Google Plus icon

Google Plus

Google Plus was a social networking service operated by Google. It aimed to integrate various Google services and create a more unified social experience around content sharing and community building. Developed by Google Inc.

License: Free
Available for:
Online Android iPhone Chrome OS Android Tablet iPad Android Wear

About Google Plus

Google+ positioned itself as a social layer across Google's products, emphasizing content sharing and community engagement over a simple chronological feed. Its core innovation was the concept of Circles, allowing users to segment their contacts into different groups for more granular control over who sees their shared content. This was a significant departure from the 'all or nothing' sharing prevalent on other platforms at the time, enabling users to tailor their updates to specific audiences.

Beyond individual sharing, Google+ fostered Communities, interest-based groups where users could discuss specific topics, share relevant content, and connect with like-minded individuals. These communities served as hubs for niche interests, providing a dedicated space for focused conversation.

Key features included:

  • High-Quality Content Stream: Designed to prioritize high-quality posts and discussions.
  • Hangouts: Integration of video chat and group messaging for richer communication.
  • Integration with Google Services: Seamless connectivity with products like Gmail and YouTube.
  • Content Curation Tools: Empowering users to find and share relevant content easily.

Google+ attempted to differentiate itself through a focus on meaningful connections and content discovery within a more controlled sharing environment. While it garnered a large user base initially, it struggled to maintain engagement compared to established competitors.

Pros & Cons

Pros

  • Circles feature allowed fine-grained control over content sharing.
  • Strong focus on communities for niche interests.
  • Integration with other Google services like Hangouts.
  • Emphasis on higher quality content over chronological feed.

Cons

  • Struggled with user adoption and active engagement.
  • Perceived complexity of features for some users.
  • Did not overcome network effects of competing platforms.
  • Integration mandates with other services were not always well-received.

What Makes Google Plus Stand Out

Circles-Based Sharing

Unique approach to sharing that gives users fine-grained control over their audience.

Deep Google Service Integration

Built to work seamlessly with other widely used Google products.

What can Google Plus do?

Review

Google+ represented a significant effort by Google to enter and compete in the social networking space. Its launch was met with considerable attention, leveraging Google's vast user base and integrating its popular services. The core concept of Circles was arguably its most innovative feature. At a time when other platforms often relied on a single, undifferentiated friend list, Circles provided users with a level of control over their information sharing that was genuinely novel. This allowed for more nuanced communication, enabling users to share personal updates with close friends while reserving professional or general interest content for broader circles or public sharing.

The emphasis on Communities was another strength. By providing dedicated spaces for users with shared interests to connect and discuss, Google+ facilitated the creation of vibrant, topic-specific groups. These communities often became hubs for in-depth discussions and the sharing of specialized content, offering a valuable alternative to the more generalist feeds found elsewhere. The discovery features within Communities helped users find relevant groups and content, enhancing the platform's utility for niche interests.

Integration with other Google services, particularly Hangouts for video chat and messaging, added significant value. The ability to initiate video calls directly from within the social network, or to engage in group chats alongside the content feed, created a more integrated communication experience. For users already heavily invested in the Google ecosystem, this seamless integration was a clear advantage.

However, despite these strengths, Google+ faced considerable challenges that ultimately led to its decline. A significant hurdle was user adoption and engagement. While many users were automatically signed up through their Google accounts, actively participating and shifting their social interactions to the platform proved difficult. Existing social networks had established network effects and user habits that were hard to break. Many users viewed Google+ as primarily a place for sharing content, particularly links and articles, rather than a platform for personal interactions and connection with friends and family, which was the primary use case for competitors.

Another challenge was the perceived complexity of Circles, despite its innovative nature. Some users found the process of organizing contacts into different circles cumbersome, leading to a lack of consistent application of the feature. The platform's interface and overall user experience also received mixed reviews, with some finding it less intuitive or engaging than alternatives.

The initial push for mandatory Google+ profiles for other Google services, such as YouTube comments, also alienated some users and contributed to a feeling of being forced onto the platform rather than choosing to use it organically. This approach likely hindered genuine engagement rather than fostering it.

In conclusion, Google+ was a platform with interesting ideas and a strong technical foundation, particularly in its emphasis on controlled sharing through Circles and its integration of communication tools. It succeeded in creating dedicated spaces for communities and facilitating content discovery. However, it struggled to overcome the inertia of established social networks and faced challenges with user adoption, engagement, and perceived complexity. Ultimately, while it introduced some valuable concepts, Google+ did not achieve the critical mass of active users needed to sustain itself as a major social networking player.

Similar Software

BuddyCloud
BuddyCloud

BuddyCloud provides tools, libraries and services for secure cloud & on-premise user and group messaging.

BuddyPress
BuddyPress

BuddyPress inherits and extends upon the integral functional elements of the WordPress engine including themes, plugins, and widgets.

Diaspora
Diaspora

Diaspora is a nonprofit, user-owned, distributed social network that is based upon the free Diaspora software.

Ello
Ello

Ello is a community to discover, discuss, publish, share and promote the things you are passionate about.

FreezeCrowd
FreezeCrowd

FreezeCrowd is a social networking site for college students and alumni.

Friendica
Friendica

Friendica (Friendika or Mistpark) is open source software for a distributed social network. The focus is on effective privacy settings and easy installation of personal servers.

Gnu Social
Gnu Social

GNU social is a continuation of the StatusNet project. It is social communication software for both public and private communications.

Hangouts
Hangouts

Hangouts is an instant messaging software developed by Google.

Hubzilla
Hubzilla

Hubzilla is a powerful platform for creating interconnected websites featuring a decentralized identity, communications, and permissions framework.

Known
Known

Known is a publishing platform that allows its users to share their stories online.

Libertree
Libertree

Libertree is a free, libre, open-source software that lets people create their own social network.

Minds
Minds

Minds is an open source social networking service.

Screenshots

Help others by voting if you like this software.

Compare with Similar Apps

Select any similar app below to compare it with Google Plus side by side.

Compare features, pricing, and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features, pricing, and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features, pricing, and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features, pricing, and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features, pricing, and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features, pricing, and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features, pricing, and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features, pricing, and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features, pricing, and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features, pricing, and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features, pricing, and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features, pricing, and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare