So what if Google+ had a lackluster start; it just means I get more face time with Zuckerberg

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been coming to the sad realization that Google might have already screwed up their Google+ rollout beyond repair. It launched with such promise — the service actually seemed to be a smarter, more useful type of social network, and early adopters like me were clamoring for accounts.

But, Google couldn’t (or wouldn’t) meet our demand, instead choosing to allow sign-ups by a select few, who were in turn empowered to hand out invites as if they were Wonka’s Golden Tickets. By the time people like me lucked into logging in, many of our less-bleeding-edge friends had already shrugged and returned to the mind-numbing stream of their Facebook feeds.

I hold out hope that everyone I care about will still migrate over, and we’ll “huddle,” and “hangout,” and our lives will be the better for it, but at the moment, my Google+ feels like an echo chamber. If you share to a social network and no one is around to read it, have you shared at all?

Just when I was about to give up, I was poking around “the Plus” during my obligatory 2 minutes daily, and I finally got around to trying the online version of Angry Birds via the “Games” tab.
“Oh, isn’t this neat,” I thought, “it automatically stacks you up against people in your circles.” And, when not enough of your friends are on this thing, you get results like this:

(Greg is a friend of a friend whose mobile app company I follow.)

So, Google+ may be a barren wasteland at the moment, but I’m having the time of my life, schooling the founder of a (ironically) far more successful social network on the best game in the world. Maybe I’ll even send him a message. Why not? It’s not like he’ll ever bother to log on to read it.


Leave a Reply