Facebook Says That Google+ Has No Users 360
dkd903 noticed another amusing shot in the battle between G+ and Facebook. CNN is running a story where Facebook's director of game partnership Sean Ryan basically says Google+ has no users. The article is mostly about casual gaming on social platforms, which I am really sick of individually blocking.
Google+ (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see it changing anytime soon either. Google+ misses all those things that make social
Re:Google+ (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook's data mining is more insidious.
As for circles, being able to direct messages at friends, family, the world, is enormously useful. The problem is it means you have to decide on every post who you want to share it with. However, that means you know who every post is going to.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I'm sure if Facebook had a successful search engine and a host of other useful service they'd be doing this too.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't need a search engine, they have the like button that exists on how many sites outside of facebook? A boatload
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Totally wrong. See all those "like" buttons on all the sites? All those sites hit facebooks' servers every time you load a page, and facebook links each hit with your FB identity, so they are tracking you all over the internet.
If you're anonymous, and you then create a facebook account, facebook tries to match up your prior anonymous surfing with your newly-created account.
Re: (Score:2)
With Google same bullshit only it's in-house.
Which brings up another important distinction (at least for me): Facebook seems to be happy to sell my details wholesale to anyone who asks for it. Google (who does know everything about me) doesn't sell the information, only the access.
Put another way: Facebook hands Site X everything about me and let's them do whatever they want with it. Google asks Site X who they want to talk to, and passes the news along. The difference is that I only have to worry about Google screwing up, rather than Facebook *and* e
Re:Google+ (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook's data mining is more insidious.
How? People keep repeating this, but nobody has any details. What, exactly, has FB done with personal data that's so evil? Anyone?
How about every time I turn off sharing of data with other websites, they issues a *new* privacy policy and all the sudden I'm sharing my data with other websites again?
Facebook is a privacy nightmare.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you mean all these policy updates are your fault? Stop messing with your sharing permissions so the rest of us can get some peace!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Google+ is a non-starter for me until/unless they stop locking out people who need to be anonymous. Facebook is too, but I never had any expectation that Facebook would do anything right -- Google, frankly, I would like to see get back to at least attempting to "do no evil."
Re:Google+ (Score:4, Informative)
Google+ is a non-starter for me until/unless they stop locking out people who need to be anonymous. Facebook is too, but I never had any expectation that Facebook would do anything right -- Google, frankly, I would like to see get back to at least attempting to "do no evil."
I think they're waiting for someone to give a use case for why anonymous people need Google+ specifically.
Frankly, if you're in a position to need anonymity (as opposed to just wanting it), you should be staying off social networks in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Any time you get an invite to participate in anything (say a quiz) on Facebook, it requests that you give the company that runs that program rights to view all of your information, instead of a small set of closely relevant information, or blocking all access to information but still getting to use the program anyway.
I'm pretty sure I've never heard of Google giving access to my personal information to outside organizations. Sure, I've given Google that access, and I let them profit from it to pay for the u
Re: (Score:2)
"Open Sores" does mean Open Source. It's a troll phrase, and not a very clever one either.
Re:Google+ (Score:4, Interesting)
Then you're doing it wrong.
Put some interesting people in your circles. It's not all geeks. There's a very active bunch of photographers sharing images, people talking about cooking, local conversations (the mobile app does geolocation-based searches), and group video chat (Hangouts).
Plenty is happening when I log in, but then I have about 500 people in my circles, and more than twice that number have me in their circles. My circles are quite a bit more active (and informative) than my Facebook news feed, but less than my Twitter feed.
There is room for multiple services. This isn't the Highlander.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course i don't post much to Google+ myself since they currently don't allow me to use a pseudonym (at least not without the threat of having "something happen" to my account) but that's probably not the issue with your friends if they're migrants from Facebook.
Re:Google+ (Score:4, Funny)
Besides, I'm not quite comfortable with Google's datamining.
Oh look! It's another paid Facebook hypocrite shill. Didn't you guys' astroturfing campaign get exposed months ago? And you're still at it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I use google+, follow Wil wheaten and Felicia day (started playing Kingdom Rush or something like that because of her google plus game- it's a Tower Defense game).
I LOVE the ability to separate family and various friends.
Facebook really crushed my life together too much.
My use of Facebook is down about 50%.
My use of Google+ is up about 25%.
I use social networking about 25% less.
I'm inviting folks to Google+ and I noticed some of my friends have stopped posting on Facebook entirely.
It's not as rich and robus
Re: (Score:2)
I tried following Wil and then noticed that 3/4 of my feed was Wil Wheaton. That seemed like too much.
maybe time to re-add him now that I have a few more people there.
Sparks (Score:2)
I've noticed Facebook works nicely as some kind of a rss reader if you join the pages that interest you.
