crockett

I think he probably has it right. If you look at the success of myspace then facebook, people don't go there just to hang out.. They needed a hook.

For Myspace it was the music.. I don't really get into the whole social thing but I did visit myspace because I could easily find music I wanted to hear. I didn't really interact with the rest of the site but I did spend a lot of time browsing the free music.

Facebook, I can't honestly say what it's pull was over myspace. I signed up to it way back then but it seemed pretty bland and I wasn't interested in spending time chatting all day.

Yet since then they have really pushed the 3rd party aspect and if I talk to a average person that goes to FB, they always talk about the various time wasters like farmville and so on.

I wont use FB because IMO it's a fucking sick how much of your privacy they are digging into.. Yet even despite this people stay there not because of how horrible FB navigation is but rather it's activities.

So you have to ask.. other than so called better privacy, what did google+ offer? TBH I don't even think G+ offered better privacy because your still tied into all google's other shit so it's just as invasive as FB if not worse.

Now on the other hand the whole Twitter thing I just don't get.. I guess it's pull is the chat thing and mainly is attractive to people whom would typically sit in AOL chat room or IRC of the old. I assume it's just feeding that old school chat room thing in a different package..