Three signs Google+ is here to stay (And two that it's doomed)

By Matt Weinberger | July 29, 2011, 2:39am PDT

Summary

One month in, here’s a look at three signs that Google+ is here for the long haul - and two signs that it’s doomed to fail.

Blogger Info

Christopher Dawson

Sometimes it seems like the population of the Internet has broken down into two camps: Those who think Google+ is the social networking equivalent of the Second Coming, and those who insist on fence-sitting, waiting to see how the fledgling Google+ deals with its first wave of crises before they jump over from Facebook.

In fact, some naysayers, like those at Business Insider, are wondering if Google+ has already peaked, with users decreasing while the gender ratio gets even more weighted towards males. All the same, Google+ has racked up an impressive 20 million users in the month or so since launch.

So keeping that in mind, here’s a look at three signs that the optimists are right and Google+ is here for the long haul - and two signs that Google+ is doomed to fail.

Google+ is here to stay:

1. Humor: Everybody’s a comedian, it seems, when it comes to Google+. SomeEECards.com notes the last person to group his friends into Circles. Web cartoonist Matthew Inman, better known as “The Oatmeal,” offers this Lion King-infused take on Google Circles, while this cartoon on Google vs. Facebook vs. MySpace has been making the rounds on sharing sites like Reddit. And there are far more examples out there.

Why am I pointing this out? Because all these jokes indicate that users grasp Google+ and what it tries to do enough to both make these jokes and understand them. Where users used to make jokes about Facebook’s creepy “Big Brother” functionality, cracks about Google Circles stand in their place.

Basically, if you so much as smiled at one of these, Google+ has its hooks in you.

2. Growing Fast: Three weeks in, Google+ hit a solid 10 million users, and that was while invitations were still pretty scarce. That number just shy of doubled to 18 million less than a week later, and two days after that Google+ hit 20 million registered users. That’s especially impressive considering that it’s still technically a field test, though Google Gmail was in beta for years.

Even celebrities and public figures are jumping on the Google+ bandwagon, including Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (whose first contributions to his followers were pictures of a kitten), singer Taylor Swift, and, perhaps unfortunately, socialite and reality television star Paris Hilton. Love them or hate them, prominent figures jumping aboard a social network is a bellwether of staying power.

It seems that even Google was caught flatfooted by Google Plus’ appeal. But the search giant is moving to build out Google+ with talent and technology acquisitions like that of Fridge, which will enhance Google Circles for users in as-yet undeclared ways. And at the same time, Google+ is letting corporations join in with special business profiles while promising that games are soon to come.

3. Angry Users: Hear me out on this one - yes, users are putting together their own wishlists of things they wish Google+ would include, or problems and flaws that need fixing. But as ZDNet’s own Steven J. Vaughan noted on the occasion of Ms. Hilton’s Google+ debut, it’s very often from a place of love for the product.

After all, Google+’s privacy-based approach has gained the social network its fair share of fans, and it would be stranger than anything if they couldn’t work up the passion to brainstorm improvements. And unlike Facebook, where users now tend to take odd changes to privacy and functionality settings as the norm, Google+ is still very much a work in progress.

So, all that said, the case could be made that upset Google+ users are just die-hard fans in the making.

Google+ is doomed to fail:

1. History: Google Buzz, too, launched amidst a flurry of hype. Not only was it a short honeymoon - Google wound up paying $8.5 million in a privacy lawsuit. Buzz is still in operation, but enthusiasm for it died out both within and without Google very quickly, and it looks like the search giant has stopped development on its Twitter competitor altogether.

That’s an extreme case, but at least Buzz survived Google’s loss of interest. Google Wave, the company’s big play into combining instant messaging, was killed entirely when it failed to find its audience. Same for Google Health and Google PowerMeter.

Now, I’m not saying that Google shouldn’t phase out products that aren’t making it money. The “Don’t Be Evil” catchphrase aside, Google is a business, and it would be doing its shareholders a disservice if it were investing time and cash into unprofitable ventures.

But visits to Google+ are showing signs of decline, even as Wall Street analysts have begun worrying about Google’s ROI and margins on the social endeavor. And from a personal, anecdotal perspective, it seems that my Google+ feed is a veritable ghost town sometimes, and the only really regular users I follow are those on Google Inc.’s payroll.

