Shared publicly  - 
 
Dalton Caldwell may have burned a bridge with Facebook, but now he's on a crusade
43
9
Reginald Watkins's profile photoAdnan Issadeen's profile photoJamie Hunt's profile photoOmar Torres's profile photo
17 comments
 
Just read his original post, and stumbled upon this line: "I just think you constructed a business that has financial motivations that are not in-line with users & developers."

I'm still trying to figure out which financial motivation of a business could ever be in line with their users. :-D
 
The problem is that people don't want to pay to use something if it's available for free.  An add-free, subscription based social network may sound good on paper, but it would only work if everyone agreed to use it.  People will think, "why should I pay to use this social network when none of my friends are on it?"
 
good luck to this guy but it seems like a tough sell. "give me cash to make something awesome" might not get too many supporters. 
 
Google+ is free and Ad free (so far) and it's struggling. Not sure if a charged social network will gain much friction.
 
+Jamie Hunt - How exactly is G+ struggling?  It's only been open a year and it's usage figures have grown at a much faster clip than facebook's ever did. IN one year it has already become bigger than linked in, and it is a stone's throw from catching up to Twitter.  Add t that that it is deeply integrated into products people actually use.  How is it struggling exactly?
 
I wish people would stop saying G+ is struggling. People have gotten too used to the medias over hyped statements and the over glorification of startups that hit millions of users very quickly (while the same media folk quietly fail to mention the number of failures the same startups went through). 

I've been with Twitter from very early on. I was with foursquare extremely early on. And I've watched the rise of two social networks and I know what it's like to post in what's mostly geek land first that has almost zero personal connection. I know the feeling of posting and seeing no activity around your posts (4 square). And then watching as people come experimenting and soon become addicted. Please stop calling G+ struggling right now. They are gaining traction and I'm seeing the signs. 
 
+Jamie Hunt Google+ doesn't need ads because Google is already an ad powerhouse on the rest of the internet.  That makes the company enough money that they should be able to keep G+ clean of ads no problem.
 
+Logan Kraus Completely agree, social networks need a lot of people joining and there are already alternatives which do not have the problems described. Like you say Google+ is ad free and may never need or want them and if you want a completely free (as in freedom) social network, then you can use diaspora. Why would anyone want to pay for proprietary social network when you have alternatives who are free of cost, ad-free or even completely free.
 
Most of the people I follow on G+ I don't know in real life. It's the opposite on Facebook. So when journalist say G+ is struggling, I think they mean it's struggling to be what google wanted it to be. But G+ is exactly what I want it to be. Hope it doesn't change. 
 
Look at xbox live they charge for services that are available for free elsewhere but they are well ahead of those other services. People will pay for excellence.
 
+Alejandro Patrone Yes, but Xbox Live doesn't require all of your friends using it to succeed.  You can use Xbox Live even if none of your friends have an Xbox, but you can't use a social network if none of your friends use it.

That would be like using facebook when you have 0 friends.  There would be no content, so there would be nothing to do on it.
 
+Alejandro Patrone  Xbox live is not comparable because you cannot use something else. You cannot just use PSN on your Xbox to play multiplayer or just use a game's multiplayer features without a Xbox live account. I bet if there were a free alternative on the Xbox to play multiplayer games, virtually nobody would pay for it.

Furthermore with multiplayer it does not matter what kind of person you connect with, it does not matter what interests somebody else has, whether you know him/her in real life, whether he posts frequently, etc. all what matters is whether a stranger is playing the same game at the same time, which is also why I would not call it a social network, you only contribute little own content to the network.
 
+Alexander Neumann I'm not calling xbox live a social network. I said it was a social platform. You can always just buy a PS3 instead of an xbox that has an online service that's free.  Generally you don't because xbox live is where your friends are.  Anyway the point being is that there are clear examples of people paying for services that can be found for free elsewhere on the web. So these guys should absolutely give it a try.
 
+Alejandro Patrone Actually, I play on Xbox Live all the time, and only very with my friends.  I think I only have something like 5 friends registered, come to think of it. +Alexander Neumann is right; I don't really care who I play with or what their interests are, we all just play the game.
 
+Logan Kraus yes you pay to play with people and friends on a social platform for services you could be getting for free somewhere else. Again people will pay for excellence so these guys should absolutely give it a shot.
Add a comment...