Google+ completed 1 year of age does success or failure?
A Year in the Life of an Internet company may amount to 10 years in a traditional company. The speed with which things happen let you see progress, achievements, failures, differential, empathy and hundreds of other critical success goals in real-time detailed statistics. The time is relative on the Internet.
So what can be categorized as a failure and why not? There are many factors that could cause social network from Google, who just turned a year old a few days ago, was a resounding failure. But there are other equally valid arguments to consider, say not an overwhelming success, but if a breakthrough within the social ecosystem that prevails today on the Internet and a solid bet on the future, as many company managers often claim to Mountain View.
Google+ has generated much debate since its inception and there are many reasons why at one time was considered a failure, some major, supported in comparison to Facebook, which, from a very personal, I think a mistake and Google+ that is not “just a social network” is much more. For this and other reasons, and armed with a help file memory and I decided to list them to see how accurate these predictions could be:
- Facebook is back: As one argument to justify the failure would be a mistake, as other Google products like Gmail launched in April 2004 (perhaps someone asked why we needed another webmail service at the time?) And today recognized as the largest email service worldwide , Blogspot (Google bought Pyra in 2003), Reader (2005), and even Chrome (2008), have achieved a significant market share, some more successful than others, but all born of existing ideas and seemed at first glance to offer a differential value to liquidate its direct competitors. Facebook took three years to overcome the barrier of 50 million users and more years to reach to 100 million . You would think “but Facebook began as a startup backed and financed by investors and Google+ is a project of a billionaire technology giant” and it is true, I think the same. Even, I think many criticisms of Google+ born of the simple comparison with Zuckerberg’s platform, something that if the big G had managed to differentiate from the beginning, could only have been the scene of this first year of life.
- Google wanted a social network: May have some percentage of truth if we think that many large technology companies tend to position products in certain markets only to have presence, and that budget level not usually suffocating until they decide to dominate the market or at least subdue the leaders, something that requires a lot of money in market analysis and development.
- They needed a product to overcome several failures in series: One of the main arguments usually lift analysts about the alleged failure of Google+ is that it was an ad too rushed to appease the negative experiences had left Wave and Buzz , two releases Featured Google estrepistosamente but failed even in the case of Buzz, being ridiculed by his striking resemblance to Twitter. Remember that until an employee came to call it “pathetic occurrence of last minute” , arguing that everything was done hastily and without planning, just to have your own social network.
- People have no more time for another social network: This point has become one of the main arguments of gurus and analysts to justify slightly low impact Google+. Even the company of Mountain View has prevented spread numbers on the time spent, according to official figures, more than 150 million active users of the 250 million registered, times that do not exceed 3 minutes against 405 minutes per month in the same period in Facebook, according to ComScore. I return to the history of Gmail Will users did not have time to manage another email account? Gmail was earning a tough spot as the free services of mail by dint of innovation, offering distinct advantages against competition that only looked at the navel thinking that nobody would surpass such as Yahoo! and Hotmail. One day it occurred to Gmail offer thousands of free megabytes and what happened? Users began to look over your shoulder and explore “the service but offers little known benefits so attractive.” Could it be the same between Facebook and Google+? Is likely. The user is king and the day that something really attracts, perhaps we could be talking about a change of command Zukerberg to Page and Brin in the leadership of the social internet.
- It is difficult to use: The first social experience of Google was Wave, a sophisticated system of communication and collaborative work as never seen before. Sure, maybe the fact that there was no similar tool on the market to compare the users did not know how good, bad, useful or complex was to give a final approval. Plus going with something similar, to some advocates is a matter of devoting some time to the interface. For critics, the failure is that it is difficult to use and very intuitive for the average user of a social network.
- It’s boring: Every day I hear and read news about boring people on social networks, but would be nice to pause a minute to clarify the reason for the boredom. Social Networks are platforms, not content generators. They are social clubs where people gather to talk, and discuss activities. It may be that the club has better lighting, coffee machine snacks cheaper or even attractive, best events and shows, but do not make the final content. The best party in the best place on earth with people who are not interested can be the most boring experience of our lives. The trick is knowing how to feed our circles with interesting people.
And list the possible reasons why the world of technology: Google considers a failure, I also believe that there are arguments as to think that the landing was successful this social network to thrive in the near future:
- Facebook did not succeed in their first year: As I mentioned in the first ground of failure of Google+ social network Zuckerberg spent almost four years online trying to reach 100 million users, a period that helped him to mature and masificarse to infinity and beyond (all rights reserved Buzz Lightyear) and strengthen their most important tool of success: their community.
- All innovations are copied by Google+ competition: Acotemos “competition” to Facebook, who may have benefited most elusive to the behavior of users to Google’s social network. The freshness in design, features and functionality of Google+ created alarm in the headquarters of Colorado Silicon Valley, which made them think about investing a little time, money and spying on improvements to a community that led quietly the market but produced yawning gradually getting bigger. Logically, the shortest path was that of “direct inspiration” if not plagiarism. This is an excellent display of images, hangouts and friendship levels, among other innovations were incorporated as Facebook, not even to thank Google+.
- The hangouts have its own identity: Since they were announced generated good impact. Or Meetups hangouts became an integral tool to innovate both friendship circles, and in areas such as media, who saw a streak of interest to use the tool approaching personalities to social networks. In the unlikely event of a stoppage of Google+, no doubt the tool Hangout will be unharmed.
- Every day more integrated Google services: Google: While Google+ is one of the Google services that fewer links generated by its users, the integration of this platform to those already used by these users has not been unwelcome. The bar joined Gmail to display social networking notifications generated some extra interest to be aware of what was happening in this community.
- The integration of services purchased from third parties: The purchase of third party tools to integrate all or only use the basic technology of each, is an activity that has grown in recent years, especially among large companies that compete in the arms race to see who offers the most innovative services. In that sense, Google has always had an eye for acquisitions. From technology Marratech for hangouts to multichat service Meebo (by Social Technology Publisher), each upgrade has some innovative tool behind.
- The community is made only by professionals and artists: This should be considered a plus or against? Depends on the lens through which you view it. If you are interested in growing in knowledge, share ideas, links, creations and create new real or virtual links with people who at the end of the day you will add value to your desire to learn and explore, Google+ is the right place. Conversely, if your only interest is to hang out, read the odd funny meme cats or dogs abused and your mother know you like heavy metal (though ashamed every time she put “Like” in your Video of Metallica), your social space is on Facebook. It should be noted that this is not rhetoric for and against Google+ Facebook, because in both social networks will find many similar content. The objective here is to make clear the substantial differences between each community and what they have been pointing according to the preferences of those users, who are at the end of the day who decide what is interesting and what not.
Perhaps the problem is not that Google+ has failed to meet expectations, but perhaps the time has not arrived yet.Tags: Facebook, Google, Google Plus, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Social Networks