2. Angry Users: Everything I said above about passionate users still applies. But angry users are angry users, and when Google+ is deleting user profiles for violating its rules about tying a Google Profile to a real name, without explaining the reasoning to the user, anger can override passion.

And that’s putting aside the bad PR around the time William Shatner, Captain Kirk himself, was temporarily banned from Google+ for being too popular. And ZDNet’s Violet Blue has called Google+ “Fast, cheap, and out of control,” in a harsh criticism of Google’s rules around adult content (or lack thereof).

Essentially, users want more communication and guidance from Google than they’ve been getting, though the search giant has met in the middle in some cases. In other words, it seems like Google+ may be a revolutionary approach to social networking, but it comes with some lousy customer service.

No Clear Answers

At the end of the day, it’s easy for cynics to call Google+ a Facebook-killer and then get frustrated when the house that Zuckerberg built is still standing a month later. But Facebook took seven years to get where it is, while Google+ has had a month almost exactly to the day.

Give it another six months, and see if Google+ has kept growing its users. Maybe then, we’ll have some hints as to the future of the Google+ vs. Facebook fight for supremacy. But when it comes to a company like Google, even six months is practically a lifetime. Just look how much chatter Google+ has generated in just one.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/three-signs-google-is-here-to-stay-and-two-that-its-doomed/3188?alertspromo=&tag=nl.rSINGLE

Why must Google insist on learning customer service lessons the hard way?

By Sam Diaz | July 25, 2011, 3:01am PDT

Summary

For being a company that launches innovative products intended to improve communications, Google still struggles to communicate effectively with its users sometimes.

Blogger Info

Christopher Dawson

Ya know, I’m just amazed sometimes at how tech companies - led by some of the smartest folks on the planet - do the dumbest things. I mean, really, where’s the common sense?

Case in point: Google is reportedly going around deleting profiles for violating terms of service. But its moves are all over the place. Some people are being blasted for using a pseudonym, a business name or some other names that raises concerns about its legitimacy on their GooglePlus accounts. Others, as blatant violators, are being left alone. Some have had just their Google profiles deleted. Others have reportedly had their entire Google presence - Gmail, GooglePlus, etc - wiped away.

Also: Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols: What was Google thinking?

That’s all fine and well. It’s Google’s party and if the company thinks that you’re not playing by the rules and decides to kick you out, that its prerogative. But at least Google could do a better job of communicating. Issue a warning first, allowing the user to comply. Or send a notice outlining the reasons for the action - other than the blanket unspecified “TOS violation.” But don’t just pull the plug and say nothing.

Has Google learned nothing from the public relations beatings that other companies - notably, Facebook in its early years - faced when they’ve made unexpected changes without properly communicating with users?

No, it hasn’t learned. And that’s too bad.

As long as Google continues to portray itself as a faceless online company to its user base, the company will continue to fail at basic customer service. Remember the Nexus One, the Android phone that Google was going to sell directly to consumers via a new Web site, allowing customers to pick their own service provider?

Yeah, that didn’t last long.

Consumers - myself included - resisted buying directly from Google because there was no one to buy from. There was no store to walk out of with a phone in-hand. There was no store to walk into when the phone was having problems. There was no display counter to test drive the phone before committing to it. And, most importantly, there was no customer service to speak of, no sales clerk to provide a quick tutorial about the device or a call center agent to field questions about the service contract.

Nope. In most cases, Google just wanted users to fill out some sort of online help request, with a promise that someone would be in touch. In an age of instant gratification, Google’s sales and customer service model was the exact opposite.

Following a number of PR beatings, Facebook finally started getting the messages and began going out of its way to inform users of changes either via blog posts or big press conferences. Google, which is still new to the social media world, apparently needs to take a few more lumps before someone at the Googleplex gets the message.

With GooglePlus - as well as Gmail, GoogleVoice, Blogger and others - it’s clear that a chunk of Google’s business is devoted to improved communications. With that said, I can’t help but wonder why Google is making itself look like a poor communicator.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/why-must-google-insist-on-learning-customer-service-lessons-the-hard-way/3155?alertspromo=&tag=nl.rSINGLE

What was Google thinking!?

By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols | July 24, 2011, 3:45pm PDT

Summary

Google has been deleting some Google+ accounts. While Google have a right to do so, they certainly could have handled it better.

