Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Says That Google+ Has No Users

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the pew-pew-no-you-are-dumb dept.

Facebook 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.

cancel ×

360 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Google+ (2, Insightful)

Mig55 (2439940) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120610)

He is quite correct. I have a Facebook account and several of my friends who wanted to see it also do.. but it's empty. There's nothing happening there. This interesting article [techdelete.com] also says the same - there is nothing happening in Google+, while people just use Facebook like before. It also points out that the circles by design make Google+ less social "social network" by greatly limiting what people share and see.

I don't see it changing anytime soon either. Google+ misses all those things that make social network social. There's no pages either. I've noticed Facebook works nicely as some kind of a rss reader if you join the pages that interest you. Besides, I'm not quite comfortable with Google's datamining. They already have my searches, youtube views, analytics from everywhere of the internet..

Re:Google+ (3, Insightful)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120652)

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:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37120720)

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?

Re:Google+ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37120860)

What, exactly, has FB done with personal data that's so evil?

Some arrogant ass of a coder took an obvious idea, ran with it, and is worth theoretical giant dickloads of money.

This is Slashdot. The only way you're supposed to make giant dickloads of money is if you're a) Google or b) somehow monetize Open Sores, but in a way that the community deems 'correct'. (EG, in a way that isn't going to make you, personally, giant dickloads of money.)

Also Farmville.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37120952)

...Open Sores...

Did you mean 'open source' by any chance? I'm really struggling to think of anything else you might have meant.

You realise you have these three words in your post: sores, dickloads, and ass?

Re:Google+ (1)

markkezner (1209776) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121082)

"Open Sores" does mean Open Source. It's a troll phrase, and not a very clever one either.

Re:Google+ (3, Insightful)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121100)

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:Google+ (1)

RollingThunder (88952) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121270)

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:Google+ (0, Troll)

Mig55 (2439940) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120758)

Not really, it's mostly Google+ that tries to come out as a privacy ensuring social network with the idea of circles. It gives false sense of privacy to people. Also, with Facebook you only get ads and targeting within Facebook. With Google+ they use that data all over the internet.

They both do the same, and that's why it's better to have them as different entities. Otherwise you're just giving out everything to Google.

Re:Google+ (1)

eviljolly (411836) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121028)

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:Google+ (0)

Mig55 (2439940) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121092)

Of course, but they don't. What is your point?

Re:Google+ (2)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121254)

They don't need a search engine, they have the like button that exists on how many sites outside of facebook? A boatload

Re:Google+ (1)

Snarky McButtface (1542357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121152)

I do not think it is a false sense of privacy. My main concern with social networking is offending someone, either a friend or employer, with a post. Google+ makes it simple to segregate content.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37121166)

This is not true. Facebook shares your profile information via "Instant Personalization" with websites you visit. Every wonder why your computer fetches all those pages from FB when you're not on their site? You can turn it off but it'll be back on again in a month thanks to the revolving door privacy policy.

With Google same bullshit only it's in-house.

Re:Google+ (1)

drjones78 (961270) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120702)

But you are comfortable with Facebook's data mining? The frying pan is better than the fire?

Re:Google+ (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37121262)

It is darker in the pan and on top of it you can bath in oil. So it is more or less a decision between KFC or Wendy's.

Re:Google+ (3, Interesting)

yelvington (8169) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120844)

There's nothing happening there.

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:Google+ (1)

reeno49 (1558221) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121072)

A Highlander reference in a post that I already agreed with? You've made my day, sir.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37121144)

Ok. How do I find interesting people?

Facebook has pages for all sorts of topics, and through them you could potentially meet likeminded people

Twitter gives you lists of people in different categories who you should follow, to give you ideas.

But Google+, you go there and... I don't know. You can search individual names, to see if maybe people are already there. You google around outside plus for people advertising themselves as wanting followers, or people listing "People you should follow." But overall it feels empty. I could invite my friends and family, but then I have to answer "why?" they've got Facebook and Twitter, what is Google+ offering them.

