Thanks to the generous tech pioneer Flo, I've had a few days on the all new
Google+. I'm not going to give any definitive verdict as Flo is my only Google+ co-user at the moment, and its hardly fair to judge a social network when you have one friend on it. Nevertheless, here's my early musings.
The name
The first comment I want to make on Google+ is that, personally, I love the name. Its very neat, and the tidy little plus symbol after the uber-familiar Google branded logo is visually arresting. It works equally well with just Google's trademark lower-case "g" for the Android application favicon.
A couple of other smart things in relation to the name. Google+ is perhaps the grandest title the company can give to one of the products. It is the closest name to Google's prime product, and definition of success, search. While there has never been any substantive evidence towards it, I think many assumed the suffix 'plus' would be reserved to a paid tiered service, much like that offered by
Microsoft for Hotmail. The foundation of Google's business model is free access for the mass user, so a paid 'plus' service was never really on the cards. While the unveiling Google+ by no means prohibits the creation of a Google mass user paid service, the bestowing of + to Google's social effort indicates how serious it is about this project.
I also feel that proximity to plain old 'Google' makes the product more appealing to the type of user that is very much at home with Google search but never came to terms with the longer suffix products (Wave, Buzz, Reader). (
But see below).
Interface & design
Top notch. The layout and operation of the dashboard is exceptionally good. It pulls off technical and design sophistication, and appears next generation when held up to the clunky and clutter Facebook design (and let's make no mistake, Google+ is a direct rival to Facebook).
I've come across a few technical issues (particularly in relation to the profile pictures of other users), but these have not been serious. I'm sure they're nothing more than teething issues to be ironed out.
Circles, sparks, streams and huddles
I have two qualms with Google+'s actual content. Firstly, it does very little extra than Facebook. For me that's not an issue, because what it does it does in ways which light-years superior to Facebook. However, for the 'average'/'normal' user, this means there's little reason to invest time and effort into Google+. For most Facebook has although details in place and friends connected. There's no way to import FB data (nor should there be in my opinion) and if you want to post something you need choose between them or post twice. Like I say, the operation of Google+ is so much better than Facebook, in truth I think of Google+ as what Facebook should be, or what Facebook would be if it appeared fully formed today rather than grew organically. However, without a killer app to hook people in, Google may struggle to tempt users over to the Google side.
Secondly, as funky and cool as the names are, they're hardly crystal clear as to their meaning. I do like that they've split Google+ into its core components and given each a fresh and dynamic name. But the names will lead to confusion, and may put people off. If we think of them one by one...
Circles (aka Groups in Facebook). Groups is something I've been trying to get into on FB, and are absolutely necessary given that everyone from your best mates, to distant relatives, to your boss, to your old high school teachers friend you on FB these days. But the FB system is intuitive, and feels like a forced and unloved additions to the service. Google a quite right to put Circles at the forefront of Google+, and while the name makes perfect sense, its less transparent than Groups.
Sparks well I suppose this is the biggest difference from FB. The closest would be Friend suggestions. And immediately the issue is apparent. Suggestions makes perfect sense, things or people you might like based on your preferences. Again, sparks makes sense and is exciting, but in truth could mean anything.
Stream (aka Wall in Facebook). Wall makes perfect sense, a flat canvas in which posts about or related to you are displayed. I don't have much gripe with Stream, but its a very much over-used words these days (everything is streamed from this to that). And its over utilisation could be its downfall.
Huddle (aka Group chat or Messages in Facebook). A bit American-ised for my liking. Its OK, but as before it could mean anything.
I could carry this on. +1 versus Like, +1 visually more arresting and precise, Like does exactly what it says on the button. Even Google+, could confuse: is it a search engine or what? (one other than myself might ask).
In summary...
I think Google+ is a great product, but then I loved Wave.
Its a) not Facebook and b) vastly superior to Facebook. And for those reasons alone I love it. That said, the dominance of Facebook and the slightly raised barrier to entry due to the jazzy jargon might put off the masses. And if there isn't a momentum behind sign-ups it'll end up as a dead duck.
Go on, come over a play on Google+, you know you want to...
