Shared publicly  - 
 
This is helping my prediction that Google+ will be the fastest service ever in history to reach 100m users come true.

Of course it's not fair to compare Google+ to Twitter or Facebook, because those were startups, and Google is such a strong established company. But I don't think that's the point.

The point that I am making is that this new invention of Google's is taking off faster than any other social phenomenon ever, and that is truly impressive.

Does anyone know of something else that has ever grown faster than this out of the gate?
106
128
Darin Ferraro's profile photoRobert Campbell's profile photoAngel Chiang's profile photoAnsje Miller's profile photo
51 comments
 
Wouldn't it be more surprising if it didn't?
 
The iPad comes to mind. Apples to oranges, definitely.
 
Something else faster out of the gate? The flu?
 
At the Facebook Garage London event this week the moderator commented that he wasn't so sure about plus and asked the 300 person audience if anyone had signed up yet - every single hand in the room went up. Stunned silence from the front.
 
Any figures on the other recent google apps? Music?
I doubt it's as high - it's one of the many US only services.
 
You could argue same things about Facebook having inactive users or dummy spam accounts etc.

I believe they are over 20 mil already and will hit 100 by September. 
 
Granted it was a room of developers, entrepreneurs, digital agencies etc, but the irony wasn't lost on anyone.
 
The question isn't whether G+ can get trial, it's whether it can get repeat usage. The video previewing Wave got 9M views; the product got no repeat. Buzz got a lot of trial but no repeat. Right now G+ is getting repeat usage from tech early adopters, and that is positive, but crossing the proverbial chasm to mainstream adopters will remain tricky. My non-tecchie friends never post.
 
Maybe big out of the gate, but we'll see if it has staying power. I see many people post one thing when they sign up and then don't show up for weeks on G+.
 
I would argue that it is precisely because Twitter and FB exist that G+ has such a fast start.
 
+Elias Moubayed I think that many people forget that devs & startups are on the early adopter edge.
There's a huge hungry early adopter audience out there - that have good experience with social networks - it would be much more of a surprise if G+ didn't have a high uptake.
 
I didn't really use Twitter for more than a year after I signed up, but I have been very active on Google+ since day 1. A lot of the people who haven't posted here yet, could well become active users down the track.
 
For a normal guy like me, less than 10% of my FB friends have choose to get on G+ in past 2 weeks (even after getting invites from multiple sources). The rapid growth like this is not too hard because there are "celebrity nodes" in network that helps viral phenomenon in about 1/5th of network. Getting the rest 4/5th of network going is much harder. My guess is that G+ would start stalling between 70m to 100m users unless they can push themselves more harder out of the network core (for example, via exclusive games).
 
One advantage of Google+ over Twitter (for a new user) .... it takes a while to "get" Twitter. The Google+ model is pretty clear from the beginning.
 
It would be interesting to look back over the posts about twitter and how many talked about how optimal the 140 char limit was. With G+ I think it's been shown that people want more room to express themselves.
 
That is awesome, I agree, but I still think things can fall down as quickly as they rise up.

If the Google politic has been to invite elite, known people, hackers, and all the G+ kind of people you know, then the curve may suddenly stop rising, because 'common' people are not really concerned with all these things.

By agglomerating people more progressively, twitter and fb did not orient their applications as G+ did.
So they have grown slowly, but they captured people of any kind on the way, and these people then have made the product 'spirit'.

I just hope G+ will be able to change this orientation.

For the while, G+ is not so far from being just a "Social Marketing and Stuff" course with 100.000 teachers, 3.000.000 students, and 15.000.000 people asking themselves what they can do with G+.

It is too bad, because this tool is new, fresh, unique, and so discretely powerful.

So I trust in the figures and I think G+ is going to be a long term success, but I keep a space for the doubt.


Do not sell the bear's skin before killing him.
 
One thing that has made G+ a positive experience for me is being able to reconnect with all the people I already know from Twitter. Pardon the buzz words but it is like having an instant social graph here. That could tend to skew these numbers a bit.
 
+Tristan Leblanc Don't forget that G+ was used internally for about a year before going beta - it had time to mature.
 
G+ should break ever milestone record given Google's already existing reach. Once this opens up to the public it will be game over for the other networks. I'm already on G+ more now than I'm on FB and trying to get more people over here.
 