Have you tried using Sparks in G+? It's a better RSS reader than following Pages any day in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
"Besides, I'm not quite comfortable with Google's datamining. They already have my searches, youtube views, analytics from everywhere of the internet.."
Interesting. A friend of mine was saying:
"I do not care about with Google's datamining on Google+. They already have my searches, youtube views, analytics from everywhere of the internet..."
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see annoying Zynga app-of-the-week update posts all day on Google+ and I actually interact with others about 'real' things to talk about other than the usual Facebook one-liner update.
You are shilling for Facebook, I hope you are getting paid. G+'s ability to follow others that actually have something interesting to say gives it a definitive leg up on Facebook for individual social interaction (of course, FB is still the king for Corporation social media, while G+ still gets its stuff together).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a [Google+] account and several of my friends who wanted to see it also do.. but it's empty. There's nothing happening there.
You say this like there are things "happening" on Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
My girlfriend uses facebook and google+. She's always showing me some neat thing some famous astronomy nerd has posted on google+, never anything from facebook. It seems like the Google+ early adopters are more likely to be smart and have interesting stuff to share than the facebook commoners. That helps compensate for the lack of users.
Re: (Score:2)
I must admit that I post most of my geek stuff on Google+ and most of my generic "hey look at this link!" stuff on facebook.
9 times out of 10 I get better discussion off my google+ list, even though my google+ list is almost exclusively a subset of my facebook list.
Re: (Score:2)
That could just be because "geek stuff" generates better discussion than "hey look at this link."
Try posting the same thing to both and see where the better discussions develop
Re:Google+ (Score:4, Informative)
I do.
when I say "9 times out of 10 i get better discussion" I'm talking about topics that would warrant discussion.
I think that a lot of my friends just "skim" facebook for interesting stuff, but dig in to google+ because there's less there, so you have more time to peruse each post.
It's like the tabloids at the supermarket. you're standing in line there, maybe you see that lindsey lohan has done something stupid or one of the kardashians is pregnant or tom cruise has been proven to be a robot or something. maybe you'll even pick up one and look at it for a few seconds... but there's so much garbage there that you just skim it and ignore most of it.
if instead of 15 tabloids you had, say, 2 newspapers, you'd probably spend a lot more time looking at a given article in the time available to you.
Honestly, I've found that very few of my facebook friends have much to say really. everything is in 1 or 2 sentence bites at best. occasionally somebody's post may have a good comments section where you can have a lively debate, but not often. I'm guessing that facebook limits you to about 4 or 5 sentences in your inital post to discourage people from posting 30-page spam updates or something like that, but considering that they auto-shorten anything beyond about 3 lines anyway, what's the point? I very much enjoy that Google+ will let my inital post be whatever the hell I want it to be.
He's Right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He's Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He's Right (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no companies (users in Facebook speak) actively mining your content on Google+.
With one obvious exception ...
Re: (Score:2)
There are no companies (users in Facebook speak) actively mining your content on Google+.
So Google is not a company?
No social games? (Score:2)
That's attractive, actually. Or at least, would be, if google would let those of us with google apps accounts have profiles and access google+.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They are actually doing a good job to keep the games out of the way for those not interested in them. They are on a separate tab, and if you don't click that, you are not bothered by anything games related.
Having said that - if you click on a game (any game as far as I can tell) you get a dialog like this:
Angry Birds is requesting permission to:
View basic information about your account
View a list of people from your circles, ordered based on your interactions with them across Google
Why doe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that you opened the subject of requesting permission, why haven't Google learned anything yet?
They do the exact same thing with Android.
Let me explain.
Using your example:
Angry Birds is requesting permission to:
View basic information about your account
View a list of people from your circles, ordered based on your interactions with them across Google
The first one, sure, go ahead.
It might need my name and such, for scores.
The second one, not so much.
As you said, why the hell does it need to know?
Why can't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It pisses me off that good programs are conditional on compromising your own privacy. If only society were more discerning with what they agree to, these things wouldn't be so rampant. It's there because we accept it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook reports Facebook better than competitors (Score:2)
Fix the Google+ vs. Google Apps problem (Score:2)
Fix the large Google+ vs. Google Apps problem (the one where those of us using Google Apps cannot use Google+ - period) and a lot of your "lack of content" issues will be solved.
For now, we Google Apps users are stuck on Facebook, etc.
C'mon Google - you've got the developers, now get to work.
Re: (Score:2)
log into google+ using hello%mydomain.com@gtempemail.com
Er...no. I'll log into Google+ when it's ready to accept hello@mydomain.com.
