Google+ Can Be Saved
I've been thinking, there are two ways Google+ can stay alive rather than put out of its misery
1) Sell Google+ to some entrepreneur and Google make money out of the sell, or...
2) Separate Google+ from Google search co. and kept it as a separate self-sufficient company as part of the many other companies portfolio that Alphabet Inc. owns, and no longer share any data with Google.
Now, for both of these scenarios to work Google+ name must change, a no-brainer on that. But it also means it has to be heavily advertised to make money to stay afloat, now that Google can't help keep it afloat
Now I know getting advertisements in your streams may be a deal breaker for some but it is the only way G+ can self-sufficiently survive on its own separate from Google. But Google, if they really wanted to, could save Google plus if they wanted.
Google+ won't shut down 10 months from now. Who knows, a lot can happen now till then
I've been thinking, there are two ways Google+ can stay alive rather than put out of its misery
1) Sell Google+ to some entrepreneur and Google make money out of the sell, or...
2) Separate Google+ from Google search co. and kept it as a separate self-sufficient company as part of the many other companies portfolio that Alphabet Inc. owns, and no longer share any data with Google.
Now, for both of these scenarios to work Google+ name must change, a no-brainer on that. But it also means it has to be heavily advertised to make money to stay afloat, now that Google can't help keep it afloat
Now I know getting advertisements in your streams may be a deal breaker for some but it is the only way G+ can self-sufficiently survive on its own separate from Google. But Google, if they really wanted to, could save Google plus if they wanted.
Google+ won't shut down 10 months from now. Who knows, a lot can happen now till then
An advertising-supported service is a dealbreaker for me. I'd much rather have a paid subscription model.
ReplyDelete1Lucy Az Bodhipaksa Paid subscription just isn't feasible for a new Google+. You have to think about the future growth of the company. When new people visit the site, the paid subscription price would be a turn-off them. Why should they pay when they could go someplace else for free? Paid Subscription may be acceptable to diehard G+ fans, but for the newcomer, and for the future growth of G+..its a dealbreaker
ReplyDeletePaid subscriptions discriminate against the poor. I can tolerate advertising similar to that used by Google search.
ReplyDeleteG+ is an intrinsic part of your Google account. It would take a huge amount of work to be able to disentangle it enough to sell it to anyone, even if they could find a buyer - you only have to look at the messy divorce from Photos to see that.
ReplyDeleteLinda Tewes A freemium model (pay for no ads) would cover that concern. Google is already using that for YouTube.
ReplyDeleteJulie Wills G+ isn't physically attached to Google like our arms. Its code and Google needs only to sell the source code that makes G+ site run. Google won't make too much money on it but Google would do good by us rather than just killing it...don't be evil Google
ReplyDeleteG+ uses your Google account account as your Profile identifier Eduardo Feliciano
ReplyDeleteMost of your profile is in about.google.com, not in G+.
I'm afraid it very much depends on other parts of your Google account, as things stand. It is attached to your Google account, just as your eyes and legs are attached to your body, even if they rarely interact with each other. Without the rest of your body, your eyes and legs wouldn't do anything.
Hangouts' permissions refer to your G+ Circles. Separating G+ Brand Pages from GMB has left a lot of problems (just check the G+ Help community to see people having problems with that). The separation of Google Photos caused all sorts of problems. And there are no doubt many more examples that I can't think of off the top of my head.
Separating G+ from your Google account is utterly non-trivial. Why would the engineers be motivated to put in the necessary work to achieve it, and who would be responsible for the twitching, severed nerves left behind?
1Lucy Az Bodhipaksa Paid Subscription is a good idea for those who want to pay to NOT get any advertisement while those who don't mind it gets the advertisement. That's a good compromise.
ReplyDeleteGoogle is not going to give out G+ (like they did with Wave) because Google still uses the product internally and will continue to do so.
ReplyDeleteJulie Wills You are right that G+ is very much intertwined with Google. But again, Google won't be handing physically over anything to the new owner of G+ other than the code that makes the site itself works. And all we have to do is migrate to the new G+
ReplyDeletenice ideas but maybe the code is too cocked up and needs a fresh start. Google is responsible and probably is running scared of expensive lawsuits. Have you seen this?
