Skip to main content

Google+ ramps adoption faster than growth, but growth will come.

I am still reading ill thought comments about Google+, that it is failing at attracting users that no one stays to discuss and interact. I explained what was going to happen *back in september* but few seem to understand what their strategy is about.

Google+ adoption (the sign up process) is tied to conversion from existing google services to google+ profiles and growth (in terms of increased use of the service by the users that adopt it by signing up) is tied to scale and network creation (not conversion).

They are gaining viral adoption now but are going to hit their super viral mode (when more people start spending longer periods of time on the service itself) when the people who are starting a "social network home" there start interacting there because ALL their network (or most of them) will be "born" there.

Social networks are so sticky because the people we interact with in the real world are on them, google+ has the problem of needing to bring you AND your network over in order to get you to spend appreciable time there. This is why their strategy of just tying together existing resources (where people use their products world wide) and then providing the social platform for those people to build their network from ground up there is so smart. It is a time based strategy that appeals to all those *billions* of people who have yet to be on any social network. Facebook is big yes...and all over the world yes...but Facebook connects 800 million...but there are 7 billion on the planet...that is a lot of social networks waiting to be built and a much larger chunk of those 7 billion are now using at least one google product....and thus the hook is in the jaw. If their first taste of a social network is via an automatic Google+ sign up via gmail or docs or search...then that is where they will build their "home". Facebook lacking all those distributed features has to go the other by country...hopefully virally building inward....Google+ is kind of converting existing service users to social networkers in the opposite way and that is going to take more time.

I won't probably ever be a big user of google+ (outside of business and networking purposes) because most of my *social network* is HERE and not there and I have nearly 1,000 in that much work for me to move there and next to impossible to get them all to move there as well....but people with much smaller networks, will find that task way easier.

Finally, by getting the deeper demographic information from a sign up that google now has via Google+ they can target their ads better world wide and charge more efficiently for them even without the growth (as defined above)...and thus make more ad money *weather the people use their G+ service or not* today.

It's a total, win win situation, win now from the sign up and conversion efficiency of the service AND win later as the loose fish all over the world start and build networks on the first social network they see (google+).


Popular posts from this blog

On the idea of "world wide mush" resulting from "open" development models

A recent article posted in the Wall Street Journal posits that the collectivization of various types of goods or services created by the internet is long term a damaging trend for human societies.

I think that the author misses truths that have been in place that show that collectivization is not a process that started with the internet but has been with us since we started inventing things.

It seems that Mr. Lanier is not properly defining the contexts under which different problems can benefit or suffer from collectivization. He speaks in general terms of the loss of the potential for creators to extract profit from their work but misses that this is and was true of human civilization since we first picked up a rock to use as a crude hammer. New things make old things obsolete and people MUST adapt to what is displaced (be it a former human performance of that task or use of an older product) so as to main…

Engineers versus Programmers

I have found as more non formally trained people enter the coding space, the quality of code that results varies in an interesting way.

The formalities of learning to code in a structured course at University involve often strong focus on "correctness" and efficiency in the form of big O representations for the algorithms created.

Much less focus tends to be placed on what I'll call practical programming, which is the type of code that engineers (note I didn't use "programmers" on purpose) must learn to write.

Programmers are what Universities create, students that can take a defined development environment and within in write an algorithm for computing some sequence or traversing a tree or encoding and decoding a string. Efficiency and invariant rules are guiding development missions. Execution time for creating the solution is often a week or more depending on the professor and their style of teaching code and giving out problems. This type of coding is devo…

1905: Annus Mirabilus - Photo electric effect

1905 was a great year for physics, in this year a 24 year old patent examiner in Bern Switzerland published 4 fundamental papers in physics in 4 disparate areas of the field. The topics included special relativity, the relationship between energy and matter, brownian motion and the subject of this post, the photo electric effect.

The photo electric effect paper by Einstein was probably the most practical paper next to the brownian motion paper in that it provided an answer to a long standing problem in electromagnetic theory at the time that had stood as an embarrassment to particle physics. This embarrasment was a legacy of the work of James Clerk Maxwell and his fundamental equations of electromagnetism, by using a continuous wave analog to describe the energy of propagating fields Maxwell was able to do the astonishing, he explained the riddle that was the relationship between electricity and magnetism in clear mathematical terms and he was able to show how light must be itself an …