Blogger Info

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

When I first read Violet Blue’s account of Google kicking some Google+ users out of their new social network, my first reaction was “What the he… heck Google! After due consideration, I’m no longer surprised though. In fact, I can see Google’s point.

First, Google said from the start that while “Google services … support three types of use: unidentified, pseudonymous and identified” when it comes to Google+, Google “requires you to use the name that you commonly go by in daily life.”

More specifically, Google states “To help fight spam and prevent fake profiles, use the name your friends, family or co-workers usually call you. For example, if your full legal name is Charles Jones Jr. but you normally use Chuck Jones or Junior Jones, either of those would be acceptable.”

It appears a good number of people have been hammered for not using their ‘real’ names. This isn’t new. Back on July 8th, Google zapped the account of “Opensource Obscure,” the Second Life nom-de-plume of an Italian user. That said, Google appears to be willing to let you back in if you can prove your identity.

In addition, Google may zap your account if you it for “couples or groups of people. Additionally, you can’t create a profile for a non-person entity such as a pet or business.” But then again, they might not. In the very next line, Google states, “Google may continue to allow existing profiles that don’t meet these criteria, as long as the profile names are unchanged.”

Of course, “Pretending to be someone else could cause your profile to be deleted.” So forget about impersonating someone else on Google+. Your account can also be blown away for spam, gambling, sexually explicit material, bullying behavior and so on. Last, but far from least, you can’t have multiple Google+ identities.

You know what? For the most part this all makes sense to me. While anonymity can be vital for some individuals all too often it’s used to simply hide mean-spirited trolls that make so many online communities utterly distasteful.

Besides, when push comes to shove, Google Plus is Google’s system. They set up their rules, some people broke them, and now they’re out. That’s life. If you don’t like it, set up your own online community.

OK, so I can see where Google is coming from, but that’s not the end of the story by a long shot. I think Google has badly mishandled this.

For starters, I don’t think people should be required to use their real names. Yes, I get how poisonous anonymous users can be to a social network. There’s a middle way though.

As Anil Dash writes in his essay on how social Websites can go badly wrong, anonymous users are a bad idea, but “Your site should have accountable identities. No, people don’t have to use their real names, or log in with Google or Facebook or Twitter unless you want them to. But truly anonymous commenting often makes it really easy to have a pile of sxxx on your website, especially if you don’t have dedicated community moderators. When do newspapers publish anonymous sources? When the journalists know the actual identity and credibility of the person, and decide it is a public good to protect their identity. You may wish to follow the same principles, or you can embrace one of my favorite methods of identity: Persistent pseudonyms. Let users pick a handle that is attached to all of their contributions in a consistent way where other people can see what they’ve done on the site. Don’t make reputation a number or a score, make it an actual representation of the person’s behavior.”

For example, when Pamela “PJ” Jones set up Groklaw, the intellectual property law news and analysis site, she kept her real life identity separate from the Web site. Despite numerous attempts to invade her privacy, no one with any sense doubted that PJ was a real person and that she stood behind her analysis and opinions.

So, if someone really wants to be “Linux Guru,” on Google+ fine. Let them. Just make sure they know that their Google Profile e-mail will be tied forevermore to “Linux Guru” on Google+.

Next, as ex-Google employee Kirrily “Skud” Robert, who had the “pleasure” of being knocked off the Google+ service, Google is turning off these accounts without letting people know why they’re being switched off. Worse still, “Honestly, if Google’s support people tell me that’s what I need to do [to get my Google+ account], I will do so.”

Google, as far as I can tell, hasn’t issued any kind of statement on what’s going on with this wave of account deletions or what steps someone should take to get their account back on. Instead, it seems to be handling in an off-hand, make-it-up as we go along way.

That’s not good enough. If Google wants Google Plus to be taken seriously, they need to do more than just state policies in Web documents. They need to set up a real user management system. As Robert concluded, “It would be nice if Google would provide the same sort of understanding toward us, by erring on the side of caution when wielding the ban-hammer, as we try and figure out how the system works based on, quite frankly, very little clear information.”

Amen!

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/what-was-google-thinking/1274

Soon-to-Debut Google+ Games Will Hit Facebook Where it Hurts: The Pocketbook

July 21, 2011 at 4:21 pm PT

Google is close to launching a social game network that could make Facebook very, very nervous.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the two platforms will be cost.