+David Ashwood We may want to express more than 140 char limit, but I don't necessarily want to READ more than 140 char limit unless I actively click the link. That's the beauty of twitter. you catch a glance at the headline, then dive in if you want. Too much info crosses over G+ and it gets overwhelming too quickly.
 
+Ansje Miller I agree with that, and for this reason, I think Twitter is a thing, G+ is another thing. And even facebook is a third other thing.

For our benefit, all these actors should clean their own yard, and concentrate on what users like in each.
 
I agree with Robert Campbell, FB and Twitter created the concepts and Google+ is catching up. How many of the Google+ users are not FB or Twitter in the past? I'm going to guess that number is near 0. G+ doesn't have the first-mover advantage, and is playing catchup currently. I'd expect that type of growth. Truth will be in long term adoption, staying-power.
 
It's playing catchup - but it's also leveraging the collective experience of users from that platform. There's a very small learning curve - which makes the G+ feel intuitive.

One of the largest factors that will affect G+ is it's API and who/what integrate with it.

The other is spam/content control - which will affect the perception of the first.
 
G+ has the advantage of social media awareness and public usage thanks to FB / Twtr. Apart from that most of the G+ current users are existing Gmail users and not the new ones to a product like FB / Twtr.

Numbers don't lie but they can hide lot of critical information.
 
To attract the masses a better job of the "features" within G+ must be talked about more openly. I for one think "instant upload" is awesome. I had never wanted to upload photos to FB since so many who are not in my "inner circle" would have no need to see, now I can focus my sharing on those who will mutually benefit and enjoy. The buzzword being "focused sharing."
 
+David Ashwood I did not know, thanks for the info.
But it does not change my opinion.

Internal at Google are not anyone.

This long incubation period is surely what makes G+ a so 'radical' tool. But the confrontation with the public is always a surprise.

Many people don't want tools, they just want fun...
That is too bad, but that is true... :-/

What's the % of people, in the ~750M facebook users, who understand API and spam/content control. They just don't mind.

Moreover, I don't find the learning curve so small.

At a first glance, yes, I agree, but then it needs one's intelligence to understand and project the various strategies offered by the circles.

Anyway, I really hope it will works and makes everyone smarter, and specially those who need it the most!
 
That's google power. But the product has to be good and popular. For example the google wave, was like that a wave that came and passed.
 
I am surprised nobody is mentioning "Nazis"
 
agree with several commenters that this chart is not amazing, and in fact would be amazing if it were not like this. 0 to 20m users (from Google, in today's socially networked world) is only a test of the basic 'does it look interesting and maybe provide fun'. Question is: what stats WOULD be interesting? perhaps 'people on FB and G+, share of eyeballs', simple reuse, or maybe it's just a case of wait and see... ;)
T. Pham
 
I guess there are a lot of people suffering from FB fatigue. I am kind of waiting for your prediction of when G+ will hit 100 million users?
 
It's amazing alright, I suspect it's going to become phenomenal when it becomes easier to create an account and people begin connecting with each other. 100 million within 3 months??? It could happen....
 
It's impressive but still small numbers compared to Twitter an FB
 
google+ won't be that fast if facebook and twitter doesn't exist, or doesn't pioneering the success of social media, g+ is so much look like facebook with twitter's advantage of asymetric friendship, my point is g+ still need something new and different to be able to reach 100 million user faster than facebook, otherwise google+ will slowing down and fading
 
From the chart it seems like G+ is slowing down while Facebook and Twitter are accelerating…
 
+Angel Chiang - no, the rate of acceleration is slowing - but it is still a steeper line than the other two.
 
That's the problems with clones. They come right out of the box but their lifetime is limited. Have you seen the movie 'moon' with Sam Rockwell?
 
Bit unfair as Twitter and Facebook launched in a different webworld. What would Google+ growth look like without FB and Twitter, and many others, setting the social network stage first?
 
fuck google + fix my shit before touting this thing as the greatest thing since sliced bread. photo uploading is buggy as hell and it is not my computer.
 
This only shows that people that already have Gmail are jumping in. Predictable and boring.
Interesting would be how many people have came to this service without being gmail users.
Add a comment...