Google+ looks interesting, and I like how easy it is to direct your posts to subsets of people, but it's still too empty

Re:Google+ (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120870)

Funny, i see plenty of activity in my Google+ page. I don't know what's wrong with you and your friends.

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+ (3, Funny)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120872)

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:Google+ (-1, Flamebait)

Mig55 (2439940) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120920)

Why are you always defending Google in every story? How much they pay you to shill?

Re:Google+ (2)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121158)

I'll tell you what, I'll let you know how much they're paying me if you'll agree to accept my check in exchange to never post on Slashdot again. Deal?

Re:Google+ (2)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121156)

Funny enough, this is the only article on /. that the OP, Mig55, has commented on.

Re:Google+ (0)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121190)

They're getting easier and easier to spot everyday. Strangely, the shill accounts lately seem to all have 4-5 characters in the name. They come on very strong first posting on almost every article, people hip on to the game and start modding them down and right around the time they start posting at default zero, the account goes mute. Imagine that.

Re:Google+ (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120906)

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 robust as Facebook yet. No games- but I stopped playing games as soon as Facebook required a verifiable phone number for each account. I *liked* having 3 farmville accounts. I was pissed when I lost two of them after several months. So I stopped all facebook social games.

Sparks (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120930)

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:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37120964)

I just started using Google+ last week. The feature that has sold me on it --- the "nearby" feed.

You can go to nearby at home and see people asking "Does anyone recommend a good dentist close to XYZ?" You know, I do... I really like my dentist, so I recommended her, and then 2 other local people recommended theirs too.

You can go to nearby in a shopping plaza and see people complaining about service at place A, recommending a dish at place B, and posting pictures of their dish at place C. How valuable is feedback from 2 days ago about poor service or poor food at a restaurant -- I think way for valuable then some online feedback averaging feedback over the last year.

I'm sold on using Google+ for "nearby" usage alone.

Re:Google+ (1)

godrik (1287354) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121146)

"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..."

How to find something happening on Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37121154)

Here's how you find something happening on Google+.

Follow Trey Ratcliff.
Follow Colby Brown.
Follow Leo Laporte.
If you are masochistic, follow Robert Scoble.
Scan the profiles of people in their circles and follow anybody that looks interesting.
Wait for posts.
Scan commenters' profiles and follow anybody that looks interesting.

Behold! There are things happening on Google+! Why, it's a vibrant community of tech geeks and...photographers?!?!

Re:Google+ (1)

cHiphead (17854) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121170)

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:Google+ (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121172)

How is Google's data-mining any different than Facebook's?

Re:Google+ (1)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121174)

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:Google+ (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121244)

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.

Facebook next Myspace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37120622)

Facebook will become the next Myspace.

Re:Facebook next Myspace (1)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120772)

Actually, Facebook is more like old Microsoft, on crack.

Re:Facebook next Myspace (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121168)

Its really more like the next AOL, it keeps getting bigger even though all you hear is people bitching about it, and one day it as a service will vanish, but the brand will continue on and on and on, eventually buying winamp and on and on and OMG AOL DIE!

Google+ dead (1)

mozumder (178398) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120640)

Yah it's done. unplug it.

No hot chicks = no users.

The only people using it are a bunch of nerds.

No reason for anyone to use Google+ as a social site.

Re:Google+ dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37120734)

You do realize it's still in limited field trial, right? It hasn't even been fully opened up to the public yet. Yet it's growing faster in it's first couple of months than either Twitter or Facebook. At least wait a while and see where goes from here.

Declaring something dead, before it's even officially released for everyone. Man, people on the internet these days.

Re:Google+ dead (1)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120792)

I must taken issue with the "no hot chicks" criticism. I've found plenty. :-p

Re:Google+ dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37121268)

Wait, so there are hot chick nerds using google+?