According to multiple sources, Google will take less than a 30 percent cut of the revenues, which will break the industry standard created over the past few years by both Facebook and Apple.

The launch of a games network on Google+ may provide a couple of immediate benefits to games developers if the Internet giant actually pulls everything off.

The obvious one is that it will give developers another outlet for its games. But the other perk is that it could provide a small way for developers to get back at Facebook after learning earlier this week that it has a complicated – if not favorable – relationship with Zynga, the industry leader.

More favorable terms, and that, could bring game developers flocking to Google.

I am also hearing that the game network will have significant technical differences. Two people described the platform as a “native client,” which means that Google will host the games on its own servers, rather than on the developer’s.

The expectation is that this could lead to a faster game play for users, with shorter loading times and fewer bugs than in games found on Facebook.

A Google spokesperson declined to comment.

Last month, I reported that a games network was likely coming next on Google+.

At the time, a spokesperson issued this statement: “It’s important to keep in mind this is an ongoing project and this is just the beginning. We plan to add a lot of features and functionality to Google+ over time. We’re just excited to get started.”

Timing of the launch is still unknown; however, at Casual Connect this week in Seattle, publishers were buzzing (albeit quietly) about the upcoming launch. Everyone I spoke to was under the impression it was coming soon. One enthusiastic source said it will launch this month, while another said it was taking longer.

Details on the revenue split are also unknown, but there have been hints at what it could offer.

Two days ago, Google launched In-App Payments, which allow developers to integrate payments within any Web application, which is exactly the kind of technology it would need to monetize a social game network. What’s even more important is that Google disclosed it only charges five percent for the payments service.

There’s no evidence that in-app payments are connected, or if Google would ask for the same cut. But, at such a low starting point, it is probably not too far off the mark, since most of Google’s time and attention is focused on advertising.

So far, Google’s in-app payments are available to developers with a U.S. bank account, and works in more than 140 countries.

Of course, Google’s game network will not support developers without hundreds of millions of consumers to play the games.

So far, it has delivered on that front, too.

Already, 10 million users have signed up for Google+, despite requiring an invitation. The user base has also been particularly active, sharing and receiving one billion items per day.

What Google’s network won’t be is a haven for developers who are seeking to get away from Zynga, which is larger than its next five competitors on Facebook combined.

Google is one of Zynga’s major investors.

http://allthingsd.com/20110721/soon-to-debut-google-games-will-hit-facebook-where-it-hurts-the-pocketbook/

Facebook removes Google+ ad

By Emil Protalinski | July 17, 2011, 2:02pm PDT

Summary

Facebook has removed a Google+ ad, and banned the creator from putting ads on the social network altogether.

Blogger Info

Emil Protalinski

Vendor HotSpot

The 360° Conversation around Cloud Computing

TECH VISUALIZER brings the social conversation to life... powered by Brocade

Web developer Michael Lee Johnson decided he wanted to quickly grow his number of Google+ friends. The best place to find people willing to friend you is of course Facebook, so Johnson ran a Facebook ad asking people to add him to their Circles on Google+. Facebook was not amused.

The ad was headlined “Add Michael to Google+.” It was short and to the point: “If you’re lucky enough to have a Google+ account, add Michael Lee Johnson, Internet Geek, App Developer, Technological Virtuoso.”

Facebook removed his ad, and banned him from running ads on the social network altogether. Johnson posted the following via his Google+ account (via TechCrunch):

LOL: I recently ran a Google+ advertisement on Facebook that got all of my campaigns suspended. - Great.

Facebook sent him the following message explaining why the ad was removed:

Your account has been disabled. All of your adverts have been stopped and should not be run again on the site under any circumstances. Generally, we disable an account if too many of its adverts violate our Terms of Use or Advertising guidelines. Unfortunately we cannot provide you with the specific violations that have been deemed abusive. Please review our Terms of Use and Advertising guidelines if you have any further questions.

Since Facebook doesn’t say, it’s not clear which rule – actually it could have been more than one – Johnson broke. It is worth noting, however, that the company has a Refusal of Ads clause in the Facebook Advertising Guidelines:

We may refuse ads at any time for any reason, including our determination that they promote competing products or services or negatively affect our business or relationship with our users.

