L.A. Times shows chart showing massive Google+ growth; concludes service is "fading away." WTF?
When something is new and hot, it gets a spike.
Every new iPhone. Every new "Twilight" movie. Steve Jobs' bio.
The doors open. The masses come rushing in. Once the initial push is over, the numbers settle to consistent growth for products and services that are succeeding, or consistent decline for those not succeeding.
This rule applies to everything except Google+, apparently.
For some reason, Google+'s spike is uniquely used against the service as evidence that that subsequent normalization isn't living up to previous traffic. Why?
When Google+ finally opened its doors to the public, visitors predictably spiked. When the spike subsided, as it always does, the new traffic numbers were many times higher than before, and have grown from there.
But the lamestream media keeps comparing current numbers to the spike. Why?
Why aren't iPhone sales negatively compared to the handset's initial weekend spike and declared a loser? Why aren't movie box office sales compared with their opening weekends and declared losers? Why isn't the Steve Jobs bio compared with sales in it's opening week and declared a loser?
Google+ is the fastest-growing social network in human history? Why do publications like the L.A. Times keep lying, and painting a picture of failure?
I just don't understand the double standard with Google+. Can anyone explain this? http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/11/google-plus-traffic.html
* * *