I've been burned too many times already by odd Google merge conventions. (Thinking about lost email addresses created before I moved a domain to Google, having to wipe Android when switching the operating user, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
the people using Google Apps are not the people needed to popularize a social network platform
I don't know about that. I'll bet there's higher-than-average usage of Google Apps by Slashdot users (the typical "early adopters" of new technology in marketing speak) and we Slashdot users are seeing a lot of Google+ articles and other PR activity directed at us these days.
Furthermore...the "casual" Facebook users already have Facebook to do Facebook-like things. I don't think those are the people going to be the ones that popularize Google's Facebook clone either. Instead, it will be the folks like us
Re: (Score:2)
"It's just like Facebook, but with fewer morons..."
+1
That, in a nutshell, was the only reason I accepted a friend's Google+ invite. There are people I want to remain in contact with, but the signal to noise ratio on Facebook was approaching zero, and consequently, I had pretty much ditched social networking until Google+. We'll see if it stays that way or if it gets less interesting as it gets more popular.
isn't G+ still invite-only beta? (Score:4, Informative)
From the "thank you Captain Obvious" department, something that's in an invite-only beta practically has no users. Really? How did you ever get THAT idea?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it IS Google.
They are known for having their applications in Beta for a very long time.
Gmail got out of beta just "recently".
But yeah, this still a closed beta to my knowledge, so it's not really a surprise it's low on users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:isn't G+ still invite-only beta? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this invite-only beta already has over 25 million users. 5% of Facebook's user base in a month by invitation only isn't too shabby.
Re: (Score:3)
Same with Facebook. But no one wants you to know the number of inactive users on their service...
No Users (Score:2)
My name is: No C. Users and I'm a Google+
Oh Noes! (Score:3)
It's a feature (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't no Farmville spam the entire selling point of Google+? Everybody I know using it is there precisely because it's NOT Facebook and doesn't have all the annoying spam (and even more annoying emo users) that make Facebook a wasteland of human stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, human stupidity on facebook can be funny sometimes.
http://failbook.failblog.org/ [failblog.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Which is worse? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think I'll take Google+ if I'm forced to choose one.
G+'s biggest strength may be its biggest weakness (Score:3)
Google+'s biggest strength is that it puts circles front-and-center so that you can control who sees your posts on a per-post basis. Yes you can do the same in Facebook, but it is a tedious workflow in Facebook.
I am starting to think this may be Google+'s biggest weakness as well. Now that people can share posts with sub-sets of their friends list with ease, Google+ overall feels less active. I wonder how much of that feeling of inactivity has to do with not being aware of private, walled off conversations between members of your circles. Honestly, how many close friends do you have on Facebook or Google+? It is more than likely that the bulk of your friends lists / circles are acquaintances or friends of friends and those are the people that you are less likely to share posts with ... and vice-versa.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like all you need is two circles to duplicate your facebook experience.
I have family
friends
dnd
acquaintances .
a couple private groups
I don't go overboard but I could see how you could overdo it.
On facebook, everything was mashed together. It caused me stress and embarassment occasionally.
A few reasons G+ can't replace FB yet (Score:2)
There are a few things G+ is missing to seriously contend, at least in my eyes, with FB... for me and most of my friends.
First, I can do without pretty much all the apps, games, and all those other random application things that I have to keep adding to my "block posts from [app name]."
However, one of the biggest things I use G+ for, apart from general communication, is events/coordination type stuff. If G+ had a decent "Create an event" thing, that'd be a major plus [hahaha...]
On the communication side...
Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
No iPhone/iPad app (Score:2)
Probably the biggest problem is I can't upload pictures from either of my iDevices. There isn't a Google+ app in the App Store so one of the things I do (upload pics) isn't available. I am on it since my daughter is using Google+ more than Facebook.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google/id447119634?mt=8 [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There is a google plus app. Been one for weeks.
Is all this "back and forth" for real? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't get why Google feels the need to come up with G+ and compete with Facebook. Stick to fscking search, stick to what you're best at. I don't understand this Microsoft mentality of "Oh, we didn't have this first and make money with it? Lets do one of our own! And fire the people in charge of marketing and precognition. They should have known social networking would become such a huge hit."
The problem is that Facebook is basically becoming a walled garden service for many Internet users now. Message/m
Context? (Score:2)
In terms of market for casual gaming companies, Google+ does indeed have "no users".
1) G+ launched without gaming integration, so no one on G+ went there for the gaming, and thus can't be considered a "user" from the perspective of gaming companies.
2) G+ launched without gaming integration, and was a major reason many early adopters started using it. Many of G+'s users are NOT users from the perspective of the gaming companies because they went to G+ specifically to get away from the gaming spam.
It's fru
Sick of individually blocking FB games? (Score:2)
I use FB Purity. Awesome.
http://www.fbpurity.com/ [fbpurity.com]
That and a couple other tweaks in FF makes FB a reasonably enjoyable experience.
