I am putting together a talk and just came across these statistics:

Twitter 'tipped' at 17 million users, Pinterest at 12 million users, so why is the powerhouse of the Internet – Google – considered a 'failure' at 170 million users with Google+? Ignorance, that's why. Swim against the current all you want naysayers, it's your loss.

Google+: Reshared 3 times
Google+: View post on Google+


  1. says

    I think I'm done 'convincing' – if people are interested, I will work with them as long as needed. If they come to me with a defensive stance telling me 'it will never work' I let them go right on by. Not every person or business is willing to actually do work to get to the next great place in their lives or businesses.

  2. says

    Let's be honest, google hasn't focused as much on the mainstream audience and + is viewed as a geeks paradise… and quite frankly I like it this way.

  3. says

    +Lynette Young I think that if this was any other company, people will be touting how remarkable a growth Google+ has experienced. But, because it is Google, people tend to put the company on a high pedestal and thus have huge expectations. The truth is; given the amount of time Google+ has been around, I think it's growth is significant.

  4. says

    We need active use rates to truly compare. Average Posts/User/Month, Average Logins/User/Month – and the documentation needs to be clear that for G+, it's actually G+ users and not just gmail users being lumped in. There is much major media thought that G+ is just a farce, that the numbers don't reflect participation.

    Additionally, there has been a lack of awareness of the true purpose of G+ – that it's almost BETTER for you if your friends don't join with you, because the new relationships you make via information, shared interests, and interactions are superior.

  5. says

    Google is up against some strong opposition. Namely, everyone who isn't Google.

    They have the potential to dominate the on-line world far beyond AppleFacebookTwitterwhathaveyou, and seem to be given far less leeway than the other actors because of this.
    It is not necessarily a bad thing.

  6. says

    there are not nearly as many active users in comparison to FB/twitter.

    Plus the standard is different with google because FB and twitter came from the ground up. If google put a link to a website that served poop pictures on their navigation bar it'd break 20 million users overnight, but that doesn't mean it's a success because 20 million people checking it out and never using it is not a success.

    Note: I love G+ and I hope it catches on, but I would not classify it a huge success in terms of users today. I do however consider it a success as an engineering project because I think it has a lot of nice features that FB either doesn't have or scrambled to implement after G+ was launched (getting the incumbent to scramble to improve is always a good hint you've done something right).

  7. says

    I like google+ the way it is. I don't need my grandma on Google+ posting pics of her cat. If you're interesting you're already here. Everyone else can stay on Facebook doing whatever it is they do over there.

  8. says

    Personally most of my friends (and almost all college age people) are still on FB and that kind of sucks, but since they all use google when I share something with them they see it in the notification bar, which is nice, but if it wasn't for google's enormous status that wouldn't be the case. I guess that's the benefit of being huge-normous like google is)

  9. says

    Really people? This us v them thing is a little nauseating. The social networks are different. Stop with all the poltification about your superiority as netizen because you're on team google. This really reminds me of the "#teamandriod" v "#teamapple" – It's childish and quite frankly, a little ugly.

  10. says

    +Grady Broyles it's a totally different argument because I can from my android phone talk to an iphone owner without even knowing what type of phone they have.

    Most people don't want to have to manage many networks which offer mostly the same services so it becomes a problem.

  11. says

    I sure am enjoying Google+ – I have read amazing articles (things I won't have had time to search out), met interesting people, challenged my intellect, viewed fantastic photographs, visited the world — all here on Google+. I am a follower, just sorry that I don't have more time to pursue this new find… but I certainly will continue tell others they should give it a try.

  12. says

    +Mihai Bulic What does that even mean? My point had nothing to do with people's choice of single or multi-social netwoork accounts or what the make up of those chopice are. My point is all this ego stroking about how enlightened G+ users are compared to Facebook is, to put it charitably, distasteful. It's also a sign of how brand associated our culture has become and makes those who even engage like this look less, not more, enlightened.

  13. says

    +Grady Broyles It means that comparing social network choices to other choices is like comparing apples and oranges. In other markets multiple products can split the market and that's generally a good thing because it drives competition, but in the social realm that's not true as much because a user of network B won't have access to a user of network A.

    I wouldn't call this distasteful, it's not like anyone has said "HEY FB USER YOU'RE A MORON, GO F YOURSELF" or anything like that. It does feel a bit like elitism though, which is lame, but when I hear someone say "like..omg, posting on G+ is so0o confusing" I can't help, but think "are you dumb?", which I guess makes me elitist as well.