All across the web famous magazine like Forbes, journalists & bloggers are proclaiming the death of Google+. Let’s look at why Google+ is doomed to failure or is it?
“The fact is, very few people have room to manage many multiple social networks … since there is only so much time in the day to waste on the Internet. Add in Google+, effectively a duplicate of Facebook, and there just isn’t space for it.”
- Google+ is currently a barren wasteland after rapid initial adoption
- Gripe with Facebook is really gripe with Social Media not Facebook
- MySpace was made tacky / ugly by its users, Facebook offered more streamlined content and better usability. However Google+ doesn’t have any such significant benefits over Facebook. In short its not Facebook with its large community, a duplicate which lacks users.
- Google+ privacy measure may have bit it in the foot and caused the lower amount of conversations via Rise of the planet of apes Google+ faithful
“I am writing to second Tassi’s declaration: Google+ is dead. At worst, in the coming months, it will literally fade away to nothing or exist as Internet plankton. At best, it will be to social networking what Microsoft’s Bing is to online search: perfectly adequate; fun to stumble onto once in awhile; and completely irrelevant to the mainstream web.
To be clear, I do not buy the beta argument anymore. G+ still being in beta is like Broadway’s “Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark” still being in previews. It has premiered. Months have passed. Audiences have tried it. Critics have weighed in. It is a show — just not a very entertaining one.”
- People have only so much time. And not enough for yet another social media site wannabe aka Facebook competitor wannabe
- “WORSE THAN A GHOST TOWN”
http://isgoogleplusdead.com/ is a website with two memorable lines: “Yes. Facebook killed it today”
Joshua Lyford of Social Tribune puts it poetically: “Google+. The name hangs over our heads like some sort of terrifying monolithic gargoyle. Mouth agape, tongue twisting, eyes burning like hot coals shoveled from the belly of a newly formed hell. … why does it already seem like Google+ may have lost a bit of its cool panache?”
Dale Blasingame in KSAT.com says it succintlysays: “After Strong Start, G+ Now Sputters”
He goes on to elaborate: “… despite the Internet community making a big deal about privacy, I didn’t think there were enough people so unhappy with Facebook to completely make the switch to Google+. It looks like that was the case.
Seems weird to declare one of the fastest-growing websites of all time dead after a couple of weeks - but we’re getting there.”
Here are my list of 7+ reasons why Google+ is doomed to fail:
7. Google+ forces people to use real names which prevent voicing many valuable opinions. The need for privacy is also overruled as such, in spite of their FUD to the contrary. Mathew Ingram explains in details at GigaOM and follows up with more details.
6. Google+ is mostly a copycat product with no significant innovations on functionality (except hangout) or usability, not enough to make people switch.
5. Forcing users to categorize users into Social Circle is counter-intuitive and hard. Many times we ourseleves don’t know what social circles they fall into. Also add to it to the cost of maintaining the social circles by changing them when necesary.
4. Google+ artificially inflated the subscriber count by encouraging people to add random people to circles. While this inrceased the count initially, people are less reluctant to talk and open up with complete strangers which in turn reduce the conversations.
3. Google+ made a big deal about privacy with Google+, incidentally same degree of privacy is provided by Facebook too but more intuitively and easier to change on post by post basis. Unfortunately for Google+ it also meant that a large number of their posts are not open to public and hence leads to the horrible “Ghost Town” experience with Google+. Common people are not that much concerned about privacy, they want to communicate easily. Facebook gets it, Google+ fails again.
2. Inspite of their motto of “don’t be evil” (“Evil,” says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, “is what Sergey says is evil.” says Joshua) , Google is being widely and increasingly perceived at being evil worldwide ( “terrifying monolithic gargoyle” ), the big brother whom people fear to trust with their personal data. Here are few examples from popular press:
- US Senators want to know today how evil is Google
- New Statesman questions: How evil is Google?
- Is Google Evil?
- Google vs. Evil - Wired
- Google is on trial for being evil - Gawker Media
1. “Google doesn’t get people, it sells them” - Don Norman, the author of The Design of Everyday Things and a venerable guru of the design world
“They say their goal is to gather all the knowledge in the world in one place, but really their goal is to gather all of the people in the world and sell them.”
“Google doesn’t understand people,” Don Norman said. “Have you ever spoken to a Google support person on the phone? They don’t have them. Sure, they’ll direct you to their blogs — where you’ll be lucky if you can find the answer you’re looking for — or they’ll let you give feedback. But do they ever give you feedback on your feedback?
Like many of Google’s experiments ( Google Wave for example ) you may one day find Google+ suddenly yanked from the web because Google doesn’t want to play anymore, let all users be damned like all the initial enthusiasts of Google Wave.
Disclaimer: I use Google AdSense on my blogs and all blogger, including myself, rely to some extent on Google search results for traffic. We also have a Google AdWords account. We use free Google services like GMail.