Also, if Google+ fails it won't be because of anything mentioned here. It'll be because I've been on it for 2 days unable to add more than 1 friend. I can't believe they're trying another invitation system for another social network. Guys, just let me add my friends already!
What reason do you have for using Google+ that is not already satisfied by FB or Twitter?
Feels kind of like Bing.
Facebook was first, so now it has squatters rights? I don't think so.
Vic Gundotra is quite open about this when he talks about how he drove the team using fear of the competition as a motivator.
You're right that Facebook is now just as much about trying to monetize as it is about serving its users, but the OP is pointing out that Facebook started off serving its users, and that's how it grew. Twitter is similar in this respect. They both started off serving user needs and are now trying to transition into profitable businesses.
Google + is fundamentally (as Gundotra says) about serving Google's needs, and the product design is about finding a user need that enables it to do this.
I don't agree with the OP that it's doomed to fail. I don't particularly like Google's business model alignment, but I'm happy with how they make it work for search, so why not social? It seems to me that there are decades worth of opportunities in this area.
The biggest reasons I can see for it failing are:
1. It's too much like Facebook - we don't need another Facebook we've already got one - and as for people disliking Facebook, how is it going to be different just because it's got a Google logo on it?
2. The mental model is too complex. I know what I'm getting with Twitter, so I can trust it. I don't trust Facebook - but frankly Facebook is an entertainment platform to most people, so trust isn't the biggest issue. Google+ is complex but more important, even if I understood all the logic behind it I still couldn't form a good mental model of it because that depends on tacit human behavior which hasn't yet formed.
All that said, it's nicely engineered and clean looking, which makes me willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and try it for a bit to see if it does make my life better in some way (which twitter does, but Facebook does not).
I'm not excusing Facebook and how they make money today. These aren't the same motives that influenced their reason for being, which were a lot more focused on people and universities.
Are you a troll?
Gmail also comes the closest of any webmail interfaces to MH.
Facebook being humble is the biggest joke ever.
I just don't think their motives will lead to innovation.
People don't use Google search because it's innovative, and people don't use Facebook because it innovated and people won't make their decisions on Google+ based on its innovations.
First, Google has a decent track record in keeping personal data and advertising separate. For example they claim that their tracking cookie used across the web is not connected in any way to your Google profile. They can make use of a lot of data to show decent ads. Whereas Facebook will obviously make use of all your data because that's all they have.
2. Google makes most of its money by showing ads based on search terms you search for. They also use recent mails in GMail for ads within Gmail. They do not depend on any revenues from Google+. They likely see it as a defensive measure against Facebook which seriously threatens its real revenue model. Their competitive advantage is context, not primarily information about users. Again, for Facebook ads within the social network based on personal information are their sole competitive advantage.
It makes more sense to trust Google, at least as far as I am concerned.
Of course Google is trying to use Google+ to make ad revenue. You know, exactly like Twitter and Facebook, who you hold up as opposition to Google+.
If Google fails here it will be because they didn't make people want to use their product, plain and simple. Not because the people ultimately paying them aren't the people using their product. If that were the case, half of the web wouldn't exist.
Facebook is the big target that most people perceive, but surely LinkedIn is a huge target also, since Google+ circles should allow you to have work-oriented Sparks and pictures, versus personal-oriented status updates and pictures.
This shouldn't be a big deal for Twitter, since you might have many Twitter contacts where you simply don't know what their email is, but you still can read, message and retweet them, all within Twitter.
i like Google and i like what i see in Google+ so far (great job guys). But I kinda agree with this.
