I don't know if it's really relevant, Facebook and Twitter came in the days when noone or nearly noone used nor even knew social networks, so it's normal it took them more time to reach more users.
Yeah, Facebook and Twitter were started in 2004 and 2006 respectively, so there are many more internet users in 2011 who are interested in social media sites. With that, the graph isn't at all surprising.
How long its going to take them to loose half because of asinine policies about using our real names? 30 days.
I think it would be good to compare Google+ against other Social networks who are in their infancy as well
However, Google is not in their infancy. They have an established brand and loyal customer base that took over a decade to develop. A fair comparison would be to subtract current GMail (et al) users from this 10 Million and compare that to another social networking site in its infancy.
I'm betting Google+ has attracted roughly zero new users to their customer base.
You can't really use the argument of subtracting Gmail users, though, as in its early stages G+ only allowed in those who had a Gmail account, and even then only by invite.
There are several key factors here. First, as mentioned above, at the times of facebook and twitter launching they were unheard of, new ideas. This means they took time to gain a userbase and to become heard of in the communities. Also, facebook and twitter were brand new companies, google plus is coming from a company that is already massive and well known, so is much more easily spread as it already has a userbase, and is simply offering a new product for them.
Facebook was hardly a new idea when it came out. I think the problem for FB was that, at its inception, it was a College student-only application. It took a few years before they opened it up to all users.
lol. this graph doesn't prove the intended point. facebook started at a time where social networking sites were just blossoming and on top of that, a bigger point – facebook only allowed college students to join when it first started.
Well, Google + has the advantage of knowwing how the other network work. All it's done was to take a big part of the members from those networks and get them into the new boat. Let's see how it goes from here. I would think that Google + can be used even as a blogging platform (see here – use translation: http://obisnuit.eu/2011/07/31/google-blogging-un-… ). So go, Google, go!
Exactly. If it were the other way around — Google + first, Facebook second — I'm sure that Facebook's user base would have grown a lot more quickly than it did being developed first.
Read the Foundation series. Something built over a short time can be destroyed over a short time. G+ may very well fall as quickly as it has risen, and I don't imagine anyone will remember it 100 years from now.
google cheated, they added about 1/2 their gmail users as G+, i have a g+ and i never asked for it.
What about myspace!?
There's a 20 mil version as well. https://plus.google.com/112418301618963883780/pos…
so the second 10 million is a lot closer at least…
This is not surprising since Google actively pushed there product through there various other programs. One be reason Chrome took off was it was displayed prominently on the Google search page. Although Google reached those numbers I’m not sure how many are actively using it as a social network. I’m from an IT company and I know many of my friends joined just to check what it is about, but many are not leaving Facebook, at least not yet.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.