ReplyDeleteplus.google.com - The truth behind G+ closure
G+ will continue to exist in G suite so they aren't giving it away.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit strange to hear people say they'd fork out money for a good platform, yet everyone is looking for 'free'. MeWe has paid options, but I wonder how many will say 'screw that'.
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't Google do what they do with Gmail? Stick some discrete advertising in and remove it for paid subscriptions.
ReplyDeleteEduardo Feliciano Seriously, it's too entwined with your Google account to separate it to sell on. Maybe somebody could take the basic premise and code it from scratch, but I'm pretty sure that Google will have no interest in making the necessary changes to it to be able to sell it on.
ReplyDeleteAnd anyway, rumours of G+ dying have been around for years. Who'd want to buy it? Much as those of us who ARE here would like to continue using it.
BTW, I'm a Top Contributor for the G+ product, which means I have access to some of the G+ team at Google (and will be out of a "job" after next August).
There just aren't enough users on G+ to justify the costs of moderation, maintenance, and upgrades. Not to mention the possible fines for privacy breaches.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Facebook, that has over 2 billion active users, G+ has just a few million. And even Facebook doesn't run on ads alone. So adding ads won't really save G+ either.
Google made money off G+ by using user data to create more targeted ads in Google search (https://www.quora.com/How-does-Google-make-money-with-Google+-and-Google-Chrome). But, by now, with so few users online, they've probably scraped all the data they can from us. So, there's no need for them to continue to spend money on something that's not really going to generate new revenue.
g+ closing isn’t about money, it’s about stopping a movement. We are the prettiest apple in the basket. They know it.youtube.com - Learn how Prison Planet operates - your freedom depends on it
ReplyDelete7seven7 who is they? and why would they want to close it?
ReplyDeleteMartha Magenta They, are the NWO crowd. The why, 1984 on steroids. It’s all in the video and on their website. The NWO were caught off guard by our new found freedoms and place of assembly. IMHO we are the brightest group of grapes in the vineyard. Not much escapes our scrutiny and they are weekly grasping at ways to stop our awakening.
ReplyDelete7seven7 I think it has more to do with a big gaff causing vulnerabilities now they are running scared of expensive lawsuits - that together with low usage compared to FB and it is looking no longer profitable for G+. Google created G+ to increase online searches for google sponsored ads.
ReplyDelete7seven7 of course it’s about the money! Google couldn’t monetise it above the hassle factor + risk of further breaches, so it goes. They are very good at this kind of economics
ReplyDeleteJohn Ogden Martha Magenta with all due respect, that is not the case. Google, Facebook never made a profit advertising. The have been subsidized from the beginning. I strongly urge you to get up to speed on the NWO plans for the internet and us.
ReplyDeleteAim4Truth.org
Detailed factually supported evidence of what happened while you were sleeping. This shutdown will happen everywhere they deem the resistance. Thanks for responding.aim4truth.org - American Intelligence Media
I was on Myspace for years, then years on G+ and in over a decade, the truther movement have not changed their message - It's the same over and over - sheeple, NWO and 'truth' - none of it backed up by verifiable evidence - most of it comes from the right wing libertarian movement which in itself does not bode well for the well being of the masses, e.g. anti-healthcare for all. anti-women's rights and in favour of privileges for the minority at the expense of others.
ReplyDeleteMartha Magenta but google and Facebook don’t make money from advertising! It’s a conspiracy I tell you! All organised by that Tom bloke from myspace, it was on that whiteboard from his profile pic, and he’s been trolling us all this time
ReplyDeleteJohn Ogden Oh yes, I've seen him. He pretends he is not there but he is really! :-)) And there be lizards controlling everything!
ReplyDeleteThere's another reason why G+ would not be bought by a third party Eduardo Feliciano - apart from the fact that Google just don't sell products to third parties:
ReplyDeleteThey could only legally sell your data with your consent, so to sell G+ intact, they would have to get everybody's consent.
Julie Wills unless they split it off as a separate company and sold that and all of its assets.
ReplyDeleteNot going to happen of course, as it is wedded so tightly to the Google account.