Profile links or it didn't happen!

Re:Google+ dead (1)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120816)

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]

Re:Google+ dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37120858)

No hot chicks = no users.

Yep. Until they can fix that I'm going to stick with Slashdot.

He's Right (3, Insightful)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120648)

There are no companies (users in Facebook speak) actively mining your content on Google+.

Re:He's Right (4, Insightful)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120876)

Uh, there's at least one (Google).

Re:He's Right (5, Insightful)

DrVxD (184537) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120922)

There are no companies (users in Facebook speak) actively mining your content on Google+.

With one obvious exception ...

Re:He's Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37120966)

Except for, you know... Google.

Re:He's Right (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121068)

There are no companies (users in Facebook speak) actively mining your content on Google+.

So Google is not a company?

No social games? (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120650)

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:No social games? (2)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120774)

They added the games to Google+ a few days ago. So far, not too bad. Hopefully they don't go the route of Facebook.

Re:No social games? (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120960)

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 does Angry Birds need to know who I interact with and how much? So I deny that, and consequently don't get to play.

I opt to play sushi cat instead. They don't ask me to give them info about my friends.

Re:No social games? (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121076)

From what I can see it just looks at a list of your friends, so that it can cross reference it with the list it has of people playing. It dosn't bug your friends, but when you clear a level, it shows you the high scores of people on your friends list. In the case of angry birds it also has certain levels that are unlocked by totaling the stars of you and all of your friends. The best part, not one of my friends has ever gotten a Timmy wants you on angry birds, message or anything like that.

Re:No social games? (1)

Tukz (664339) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121134)

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 I just accept the first permission and get on with it?
If it's game breaking, I'm shit out of luck for not accepting it, but I highly doubt that second request is in any way game breaking.

They actually made this for CyanogenMod, where you can specifically select which permission you want to grant to applications, and it's working just fine.

Re:No social games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37121242)

There's a CyanogenMod for Google+?

Seriously though, I keep debating trying CyanogenMod out...

Re:No social games? (0)

Mig55 (2439940) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120814)

Google+ does have games, they introduced them last week with only a select partners. Others can join making them later. Google is just slow at copying all of Facebook's features.

Re:No social games? (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121120)

Slow at copying facebook's features? They seem to be much faster at it then Facebook was at copying them from MySpace

Re:No social games? (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121008)

As the other commenters mentioned there are now games on Google+. However, they failed to mention that you DON'T see constant spam about games or who's been playing what or stuff like that unless you specifically go view the games tab; those games-related things do not appear in your regular feed at all.

I'd say that's already quite a big improvement over Facebook.

Re:No social games? (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121188)

There are social games on Facebook? The only ones I've seen just let you send a request to "friends" asking them to click a button for you, no actual social interaction at all.

Facebook reports Facebook better than competitors (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120654)

More at 11.

+1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37120658)

I'm with you.
I'm also one of those 'no users', still have facebook (for now), but I really wish FB had a block ALL games/apps feature.

Fix the Google+ vs. Google Apps problem (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120664)

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:Fix the Google+ vs. Google Apps problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37120756)

if your google apps account is hello@mydomain.com log into google+ using hello%mydomain.com@gtempemail.com, click 'switch later' (do NOT click ok, as then this will no longer work)

Re:Fix the Google+ vs. Google Apps problem (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120958)

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:Fix the Google+ vs. Google Apps problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37121128)

BTW, the address has changed, it's now @gtempaccount.com

Re:Fix the Google+ vs. Google Apps problem (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121220)

this isnt just limited to plus, for over a decade now I have had a couple google accounts for whatever reason, and it used to not care, email would mind its own fucking business and log into that account, groups would log into another.

Now it just assumes that my gmail account for work is the exact same account I should use for all my personal stuff, and every freaking google page I have to juggle the stupid account switching cause they want to all of a sudden hurd me in to profile me like a GFD criminal so they can sell me shit.

quite annoying

Re:Fix the Google+ vs. Google Apps problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37120834)

and a lot of your "lack of content" issues will be solved.

