They are keeping some of the company, such at most of its patents, and selling what is left to Lenovo. Google will be keeping their modular phone project, which makes me doubt they will drop hardware completely but I would not be surprised if they shift focus a bit.
They're downscaling it from the centre of the Google "experience" to just another part.
I personally still think it is superior to other social networks and enjoyed that I simply went there to watch Youtube, hangouts, blogs plus how quickly you could have access to your photos.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? I was just starting to phase out facebook. Edit: So google is actually saying they aren't doing any of that and this is all just speculation.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? I was just starting to phase out facebook. Edit: So google is actually saying they aren't doing any of that and this is all just speculation.
Well, Yeah. Just because they're not competing with Facebook on active user numbers, doesn't mean they don't beat pretty much every other western social network other than Facebook on active users. They're not as unpopular as some people would really, really like to believe.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? I was just starting to phase out facebook. Edit: So google is actually saying they aren't doing any of that and this is all just speculation.
Well, Yeah. Just because they're not competing with Facebook on active user numbers, doesn't mean they don't beat pretty much every other western social network other than Facebook on active users. They're not as unpopular as some people would really, really like to believe.
You really believe G+ has more ACTIVE users than Twitter or Instagram? Every time I check G+ most of what I see is Youtube postings.
Well, Yeah. Just because they're not competing with Facebook on active user numbers, doesn't mean they don't beat pretty much every other western social network other than Facebook on active users. They're not as unpopular as some people would really, really like to believe.
I think the issue is not that G+ is viable/unviable, it is that it has a bad reputation in the public eye and if you are a talented engineer working on G+ that affects your morale. Google is effectively slowly wasting 1000+ engineers and building up a huge retention problem.
Then there is Vic Gundotra leaving, which I can't find a positive way to look at. Was he pushed out? Was he not allowed to improve on G+ the way he wanted to? Was he not allowed to start a new project that interested him more? Was he fed up with G+? Was he simply offered more money somewhere else and a) Google wouldn't match the money or b) he didn't care to get a counter offer?
You really believe G+ has more ACTIVE users than Twitter or Instagram? Every time I check G+ most of what I see is Youtube postings.
Yep. Significantly more than twitter, about 40 million and change more. And, despite what a lot of the whinging set would have you belive, this is not because of forced Youtube integration this year, it's actually been that way since 2012.
You really believe G+ has more ACTIVE users than Twitter or Instagram? Every time I check G+ most of what I see is Youtube postings.
Yep. Significantly more than twitter, about 40 million and change more. And, despite what a lot of the whinging set would have you belive, this is not because of forced Youtube integration this year, it's actually been that way since 2012.
If I go on G+ and see mostly youtube postings and say this, I am not whinging, I am stating an (albeit narrow and subjective) empirical fact. If you look at the stats for social sharing, G+ accounts for about 3% with FB at 46% and twitter at 26%. Also my personal observation is that I see waaay more Pinterest "pint this" butting than G+ buttons.
Now, to square this with Google saying they have more (currently ~ 60 million monthly active users more than twitter) makes me wonder what Google means with "active" user. Also Google does not give out daily active users, and at this point I assume this is because either a) the number is atrociously low or b) the number would make it too easy to decipher what Google means by "active" by comparing to Youtube likes, Google logins etc..
EDIT: looking at the social login info by the same analytics firm, I'd say that Google is probably counting a G+ login as "actively using" G+.
EDIT: looking at the social login info by the same analytics firm, I'd say that Google is probably counting a G+ login as "actively using" G+.
Nothing new there. At least you're not like more than a few others, who are saying "Oh, you can't trust those numbers, because google is trying to count as many people as possible as active users!" and then expecting you to accept the rest of the numbers as fact, as if nobody else was doing the exact same thing.
As for massaging active user numbers - which they're almost certainly doing - they're far from alone in that. Facebook's "Active users" includes anyone who leaves Facebook logged in, but goes to a site that hits facebook via the API on their behalf - even if they haven't actually gone to Facebook at any point after that initial login. Twitter happily counts spam accounts, as well as doing the same API call trick as facebook.
And speaking of "Empirical fact", I'm sorry, fuck no. That's not empirical fact, that's an infographic where we don't actually get to see the data behind it, we don't know their analytical process, or how they obtained that data. It's interesting, but calling it empirical fact is a bit bloody much. It has as much weight as saying that this is empirical fact. But I don't doubt you've already seen that particular version of things - since I came across both versions of the story when I was hunting to find that example.
Only that part, looking at it in review. I connected the parts "I'm talking empirical fact" and "here's a link to an infographic" when I should have taken them as separate statements. Sorry about that.
Then there is Vic Gundotra leaving, which I can't find a positive way to look at. Was he pushed out? Was he not allowed to improve on G+ the way he wanted to? Was he not allowed to start a new project that interested him more? Was he fed up with G+? Was he simply offered more money somewhere else and a) Google wouldn't match the money or b) he didn't care to get a counter offer?
Google regularly pushes out lead engineers on projects which are taken out of the limelight, it doesn't stop them from coming back at a late date to do something else but allows a cooling off period.
You seem to have an extremely skewed view on social networks if you're seeing more Pinterest links. I see the G+ or +1 button on nearly ever site that there is a Facebook or Twitter tag.
