Facebook makes ~100% of its revenue from advertising-related deals too, no? Google's mission is to organize the world's information - there's a lot of money in that. So far they know that comes from advertising, but don't bet that it'll stay that way forever. Knowing about people's interactions is best done by knowing people, and so Google did indeed build + for people.<p>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 <i>another</i> invitation system for <i>another</i> social network. Guys, just let me add my friends already!
Why can't i downvote this, Google+ didn't succeed already but there is no single reasonable argument in this article.<p>Facebook being humble is the biggest joke ever.
Something that I've realized is that any project that Google does which feeds into their search engine results is much more likely to be flooded by spammers than any project by any other company. This could mean that Google has closed the doors to anything involving content without realizing it. For example from the point of view of a spammer there's no real gain in hitting a like button a thousand times — but abusing a Google One Plus button seems like a worthy target. Google may just be polluting their own ecosystem by trying to do this...
I'm not sure I see why "I think Google has suspect motives" leads to the conclusion "Google+ Has Already Failed." The Internet has already shown that people trust those with suspect motives far too much.
I disagree.<p>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.<p>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.<p>It makes more sense to trust Google, at least as far as I am concerned.
If your criteria for failure is that the company is more interested in making money than you, personally, then there isn't a successful product on the face of the earth.<p>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+.<p>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.
If Google+ fills a need for people, especially allowing people fine-grained, easy-to-use control of what is shared to who, then it should succeed.<p>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.<p>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.
"But it’s the fact you see us an audience, rather than as users is what worries me about you."<p>i like Google and i like what i see in Google+ so far (great job guys). But I kinda agree with this.