You're greatly overestimating the number of people that use Google Apps. Furthermore, the people using Google Apps are generally not the people that are needed to popularize a social network platform like Facebook or Google+.

Re:Fix the Google+ vs. Google Apps problem (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121070)

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 who are trying to escape Facebook users who will drive Google+ acceptance. ("It's just like Facebook, but with fewer morons and none of those annoying game updates. Oops - check that.")

isn't G+ still invite-only beta? (3, Informative)

waddgodd (34934) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120672)

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:isn't G+ still invite-only beta? (1)

Tukz (664339) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121160)

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:isn't G+ still invite-only beta? (1)

somaTh (1154199) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121182)

Yes, it is invite-only. But, it still has 25 million [cnet.com] users, which sounds like a lot of people. I guess they must all be pushers instead of users.

No Users (1)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120692)

My name is: No C. Users and I'm a Google+

Re:No Users (1)

beefncheese (1663847) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120730)

Can you verify that?

He's right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37120700)

They should have made a Facebook importer (friends, info, pictures, videos) along with something to see and respond to facebook updates from Google+. People have invested too much time into their facebook profiles to throw that away.

It's also way too difficult to setup the privacy for circles. They should have made better defaults. Facebook actually has a straightforward table of permissions where you can see how everything is setup. It may be less flexible than Circles, but for a general audience of non-computer nerds, simplicity trumps flexibility. I don't want to spend my time fiddling with permissions.

It's a shame because facebook is a pretty sluggish site, and Google has an opportunity to beat them if they can match and beat facebook's usefulness.

Re:He's right (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120750)

Someone did actually, and Facebook blocked it. Funny how they don't want such a thing to exist.

Re:He's right (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121086)

Yeah, that's extremely funny. What business willfully helps their competitors poach their users or customers? Oh right, none of them.

Oh Noes! (2)

webheaded (997188) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120722)

The service that hasn't actually officially opened yet to the public has no users? I, for one, am shocked. Absolutely shocked. It's invite only, for crying out loud, shut up already. Let's just wait and see what happens when they actually release the damn thing. You can't say it's dead and you can't say it's going to kill Facebook because IT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN OPENED FOR PUBLIC REGISTRATION YET. Good lord, people. Let's all take a step back for a second, take a deep breathe, and give it a little time before you make your baseless predictions.

It's a feature (4, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120770)

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:It's a feature (1)

cc1984_ (1096355) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121090)

Come on, human stupidity on facebook can be funny sometimes.

http://failbook.failblog.org/ [failblog.org]

Re:It's a feature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37121122)

Any system involving humans is going to be a wasteland of human stupidity. That's why I like Slashdot's moderation system.

Re:It's a feature (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121198)

I believe the way google has it set up, is better for all users (including those that want to play those types of games), but less attractive for developing games like farmville and the like. If the user wants to play the game, there's a seperate tab for all of the games to post their crap to. It will not go on the feeds and will not get in the way of anything else. I imagine this will be bad for zynga and the like because spamming people who don't play games is their preferred method of advertising.

Lack of users not the problem for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37120818)

I have 49 friends in my circles and have had close to that for weeks now. Only 5 or so of them are actually regularly active on Google+. Most notably, none of my friends have "summer" photo albums on there, so there's no reason for me to use it.

It might be of note that about 10 of my friends on Google+ have NEVER had a Facebook account (and never will). They're still not active on there, though.

Which is worse? (4, Insightful)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120840)

Google+ has no users, but Facebook has no users worth talking to.
I think I'll take Google+ if I'm forced to choose one.

G+'s biggest strength may be its biggest weakness (2)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120902)

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:G+'s biggest strength may be its biggest weakne (2)

smbell (974184) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121240)

Google+, if you don't see your friends posting often, their talking about you.

