Google+ is first and foremost meant to be a serious competitor to Facebook, but hasn't been able to overcome Facebooks gigantic lead in the network effects.
But Google really, really wants to break into that market.
Now what's happening is simply that they're sacrificing their less profitable services in order to force people to start using Google+, in an attempt to get over that network effect threshold.
> Google+ is first and foremost meant to be a serious competitor to Facebook
Complete nonsense. Google aren't competing with Facebook directly at all! What they are doing is making Google+ the backend for any person to person interaction across their services. Instead of caring about massive amounts of features, they're just enabling all of their existing products, slimming and integrating them where possible.
If people can't be bothered to open an app and tap on the screen a few times then really nobody should be aiming at that market. Wanting a system where you just mash a button on your phone and it magically works is detrimental to actual useful features.
> Complete nonsense. Google aren't competing with Facebook directly at all!
Like hell they aren't.
> What they are doing is making Google+ the backend for any person to person interaction across their services.
I.e. a competition to Facebook.
> If people can't be bothered to open an app and tap on the screen a few times then really nobody should be aiming at that market. Wanting a system where you just mash a button on your phone and it magically works is detrimental to actual useful features.
Since when has Facebook been the backend for interaction across Facebook's services? That's nonsense.
The closest Google+ gets to Facebook is that they both allow you to share content between friends. Google wants it to be the backend to the various features like Maps, Search, Mail. Facebook on the other hand wants to be the frontend, the site that you go to.
If I can't convince you then I'm really not bothered, Google have made it very clear what they're doing and why they're doing it. Perhaps view some of the session videos from IO.
> Google wants it to be the backend to the various features like Maps, Search, Mail. Facebook on the other hand wants to be the frontend, the site that you go to.
When Google cancels the separate service and folds it into G+, as with Latitude, as with Reader, then it becomes the frontend as well. I fail to see a substantial difference.
> Google have made it very clear what they're doing and why they're doing it. Perhaps view some of the session videos from IO.
Perhaps start entertaining the notion that what people say they do (and especially why) isn't necessarily what they do (and especially why).
I switched from Instapaper to Readability about a year ago, despite Instapaper being faster and having a better (actual) business model. I was lured by the beautiful reading experience that comes with Readability’s iOS apps.
Hopefully, with a focussed team behind it, Instapaper will begin to catch up on the design front. I’m looking forward to seeing where Betaworks take it.
I hope Google don’t renege. Now they’ve said they are shuttering Reader it has made the market for alternatives viable again. Developers are actually building real alternatives for us to switch to, which is a good thing.