A modified quote, for context (Score:2)
"because they don't have any users,"
is a bit better presented as...
"Google ['s game revenue cut] is at 5% because they don't have any [gaming] users,"
This intent is a bit less hyperbolic, and truer to the intent of the statement. Not that Facebook has been overly honest in their war with Google, but they aren't ignoring the Google+ userbase either.
What is the deal for Google+ game developers? (Score:2)
"Google ['s game revenue cut] is at 5% because they don't have any [gaming] users,"
Does Google+ require that games on their system use their billing system? Facebook does, but it's not clear if Google does. With Google's Schmidt commanded to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 21 on Google's antitrust issues, I'd be surprised if Google did require that. 5% is a reasonably competitive price for a payment service. At 30%, you look into handling your own credit card payments.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have any gaming users because they don't have any gaming.
But they seem to be pwning Mark Zuckerberg all day long.
HHGTTG (Score:3)
he is correct. The Hitchhikers Guide shows us there is no mone, no people, no sex and therfore no users.
Counting users by game accounts? (Score:2, Interesting)
I recognize I was cheating. It was wrong and I shouldn't have done it. For my actions, I've chosen to exile myself from FB games altogethe
Nice try (Score:3)
Dumping facebook (Score:2)
I want to delete my facebook profile and switch to google+ fulltime. Unfortunately almost all of my friends and family still use facebook, though some of them have google+ accounts aswell. What exactly can I do to get them to switch over? No one wants to use a service that has no activity and no users. It's a chicken and egg problem.
For the time being I've gone back to using email almost exclusively. I never used 99% of the facebook features anyway, I disabled the wall, didnt post pictures, etc.. I basicall
Dang, I wish!! (Score:2)
I wish my sites had "No Users!" I'd be very pleased with the "No Users" count of 25 million.
I'm happy when there are 300 active users...
Solution for your individual blocking woes (Score:3)
FB Purity [fbpurity.com] uses your browser to implement a whitelist of applications that get to your feed, so even as new games are "released" (usually in the case of Zynga, poorly reimplemented or bought) you won't see their spam unless you specifically allow them.
Oh yeah? (Score:2)
Well, Facebook has no FACE!
Give Me Twitter Integration (Score:2)
Facebook will read my Twitter status and add it to my wall. Google+ needs the same ability so I can post to all three services at the same time from my mobile.
Facebook's problem isn't a lack of users (Score:2)
And Facebook has no ethics (Score:3)
It's users have no privacy, no real opt-out, no right to it's own content.
Comment removed (Score:3)
They have at least 1 user (Score:3)
I use google+ and I don't have a facebook account. It is slowly replacing twitter for me. I love it. I have about 50 people in my circles.
It hasn't even opened up registration to new users (Score:3)
G+ is nowhere near close to being a threat to Facebook yet, we know that, but it does have 25 million registered users in what is essentially a closed beta test.
Predictions this early are useless and will all but reflect individual bias, preferences and loyalties. If you feel like it. you can look at past precedents like Gmail (hit) or Wave (miss) and get a slight idea of where things are going; a Facebook exec is the last person I'd trust to tell me how Google+ is doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone did actually, and Facebook blocked it. Funny how they don't want such a thing to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's extremely funny. What business willfully helps their competitors poach their users or customers? Oh right, none of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Helping is not what happened. Google wasn't poaching anything. Users wanted to migrate away. Facebook said sorry, we're not going to allow you to migrate. Google had nothing to do with it aside from the fact that users wanted to migrate away from Facebook, onto Google+.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I must taken issue with the "no hot chicks" criticism. I've found plenty. :-p
Re: (Score:2)
I was gonna mod you but I couldn't decide between Funny and Flamebait.
Definitely an F either way lol.
Duuuuuuude... nerd chics are the hottest. Like Britney Spears when she's teaching semiconductor physics!!! http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm [britneyspears.ac]
Title Out of Context (Score:2)
Nowhere in the article doesn't actually say "no users". It's an attention grabbing, flamebaiting, tabloid-esk headline that CNN and Fortune should both be ashamed of. Here is what it actually says:
The similarities between the two models have obviously ruffled some feathers. At the event, Facebook's Ryan argued that Google's gaming foray was like McDonald's (MCD) recent efforts to offer premium coffee, competing in the same space as Starbucks (SBUX). (That business went on to become huge for McDonald's...) "Google is at 5% because they don't have any users," he said dryly. Google declined to comment on the statements, but confirmed the percentage it planned to take from game makers.
Obviously from the context, they are talking about why Google charges so low is because they have no real user capitalization to begin with. But Facebook is not pulling a Baghdad Bob: "There are no US troops in Iraq. They're making it up!"
It was a figure of speech. And one obviously pointed out in the author's
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like Google Wave?