop funding it. Without funding and promotion it was effectively dead at that point. The only reason not to kill it right then and there was Google was concerned about their reputation. After embracing it so significantly all the way from the top (Larry and Sergey) down, to kill it would be to admit failure in a very dramatic and public way when it would have gotten much more negative media attention. By waiting a few years and especially by using this "privacy" excuse, it gives them time/space and cover to a degree from criticism.

      I don't think G+ was ever about monetization. I think it was a defensive move recognizing that to concede social to Facebook meant allowing a competitor more potential online ad dollars that would not go to Google. Further there's risk that Facebook could turn all that valuable social data into search as well eventually cutting into Google's search revenue as well.