A few reasons G+ can't replace FB yet (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120984)

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... *some* sort of wall, page, message, etc., would be nice. Not necessarily necessary, but could be nice.

A "page" of some sort; e.g., I have an ultimate frisbee group. It'd be nice to have a "group" for that. I suppose I could just make that a circle, but people can't manage their own subscription/membership to my circle then...

biggest selling point of google+ for linux users (1)

sunr2007 (2309530) | more than 2 years ago | (#37120992)

is that lot of informative discussions(LKML type) are happening there since most of the kernel developers are using it. A average linux user who cant track LKML can easily see some of the most informative discussions which cannot be found on facebook or twitter.

Sad (4, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121040)

It's sad watching people argue over which advertising conglomerate they want to give all their personal information to.

No iPhone/iPad app (1)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121078)

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]

Is all this "back and forth" for real? (1)

UncHellMatt (790153) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121118)

On a lark, I created a username and accounts on both Yahoo and Google, then using a name something along the lines of "Honeypot", created an account on Facebook using one of the email addresses (Y! I believe). I then added a bunch of contacts in the address book of both Yahoo and Gmail, different people in each address book. In short order, I began seeing ads within Facebook while logged into the honeypot address suggesting I friend people from the address books of the account NOT tied to the Facebook account. Can't recall which email service I'd done this with first, but I am pretty sure that a Yahoo account was associated with Facebook. In other words, I would log in to Yahoo, then to Facebook, then to Gmail. Yahoo was associated with the Facebook account. After a few days, I began to see names of people whose names were in the GMail account (and I knew were email addresses associated with real Facebook accounts) suggested as friends in Facebook.

I then repeated the same; creating a new address in Gmail then a Facebook account. Few days later of going back and forth, I started seeing names in the second Gmail account popping up when I logged into the new Facebook account.

Certainly none of this is a shock to anyone, but 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."

Context? (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121130)

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 frustrating - I can keep games from showing up on my general news feed, but if I want to see what a specific friend has been up to lately, if they game I can't find anything other than gaming spam. (Gaming spam isn't hidden when you look at the player's profile.)

Sick of individually blocking FB games? (2)

Resident Netizen (769536) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121138)

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 (1)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121142)

"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.

Android integration is sweet for photo management. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37121148)

I primarily use Google+'s instant upload feature on my phone. At first it was a little scary but not I really really like being able ot manage my pictures in picasa like as soon as I take them. No more uploading BS... :)

HHGTTG (2)

Faux_Pseudo (141152) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121164)

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? (2, Interesting)

Snorklefish (639711) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121228)

Everyone who's ever intensively played a 'social game' on Facebook knows the simple truth: they're surrounded by fake accounts. For over two years I managed in excess of 40 Facebook accounts without ever being flagged... I presumed most of my 'friends' were fake as well. Even now the accounts are just sitting there, untouched, unused, but inflating FB's user numbers.

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 altogether. Certainly, not everyone cheats or creates multiple accounts as I did. But I venture that enough 'gamers' do it to seriously distort Facebook's numbers.

I'm sure MySpace said the same about Facebook (1)

HeavyDevelopment (1117531) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121258)

I'm sure that MySpace thought that the upstart Facebook had no users in comparison. Now look where we are? I don't think that Facebook should take Google+ and Google lightly. I feel that Facebook's usability and function is more geared to college network (and hence where they cam from) opposed to one that is more adult. By default I don't want to have my posts go to everyone. I also don't consider everyone to be a 'friend'. Studies have been shown that the max amount of personal relationships a human can handle is about 150. So that means that if you have more than 150 give or take people in you network some of those people a bound to not be a 'friend'.

Nice try (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#37121260)

Facebooks the most hated company on the internet... proven by several polls now. Their on their way out. If Google acted anything like Microsoft does, Facebook would have been dead years ago. It's only a matter of time.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>