There’s nothing wrong with a company having guidelines that are as beneficial to it as possible. Still, I don’t think Facebook should have killed all of Johnson’s ad campaigns.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-removes-google-ad/2212

10 reasons why Google Plus is for enterprising people

By Dennis Howlett | July 18, 2011, 1:27am PDT

Summary

Google Plus continues to surprise. Here is the result of one astonishing ad hoc experiment.

Blogger Info

Dennis Howlett

Vendor HotSpot

Here to help you with your Document Management Needs

There has been plenty of to-ing and fro-ing around whether Google Plus is right for enterprise. Some colleagues are fearful that Google will move too quickly, others that it is moving too slowly. Whatever your position there is no denying that G+ is growing like topsy. And enterprising developers are finding ways to leverage it for their own purposes.

Over the weekend I suggested to Loic LeMeur, CEO Seesmic that it might be an idea to find out if anyone in the Salesforce.com community might be interested in hearing about early releases of Seesmic via G+. My thinking was that if Seesmic could get enough interest then it might serve as a way to gather a group of early stage solution testers. That’s in essence what Google is inviting G Plussers to do and with good effect.

LeMeur sent out a suitably worded message and hey presto, within two hours he had more than 60 positive responses - see the graphic:

Bear in mind the time. 7.33am my time is 10.33pm PDT and 6.33am BST, 9.34am my time, past midnight in the Valley. There are a number of conclusions that can be tentatively drawn from this:

1. People reading G+ messages at those times are likely to be the ones most invested in its success. These are the early, early adopters today but could be an army of people in time to come.
2. The ‘response’ rate assuming all Loic’s 20,000 G+ ‘followers’ had responded is 0.3%. As a response rate, my 0.3% number is likely to be wildly inaccurate on the conservative side. Regardless, I’d suggest that’s far from shabby when compared to bulk mailing or other antiquated forms of ‘advertising.’
3. It is a fair bet that all respondents are what advertisers term ‘pre-qualified.’
4. Individuals like LeMeur can benefit from the force multiplier effect they built up in the past through their assiduous use of blogs, Facebook, Twitter and other large scale social tools. They are in essence both benefiting and delivering value on what has gone before though in the shape of the latest shiny new thing.
5. Despite Google likely thinking mostly in terms of its advertising led business model, enterprising individuals and savvy developer organisations will also be able to bathe in the G+ glow. Right now it looks like the individual rather than the brand that will see the earliest benefit.
6. Individuals are benefiting in this way because they’re not advertising per se but inviting those who follow them into a conversation that taps into their needs. Google is not going to be able to stop this activity because it is not advertising in the conventional sense or the way their model is constructed.
7. It is conceivable that Google could develop some sort of charging mechanism for this type of activity but it would not make a lot of sense and would likely draw resentment. So the likelihood is that those able to leverage in this way will have a free route to market.
8. Brands will be left scratching their heads wondering if they can replicate the same thing. They can but it will be one hell of a job. The last person I saw do that successfully was Robert Scoble when he was working for Microsoft and which he has since gone on to repeat at Rackspace.
9. LeMeur has proven that with a highly targeted and invested ‘follower’ group, you can achieve good results at almost zero cost.
10. Not everyone can be a LeMeur or Scoble but there are enough in any industry for them to become the ambassadors of the future - whether for what they are doing or what they represent. That’s pretty darned powerful.

Anything fundamental I’ve missed?

Endnote: by the time I’d typed this into my machine - LeMeur had another clutch of positive respondents. Would someone let me know when he reaches 100?

Update: Seesmic flew past 100 a few hours later

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/howlett/10-reasons-why-google-plus-is-for-enterprising-people/3293

Twitter now delivers 350 billion tweets each day

By: Zach Epstein | Jul 15th, 2011 at 08:39PM

View Comments

Filed Under: Social

Twitter now delivers an astonishing 350 billion tweets each day, the company said on Friday. ”Delivering 350 billion Tweets a day is a terribly fun engineering challenge. But, it doesn’t capture how passionate our users are,” the company said from its official Twitter Engineering account. Coincidentally we’re sure, the news comes just one day after Google bragged that it had amassed 10 million Google+ users in just two weeks, and that these users collectively share 1 billion items each day. Google+ has quite a way to go before it is anywhere near as popular as Twitter, of course, but it’s certainly doing well for a 2-week-old product.

http://www.bgr.com/2011/07/15/twitter-now-delivers-350-billion-tweets-each-day/