Google+ on Thursday hit its one-month birthday and is already a major social networking player, analysts say.
Google released its much-anticipated social network on June 28. Google+ quickly grabbed headlines, gained 10 million users in its first two weeks (and another 10 million since then) and had people seeking invitations to its field trial from total strangers.
Oh, and it's gained a lot of interest in the much-sought-after and lucrative enterprise market. Businesses have been clamoring to set up Google+ accounts, even though the network has asked companies and organizations to wait until a business version is ready in a few months.
"With tens of millions of users and Google behind it, Google+ has become a major player," said Rob Enderle, an analyst with the Enderle Group. "It has a good vibe going for it. The product is embracing concepts from Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook.... The end result is a higher average quality of information and less overall information traffic, making the service more useful for most."
All of this fanfare and success means Facebook, which had been skating along with nary a serious rival, is having to make room for a new competitor.
"It's been going very well for Google+," said Dan Olds, an analyst for The Gabriel Consulting Group. "I'm not sure [Google] can ask for much more at this point - although I'm sure they will."
Olds pointed out that the new network's technical rollout has gone very smoothly. There have been no outages or security breaches.
"It looks like everything that's supposed to work is working," he added. "This is crucially important at launch, since it ensures that news coverage concentrates on the Google+ story, rather than focusing on bad technical execution or something like that."
Google+ did have to deal with a report from Hitwise, an Internet traffic tracker, this week that its traffic had dipped. Hitwise reported that for the week ending July 23, Google+ had 1.79 million visits, down 3% from the week before. The report also noted that the average time spent on the site had fallen 10% that week to 5 minutes and 15 seconds.
It can’t be denied that by all major benchmarks the Mac has improved a great deal in the past few years,and certainly for this point Apple should be congratulated. That having been said,I can’t help but think that I’m missing something when it comes to the argument of why I should abandon the PC and switch over.
Those who have read this article for a while will know that I am a firm supporter of the underdog and so on this account I should certainly be using the much smaller Apple platform but it’s not quite that simple. My problem stems from the fact that I’m very much against the way that all Macs have to be made by Apple,and that the majority of the software that you will use on the machine will also be developed by them.
I enjoy the fact that PC’s are manufactured by hundreds of different companies and that you can even buy all the parts yourself and make a PC based computer from scratch – when was the last time you heard of someone building their own Apple Mac?
From a software standpoint you are given no option as to the Operating System you use and a large majority of the software that you use will be forced on you from the outset. Approximately half of the fifteen reasons for switching over to a Mac from the Apple website centre around the argument that there is a large amount of software built in to the Operating System out of the box. You could argue that this is convenient for the end user but remember that Microsoft have been sued for countless millions for shipping Internet Explorer with Windows. No one has even questioned the fact that Apple ship their own photo,video,music,chat and the heavily iPod biased iTunes software with their machines.
Stability makes up another couple of points on their list,however these are highly debatable. Yes,Macs suffer from far fewer viruses and security attacks but this isn’t down to the ‘rock solid’Operating System as Apple claims;it’s simply that with such an insignificant market share,no bugger can be bothered writing viruses for their machines. Windows based machines do have a large amount of viruses and security scares but that’s primarily due to their popularity rather than the fact that the idea of a PC is inherently flawed. Do remember that unlike Mac users,those that run PC’s have the choice of alternative Operating Systems such as Linux which again very few people tend to target for attacks.
The remainder of these fifteen official arguments focus on compatibility which again I don’t quite understand;the fact an Apple Mac can run Windows Vista or utilises an Intel chip isn’t a reason to make a switch. Granted,if these obstacles did exist then it would be a reason to stick with using a PC but the fact that they don’t exist doesn’t constitute a legitimate reason to spend half a grand switching over.
Don’t get me wrong,I actually have nothing against the Apple Mac as a machine but it’s just that I’ve been used to living in a world where if I want a new PC I pick who makes it and what software I put on it. If I want to upgrade it I take the side of the case off and stick a new graphics card,hard disk,processor or even motherboard inside and these can be made by a manufacturer of my choosing.
I don’t like the idea that to make the switch over from the PC I will only have the choice of giving my money to one company,and then when I want to upgrade a few years down the line they would have a complete monopoly over my business for a second time around. For me,at least,subscribing to such a system wouldn’t feel like supporting the underdog but rather more like selling my soul.