Shared publicly  - 
 
+Paul Allen requested I do a 20 mil one too. No problem, Paul. I like excel, it's fun! Here's the 20 mil graph. comScore says we hit it today.

Sources:
http://goo.gl/HVkKz
blog.twitter.com
www.facebook.com
310
2450
Thomas Hawk's profile photoGeorge Leavitt IV's profile photoStephanie Frasco's profile photoAdolfo Foronda's profile photo
114 comments
 
Ha, but it's a slight advantage having a global reach of hundreds of millions to start off with. Google's is not a new company like the other two, obviously, so apples and oranges really.
 
What is the "user" a unique visitors in 24 days?
 
Thats SAD. And its not even open to everyone yet. xD!
 
G+ is growing at 10 new users per second...for 24 days. Sounds incredible when you think about. Thats got to be some kind of record for the most rapidly growing service! Anyone know of anything that else that has beaten this for sustained and rapid growth?

Interesting that FB is essentially linear until it hits an elbow and takes on a upturn. Twitter is doing the same around the same point in time.

I wonder if the G+ curve is going to saturate and tail off a little until we get the public release (we users have probably done the bulk of our inviting by now)...and then perhaps an even steeper ascent.
 
You may have to move to a log(n) scale. :) LoL.
 
20 million. I realize more and more how frighteningly huge the internet has become.
 
And, yes, I'm aware that Facebook is like 30-times as big :p
 
Curious if there is a graph out there about Google Wave's growth?
 
This is impressive.. However, it should be noted that Facebook was initially only available to college students with .edu e-Mail addresses, and wasn't until much later on when it was available to everyone.
 
It's kind of unfair, Google had a built in set of users before +, Facebook and Twitter didn't. I'd like to see what would happen if Yahoo launched a service, I'm sure even yahoo would beat Twitter and Facebook.
 
Thanks, Leon. I am definitely adding you to my "social experts" circle, just for this kind of unique information processing capacity :D Of course, direct access is the most profitable form of "first move advantage."
 
What does the graph look like for Buzz? ;)
 
That is exciting; however, as someone pointed out, it's a bit misleading because Facebook was only open to college students for a few years before it opened to the public. Twitter is a good comparison, though, because it was always open to the public-- although even Twitter came years after Facebook. I think we should consider how much the previous social networks primed the public for adoption of current social networks. You might give credit to Facebook and Twitter (and Flickr et al.) for paving the way for adoption of Google+.

Personally, though, I wonder who all these Plussians are and why I don't know them! I invited all my Facebook Friends to join Google+ and only a few did. The vast majority of my contacts on Google+ are contacts from Flickr-- early adopters who rushed through the Google+ gate the moment it swung open. The second largest number are friends and acquaintances I follow on Twitter, most of whom I met at Tweetups.

Just sharing my individual experience. The growth of Google+ is still exciting to me, and I feel very comfortable with Google+ right from the start. It's clean, intuitive (mostly), and well, pretty!
 
Isn't that interesting
 
Agree with some of the posters who reference cultural shifts. FB and Twitter helped revolutionize our culture and allow us to feed on our desire to peek into others lives (our own reality TV). Couple this with the fact that more people have ready access at their finger tips with mobile devices whereas FB and Twitter didn't have that luxury early on. Now I'm not saying G+ is a mere fad since G+ comes at a time when people are ripe for an alternative to FB. The Google engineers have done a good job with integrating a number of existing features to create a nice streamlined service. Now, hopefully they will look at user feedback and put out a very solid product upon public release. 
 
Nice plus it is not even really public
 
I agree with Daniel. Facebook and Twitter were the first two social media platforms to really let loose on the internet, and that was before a lot of people knew what social media was really all about.

Now, national network TV, celebrities, sports stars and the like are using social media and almost everyone is hearing about it. Sure, there are some people who don't use it, but you can't turn on your TV these days without hearing about it. Social media went mainstream only a few short years ago, and that has opened up the door for an online powerhouse like Google to get into the social media market and have it take off so well. If Google wasn't who they are, I'm betting they wouldn't have done this well at all.
 
Thanks for these +Leon Håland, I believe that the 100 M point will be much more telling but it is certainly exciting to watch this meteoric rise!
 