Google plus wasn't even attempting to be just a social network, it was a project to glue every Google service (search, calendar, Gmail, hangouts / Voice, Youtube) together but the public had no clue as to what to make of it so they called it a Facebook competitor.
The up side to the Youtube integration has been a much more efficient reduction in spam and control has been handed to the channel owners.
My friend just joined a new firm as a barrister and it was required in her contract to delete her Facebook account. My cousin is in the Indian Airforce and they required him to delete all his social network accounts. Both employers allowed these individuals to keep their G+ accounts.
Google regularly pushes out lead engineers on projects which are taken out of the limelight, it doesn't stop them from coming back at a late date to do something else but allows a cooling off period.
I think you hit the nail right on the head with "projects which are taken out of the limelight".
You seem to have an extremely skewed view on social networks if you're seeing more Pinterest links.
What can I say. The sites I frequent are art, design and tech focused. Many of the more interesting picture I see have the little "Pin this" hover on mouseover, and most of the sites don't put the G+, FB Like, and/or "tweet this" buttons everywhere, or maybe I have become blind to them.
My friend just joined a new firm as a barrister and it was required in her contract to delete her Facebook account. My cousin is in the Indian Airforce and they required him to delete all his social network accounts. Both employers allowed these individuals to keep their G+ accounts.
They probably also allowed them to keep their Circuit City loyalty cards. I don't know where you're going with this argument. That G+ is obscure enough not to warrant plainly immoral employer demands?
What can I say. The sites I frequent are art, design and tech focused. Many of the more interesting picture I see have the little "Pin this" hover on mouseover, and most of the sites don't put the G+, FB Like, and/or "tweet this" buttons everywhere, or maybe I have become blind to them.
As a side note, you'd be surprised at how many porn aggregators, streaming sites, cam sites, and even individual performer's sites have the usual suite of social media share buttons.
What can I say. The sites I frequent are art, design and tech focused. Many of the more interesting picture I see have the little "Pin this" hover on mouseover, and most of the sites don't put the G+, FB Like, and/or "tweet this" buttons everywhere, or maybe I have become blind to them.
As a side note, you'd be surprised at how many porn aggregators, streaming sites, cam sites, and even individual performer's sites have the usual suite of social media share buttons.
Chrome incognito mode. Seriously though, how many visitors to a porn site really want other people in their social networks to know about their taste in porn?
Right to be forgotten? How does that even work? If Google has to stop indexing something from ten years ago what happens if a different website rediscovers and reports on the story today?
Comments
Unless they want to remove themselves from the hardware market completely. How will they work on future useful voice integration.
Plus there aren't really any Google Play Edition tablets to be had.
I'm surprised. I really thought Motorola would work out for them.
They've launched a new project called Tango, courtesy of a small portion of Motorola that they didn't hand over to Lenovo.
I personally still think it is superior to other social networks and enjoyed that I simply went there to watch Youtube, hangouts, blogs plus how quickly you could have access to your photos.
Edit: So google is actually saying they aren't doing any of that and this is all just speculation.
Then there is Vic Gundotra leaving, which I can't find a positive way to look at. Was he pushed out? Was he not allowed to improve on G+ the way he wanted to? Was he not allowed to start a new project that interested him more? Was he fed up with G+? Was he simply offered more money somewhere else and a) Google wouldn't match the money or b) he didn't care to get a counter offer?
Now, to square this with Google saying they have more (currently ~ 60 million monthly active users more than twitter) makes me wonder what Google means with "active" user. Also Google does not give out daily active users, and at this point I assume this is because either a) the number is atrociously low or b) the number would make it too easy to decipher what Google means by "active" by comparing to Youtube likes, Google logins etc..
EDIT: looking at the social login info by the same analytics firm, I'd say that Google is probably counting a G+ login as "actively using" G+.
As for massaging active user numbers - which they're almost certainly doing - they're far from alone in that. Facebook's "Active users" includes anyone who leaves Facebook logged in, but goes to a site that hits facebook via the API on their behalf - even if they haven't actually gone to Facebook at any point after that initial login. Twitter happily counts spam accounts, as well as doing the same API call trick as facebook.
And speaking of "Empirical fact", I'm sorry, fuck no. That's not empirical fact, that's an infographic where we don't actually get to see the data behind it, we don't know their analytical process, or how they obtained that data. It's interesting, but calling it empirical fact is a bit bloody much. It has as much weight as saying that this is empirical fact. But I don't doubt you've already seen that particular version of things - since I came across both versions of the story when I was hunting to find that example.
You seem to have an extremely skewed view on social networks if you're seeing more Pinterest links.
I see the G+ or +1 button on nearly ever site that there is a Facebook or Twitter tag.
Google plus wasn't even attempting to be just a social network, it was a project to glue every Google service (search, calendar, Gmail, hangouts / Voice, Youtube) together but the public had no clue as to what to make of it so they called it a Facebook competitor.
The up side to the Youtube integration has been a much more efficient reduction in spam and control has been handed to the channel owners.
My friend just joined a new firm as a barrister and it was required in her contract to delete her Facebook account. My cousin is in the Indian Airforce and they required him to delete all his social network accounts. Both employers allowed these individuals to keep their G+ accounts.
Instagram counts as a social network?
Churba has already hit all the other notes.