I'm not on it yet, but I intend to start looking for an invitation sometime in the next few days. The group chat looks very interesting for online meetups.
I'm there. I like the openness, in that I can make posts that people can follow without friending me, like on Twitter, but without the lenght restrictions. And everything can be "retweeted", which wasn't the case on FB. It's like the best sides of Twitter and Facebook combined.
Also, I can send my updates via e-mail to friends who aren't using G+. That's nice, since I have at least one friend who can't be bothered to be on Facebook, but might be interested in reading my status updates. I'll have to ask her about it.
Whether people will actually adopt it in big numbers is an open question, but I'm hoping they will.
On a related note, does anyone know what's the deal with those "+1" buttons that you now get when you google things while you're logged into Gmail? These damned things are very easy to click accidentally. Are these "recommendations" published somewhere where they are publicly visible even if you don't have a Google profile?
I'm there, and trying it out, but not quite seeing the value in it, yet; whereas Twitter does one thing and does it well, G+ seems to be trying to be all things to all people, and however much loving care and rocket science went into the design of the UI, that's rarely a recipe for success.
Would you unpack your sense of "better" for me? One salient difference is the 140-char limit - but I found that a feature of Twitter, not a limitation.
Upon consideration, I realized that I actually find there to be two potential "core" meanings of Twitter, either of which one could refer as "Twitter's thing":
A) A social network where profiles are public by default, friend connections are one-way, and you can retweet the stuff others have posted.
B) A social network with a 140-character limit on the post length.
If you take B as the core, then A fits very well together with it. But if you take A as the core, then B can be seen as a limitation. When I said that G+ does Twitter better than Twitter does, I was thinking about A as the core. On the other hand, I do agree that the 140 character limit also has its upsides, so I'd like to see both G+ and Twitter co-existing.
If anyone is interested in having a look at it, but doesn't have an invite (it's invite only so they can control the rate new users sign up), then you can send me a message or reply to this comment with your email address and I'll send some out.
It left a good first impression on me, but it really needs more people on it before I can decide how it compares to Facebook.
If anything, it will hurt Twitter more.
I'm on it. I sort of like the "circles" interface, but it really is too quiet to say for certain what the experience will be like when tons of people are using it (assuming they will).
I seriously doubt Google+ will be able to compete with Facebook. Social Networking sites rely 100% on users to generate value for other users. That effect is hard to overcome, so there needs to be a significant advantage in order to get people to use a different site. Facebook is "good enough" (unlike MySpace, which had serious problems). And unlike MySpace, Facebook doesn't have the negative status connotations that MySpace had. Google+ might be able to capture some of that mystique by spreading via invite (thus making it "exclusive", but I doubt it will really work.
Emerald Sea is not a Facebook killer, Gundotra told me. In fact, he added, somewhat puckishly, “people are barely tolerant of the Facebook they have,” citing a consumer satisfaction study that rated it barely higher than the IRS. Instead, he says, the transformation will offer people a better Google.
Though this is from a senior Google person and no cite is provided, so might be taken with a grain of salt.
At least one person I know has already said they'll leave FB entirely for G+ once G+ becomes open for all. He got me to sign up as well, that way.
I really like the interface and how easy it is to handle groups. It's clean, simple, and pretty nifty.
I also read somewhere that third party apps can not post to directly to you or something, so, if that's true, that'd rock.
I've been using G+ for the last 4 days. The probability I will stick with it is low unless it becomes much less of a "walled garden," e.g., unless G+ gets RSS feeds all over the place that eliminate the need for most visits G+.
This article lists the top Google+ users by # of followers. Worth a chuckle.
ETA: in general, bare links are usually not appreciated here. Still, here are two more links to interesting articles in the tech blogosphere discussing Google+.
My thoughts? Well, all I can say is that I don't care about social networks as long as they aren't obnoxiously shoved in my face.
I don't think I've seen anyone bring this up so far...
Anyone else on it? What are your thoughts besides the obligatory XKCD reference?