Google+ came in a time when social network fatigue was setting in (Facebook usage was declining in the US) but there still wasn't a clear sense of what people wanted in a social networking site.
It was an uphill battle, and nearly unwinnable the way Google chose to take it on.
Google Hangouts was, in my view, one of their biggest assets. It's a solid piece of technology. It was way better than its competitors. The problem is that they couldn't come up with a viable way to make it part of Google+, rather than a great standalone project. The vision was that people would spend time in Google+ and "hang out" with others who were available. I knew, off the bat, that that wouldn't happen without (at first) a context around which to structure a hangout. Board games are a great starting social context for early adopters, but since they're a cognitively upscale group, you need quality games, not Zyngarbage like Farmville.
I thought that a focus on game quality (Real Games Initiative) could, even though it'd piss off counterparties like Zynga wanting to throw us our crap (because they didn't expect us to succeed) and still get preferential treatment, give people a context in which they'd actually get comfortable in G+, and then want to use it. Games were an area in which (circa 2011) Facebook was shitting the bed-- low-quality games and game spam were a primary driver of social network fatigue-- and I thought it was a great way to distinguish ourselves as cognitively upscale and attract early adopters and the more charismatic elements of the early majority.
Maybe a quality Games product wouldn't have saved G+. It's too late to know for sure, and I'd guess that RNCH was a bigger problem, but I feel like that was a key battle that has been lost.
It was an uphill battle, and nearly unwinnable the way Google chose to take it on.
Google Hangouts was, in my view, one of their biggest assets. It's a solid piece of technology. It was way better than its competitors. The problem is that they couldn't come up with a viable way to make it part of Google+, rather than a great standalone project. The vision was that people would spend time in Google+ and "hang out" with others who were available. I knew, off the bat, that that wouldn't happen without (at first) a context around which to structure a hangout. Board games are a great starting social context for early adopters, but since they're a cognitively upscale group, you need quality games, not Zyngarbage like Farmville.
I thought that a focus on game quality (Real Games Initiative) could, even though it'd piss off counterparties like Zynga wanting to throw us our crap (because they didn't expect us to succeed) and still get preferential treatment, give people a context in which they'd actually get comfortable in G+, and then want to use it. Games were an area in which (circa 2011) Facebook was shitting the bed-- low-quality games and game spam were a primary driver of social network fatigue-- and I thought it was a great way to distinguish ourselves as cognitively upscale and attract early adopters and the more charismatic elements of the early majority.
Maybe a quality Games product wouldn't have saved G+. It's too late to know for sure, and I'd guess that RNCH was a bigger problem, but I feel like that was a key battle that has been lost.