ThatGuyGreg: I don't know any of my early adopter tech friends that are still using G+, and I don't know a single norm that even considered using it.

I'm sure we'll find out in 6 or 7 years that it's the bees knees in Argentina or something.

what are you talking about?

I would use Google+ if they would make the stream sort chronologically based on the actual posts rather than when a new person posts a comment. I kept missing posts because one or two people would post (and get a crapton of comments on) twenty things a day.

tinyarena:
what are you talking about?

Orkut - Google's version of Myspace that went ballistic in the Ukraine or something.

Considering not even Google's CEO still uses Google+, I'd say it's days are numbered.

it's kinda hard to build a social network on the backs of anti-social outcasts who are annoyed by "all the clutter"(ie, people communicating with other) of facebook. when "all the clutter" is exactly WHY people are on facebook to begin with. and of course, if G+ did take over, it would simply become just as "cluttered" as FB is now, which will then give rise to another anti-social network alternative that doesn't have "all that clutter".

and many many of the "new features" of G+ are simply re-packaging of stuff FB has had for years. especially "circles" funny, cause i've had "lists" on FB for years, and it's trivially easy(and ALWAYS HAS BEEN for at least the last 3 years) to post messages/status/pics/notes/links/events that can only be viewed by specific people or specific lists. after G+ came out advertising this functionality, FB simply put out a tutorial showing FB users how to use this feature that has always been there, moved the button that did it about 2 millimeters and made it slightly bigger. I used it myself to coordinate a family photo album publishing, i first uploaded it and made it viewable only to my sister so we could discuss how to caption each pic, and since some of the people were dead before i was ever born, she could identify people so it would be nice and clean. after those details were all worked out, i changed the privacy settings with 3 clicks and made it viewable to all my friends(and friends of friends, cause i'm not paranoid enough to worry what people will think of my parents wedding album). and this was 3 years ago.

nobody uses it.

having said that... it'd be cool to pass pr0n around with friend on it.

if anyone used it.

friends...

/yeah fark it
//waiting for spam filter time to reset...

The only time I ever use Facebook is when I'm setting up client's pages, and the same goes for G+.

This whole "social" thing is farking lame, it's all just a marketing tool. It's no different than a supermarket loyalty program or club card, it's just way more intrusive.

Thank jeebus for Fanboy's Annoyance Block List for ABP. I'm only reminded of the stupid social web when articles like these pop up.

Also, I don't really understand the headline. Wouldn't Facebook be the Empire in this case, and G+ the Rebellion?

The "fully armed and operational" battle-station was blown up mere minutes after said declaration... headline fail.

...wrong thread...

I kind of like Google+ it's yet to get the huge amounts of spam from people wanting their cow's milked or whatever the hell else is the friend spamming F2P microtransaction based game of the now.

Having said that I do agree with the Googler who accidentally made public his G+ rant: Google needs to eat it's own dog food. Until then it makes it very hard to take G+ as a serious competitor to Facebook and heavily gimps all the other various apps that have minimal API's you can bolt on to.

Honestly, the integration with your other Google accounts seems potentially WAY more intrusive than FB's privacy problems. I already think it's weird that I can log into Blogger and YouTube using my email password. And I don't want to wake up some morning and find out my blog and email have been deleted because some admin doesn't approve of the photos I posted on my social networking account.

So... no.

I'd use it if anyone I knew was on it. Right now I have like 7 friends, and only 2 actually use it. The others signed up after I invited them, saw no one was there, and never came back. However, it did just play a video that I uploaded that for some reason wouldn't play on FB. And yet a couple of people on FB still liked the damn thing. Just goes to show most people aren't paying attention anyway.

Most of the people on facebook can't even figure out how to adjust their privacy settings, so I wouldn't expect them to be pioneers in joining Google+ and to adjust to an additional mode of internet social networking.

It's cute how people think using G+ is going to be a "choice". Do you use Google Docs? You're going to be a G+ user whether you like it or not. Do you use Google Search? Same thing. Youtube? Picasa? G+ is going to swallow all of those services into its maw.

//Nearly everyone I know has already surrendered to the inevitable.

t3knomanser: It's cute how people think using G+ is going to be a "choice". Do you use Google Docs? You're going to be a G+ user whether you like it or not. Do you use Google Search? Same thing. Youtube? Picasa? G+ is going to swallow all of those services into its maw.

//Nearly everyone I know has already surrendered to the inevitable.



Google search is NEVER going to require a G+ account. Nor is YouTube.

Google is not abysmally stupid, in other words.

This guy's speech is riddled with telltale signs of spin, defensiveness, and spokes-person-speak

"No numbers to announce today but our growth just keeps amazing us. When we first launched Google+, we certainly didn't anticipate the success we've had in just a few months."

Yeah I'm sure they are amazed by the numbers and didn't anticipate success. Right.

Christian Bale: Google search is NEVER going to require a G+ account. Nor is YouTube.

It won't require an account, but it will be a sub-feature of G+.

Red Six standing by!

I use G+ and not FB. I'm a geek, so G+ fits me well. There certainly is room for another social network. I think everybody should support it, even if you don't like it. Choice is good, even if one of the choices isn't your personal preference.

I had a small chunk of friends use Google+ for a few weeks when signing up for it was the cool thing to do, but eventually everyone went back to using Facebook.

Meh, I don't use mine much... then again, I don't use my Facebook page much either.

/suck it, skynet

Social media sites are ways to give everybody their own website - look at somebody's wall and it's the same as them having a blogger or wordpress account. My problem with G+ is that I already have a FB page where I know I can keep in touch with my friends and family. The "spam" from app requests is gone by blocking all app requests.

Would anybody post the same thing to FB and G+ just to reach different groups of friends/family? I don't mind having two accounts/logins/passwords to manage, but I'm not going to do double work after that.

I am wondering if G+ and FB will eventually let you choose either one and get updates from both under a single interface. That is the way to foster competition and spark innovation. If I could choose the G+ interface to get updates from G+ friends and FB friends, I might make the switch. Until then, not a chance.

I got kicked off of Google+ for their names policy. After they insisted I provide a name, I complied.

Bastards. "Sluthoe Whorebiscuit, Esq." is a perfectly respectable british name.

There was a group of my techie friends and I who all got in to G+ for about a week. After that, we all said "eh... its a crappy ripoff of Facebook with no users" and just went back to Facebook

Bahumat: I got kicked off of Google+ for their names policy. After they insisted I provide a name, I complied.

I signed up with a pseudonym, having never been a user of Facebook or MySpace. I liked the ideas I saw with G+ and I wanted to give it a shot. When the articles started rolling through my Google Reader (btw, tx google for fraking that up for me) about people being kicked off for pseudonyms, I deleted my G+ account. I didn't want to get involved with G+ to the point where I would attach my real name when they inevitably sent me the warning letter.

I give all sorts of personal information out on the net. I'm sure that many Farkers could come up with a pretty reasonable profile of me and probably be able to identify me personally based on what I post, but I choose to post that stuff. I don't want to use my real name; fark your system that forces me to.

I remember when google+ came out all the people who wanted to brag about being on google+ did so through facebook.

I mean otherwise no one would know right?

Lou Brown: I had a small chunk of friends use Google+ for a few weeks when signing up for it was the cool thing to do, but eventually everyone went back to using Facebook.

I joined when it first came out because Facebook became more and more an annoyance. Now I just use neither since nobody ever posts anything on Google+. Got to tell you...I don't miss it at all.