That's a good point. I still don't really "get" Google+, and I find it somewhat counterintuitive.
> tl;dr G+ didn't provide enough value to users to make it worthwhile spending time with the product, ergo it was a bad product that people didn't spend time with.
I was challenging your "few users ==> bad product" line of reasoning in general, not necessarily the statement "Google+ is a bad product". Sorry, I should have been more clear on this.
Still, I stick to my point that there are more factors influencing the market share of a product than its pure quality. Even if I made a better Facebook clone, I wouldn't gain any noteworthy market share.
That's a fair point. I really just drawing a distinction between accounts and users. G+ had hundreds of millions of accounts but relatively few users, certainly a single digit percentage of total accounts. That's a strong indicator that people aren't coming back after their initial experience or that they're signing up to something they don't want in the first place. Neither is a sign of a good product.
That's a good point. I still don't really "get" Google+, and I find it somewhat counterintuitive.
> tl;dr G+ didn't provide enough value to users to make it worthwhile spending time with the product, ergo it was a bad product that people didn't spend time with.
I was challenging your "few users ==> bad product" line of reasoning in general, not necessarily the statement "Google+ is a bad product". Sorry, I should have been more clear on this.
Still, I stick to my point that there are more factors influencing the market share of a product than its pure quality. Even if I made a better Facebook clone, I wouldn't gain any noteworthy market share.