Stupid graph, that's comparing apples and oranges. Yes products are identical, but the distribution is totally different.
Facebook intentionally was only on college campuses. It let them scale slowly and work their way up the chain so to speak.
Twitter was crushed by growth and didn't have an existing user base to tap into.
Google+ growth is impressive, but it's built on top of how many Google Accounts, GMail accounts, Chat accounts and so on? It was designed from day 1 to get to the same 700+ million users that Facebook had.
I doubt either twitter or facebook ever considered the idea of getting a billion people to use them when they launched.
Also, even more than Buzz or Wave, Google+'s only value lies in inviting your friends. So, people invite their friends. It's like a social game, it only is fun if other people play it. It is in everybody's best interest to invite their friends, otherwise you are just sharing with Google's servers. If I wanted to work on a wave, it was with 1-5 people, if I want my social network on Google+, I'm going to invite 100+ people.
It in no way illustrates that, for the reasons programminggeek provided.
Google+ is making a huge splash, that is about the only meaningful statement that this graph illustrates. It doesn't suggest that they could dethrone facebook because there's a hell of a lot more to making a good social network than how quickly it gets ten million users.
For me and my friends, google+ is a dead zone. I signed up to check it out, and barely have looked at it since. I would like to use it some day, when more of the people I really want to connect with are on it, but there's really no certainty that it will make it to that point.
Thats true,part of it maybe that we were a bit tired of FB . Also there was a sense of hype around the launch of Google + which we didnt have in Wave or Buzz.
Even though I use FB more than any other social networking websites, I still think many of their features suck a lot (photo album, chat). It bothers me that they have been in business for so long , but they have failed to incorporate better features . For me the way FB was frantically responding to Google+ seems silly. They should have done these way before. Can anyone explain why FB had to wait for adding new features until Google+ was launched.
Google Wave and Buzz were published with minimal fanfare, and used a paradigm unfamiliar to Facebook users. Google+ is so familiar, and became so quickly wrapped up with everything else in your Google account, that transitioning and participating were easy.
I think Google+ is way overhyped. It's currently riding a novelty factor among early adopters of not being Twitter or Facebook. You even get blasted on it if you mention "Follow Friday."
Agreed. While I really want Google+ to succeed, this means absolutely nothing. Google could come out with something silly, say an Interactive Sandwich Maker (where did that come from??), and it would probably get 10 million users within a few weeks.
While it means nothing with regards to the ultimate success of the platform, it is much better uptake than wave or buzz. Will be interesting to see if people find different use for it than FB/Twitter. I don't see it yet, but if they get the groups angle right could mirror how real life sharing works to some degree.
Yeah, like Toady said, not quite. Simply saying you don't think Wave got to that many numbers is by no means proving me wrong. Besides, Wave and Buzz came out at a different time, when everyone was still in love with FB. Now, users are clamoring for another option besides FB, and Google's simply giving it to them. The timing is much, much better than before.
What? Tibbon's post doesn't disprove anything. It just asks if Wave or Buzz achieved that many users so quickly, and the answer is yes--Buzz had millions of users after two days according to Google:
A better base metric would be to measure how long it took to reach a specific number of items posted or shared per day. Those posts on Google+ about Google+ would be disqualified outright, which right now account for ~50% of my stream.
Also, in reference to the quickie TC chart, those of number of users who opted-in to a feature their provider activated. In other words, it's a voluntary rollout versus their previous social offerings.
And easier when you can spread the launch through other social networks. Most of my the people I follow/are friends with posted the phrase "who wants a google+ invite?".
Google+ is less a graveyard (see MySpace) and more like a new frontier full of pioneers but lacking the 'general public' that makes it feel built out like FB does.
If it helps, I'm a data point who's seen lots of Google+ activity among close and remote friends, embraced by many who were avid Facebook users (I wasn't). I can't compare it with others from my point of view since I joined other social networks late, but it seems to be doing quite well with people I know. The much feared group inertia was given a quick and solid kick by Google+ in my case.
Just thought I'd balance the comments about it being empty and inactive.
"Metcalfe's law states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n^2)"
"The law has often been illustrated using the example of fax machines: a single fax machine is useless, but the value of every fax machine increases with the total number of fax machines in the network, because the total number of people with whom each user may send and receive documents increases. Goods characterize the first component or intrinsic network effect. Services fall under the second component of network effects known as complementary.[6] A social networking site works the same way as the fax machine described above. The greater number of users with the service, the more valuable the service becomes to the community. Deriving from Metcalfe's Law, every new "friend" accepted or added on these social networking sites makes the user's profile ever more valuable in terms of the law. Positive and negative outcomes take place with all network effects involving a service of this sort. New jobs, relationships, and opportunities arise with more people coming together, however, if not used correctly, services of this type can lead to distant relationships."
Two weeks is how long it took for me to get as many spammy adds on Circles as I have gotten on Facebook in 6 years.
These stats are a complete joke. Almost any major google launch gets this type of initial surge. That google is happy to celebrate and even cite this type of stats tells me they are looking at the wrong metrics.
How about: how many people have given up fb for google plus?
I think the real test will be September: how many students have moved across to running their Social Networking through Plus, as opposed to Facebook or something else.
Once terms begins I suspect people will form around one network or another as their primary tool, so if Plus hasn't managed to get full social groups across and active by then, they may well default to Facebook as their primary social network for organising and sharing. Alternatively, I could see Hangouts managing to grow as a chat/skype substitute even if social groups were generally staying on Facebook as their Events and Sharing site.
I'd like to see the graph of how long it took Facebook, Twitter and Google+ to reach 100 million users. Oh wait, Twitter and Google+ aren't even close to that.
Google+ is still a novelty. That doesn't mean it won't eventually become something useful, but right now I have 20 people in my circles, and not one person posts anything. It's more accurate to say there are 10 million accounts on Google+, not users. Users implies people actually use it.
Facebook intentionally was only on college campuses. It let them scale slowly and work their way up the chain so to speak.
Twitter was crushed by growth and didn't have an existing user base to tap into.
Google+ growth is impressive, but it's built on top of how many Google Accounts, GMail accounts, Chat accounts and so on? It was designed from day 1 to get to the same 700+ million users that Facebook had.
I doubt either twitter or facebook ever considered the idea of getting a billion people to use them when they launched.
Also, even more than Buzz or Wave, Google+'s only value lies in inviting your friends. So, people invite their friends. It's like a social game, it only is fun if other people play it. It is in everybody's best interest to invite their friends, otherwise you are just sharing with Google's servers. If I wanted to work on a wave, it was with 1-5 people, if I want my social network on Google+, I'm going to invite 100+ people.
Apples. Oranges.