Any prediction on the 100 million or 200 million times?
 
Hey, I was going to dump this into a Google Fusion Table, can you share the original statistics? +Leon Håland
 
I fail to see the significance of this. Twitter and Facebook are pioneers of social networks with mass appeal. All this chart tells me is Google+ is riding their coattails to great success. Of course, that's Google's business model from day 1. Copy copy copy copy.
 
Very impressive. It shows how widely dispersed Google products are throughout the web, to be able to attract so many early adopters.
 
Statistics are so effin HAWT! [grins] no. really.
 
+Joe Dee On the contrary, that is a perfect example. They may have had a better search algorithm, but they did not even come close to sparking the search engine market. That market was already thriving (for its time) before Google came in. Google benefits from entering markets late, with better features that are easier to provide in a new product with no expectations than it is to add them to existing products.

It's a valid business model but you have to understand it makes graphs like these much less impressive.
 
To be a little bit fair: FB (and TW) started from nothing, even the word social-networking wasn't really defined. And how many users (e.g. GMail) does Google already have? ... but there are still people around who doesn't know G+ but have a FB account
 
It seems to me that the amount of users already familiar with google is a moot point. We google users are particular about the quality of the tool (remember Buzz and Wave?). The fact that we love google+ is pretty amazing. They are making a great product here.
 
Do you think the rate of growth might have something to do with the fact that we are so much more confortable with social media these days.
 
You all say Facebook created social networking, but it seems you forgot about MySpace. Yes it's nearly dead now, but it was the real "creator" of social networking.

Also Facebook was just where people feed up with MySpace moved to after it became a glittery, auto-play, eye gouging circus. Facebook would have been nothing without all the MySpace users leaving in droves to find something better. I believe that's the potential G+ has. If Facebook users really are upset enough with Facebook's lack of API support and ease of security then you may see another migration. That's a huge maybe though.
 
Stephanie, good guestion! People get the concept now. And with so many having a Gmail account, it's an easy thing to try out. Also, how many are the SM geeks who missed out on being a first responder in Facebook/Twitter and want that experience now. So, the thing to watch then will be retention, "active" use vs. account numbers and interest demographics.
 
+Danny Skarka you are right about that. Everyone wants to be an early adapter now. No one wants to miss out on any trends. Also there are now more "Social Media gurus" than ever. :)


Facebook was originally created only for college students at certain schools. Of course you can't expect it to grow as fast when there werent even that many students attending those school at the time. It was also invite only and you had to have a college ID.

Twitter was also started for a select group of people as a messaging tool. As it was completely new technology and more mobile based in a time that smart phones weren't as available it makes sense it took longer.
 
I think some of the rate growth can be attributed to the fact that Google is our Overlord. I've had my gmail since 06...so many quality products streamlined together - [shrugs] no brainer to me. Never trusted the Facebooks.
 
Wow. That's crazy.I'm very curious as to see when the flow will begin slowing... or even if it will.
 
All three companies have established brand identities and sustainable business models. I am currently using all three for different purposes, and having to manage different interfaces. Right now, Google feels like a better place to build a central HQ office, while Twitter and Facebook more like specialized satellite operating subsidiaries. Google+ is the black swan phenomenon that triggers the next paradigm shift in the way innovators innovate. Twitter and Facebook get credit where credit is due, but so does Google+, for those who can see past the forest from the trees.

At this rate, I would expect to see 50 million beta testers by next weekend. The psychology of "fear of missing out" is working beautifully for Google's "incremental enrollment" tactic. I would keep growing with manageability and selectivity. Welcome to viral adoption at the speed of competitive innovation, and social duplication. Thanks for letting me contribute my two cents worth.
 
Excellent .... hope G+ users grows with real users
 
One difference, though, is that Facebook and even Twitter opened there virtual doors into a world that was just getting used to the idea of sharing online. G+ had a reception by people who have essentially become experts at online social networking. Nowadays, we are more eager to get onto sites like G+... like me.
 
Once they open up to the billion plus users (heh no pun intended) they could advertise this to I'm not sure even they have the back-end resources to keep up with demmand? It would be an amazing thing to see though. Well done bigG :)
 
Surely this has been proved/disproved already?!
 
To be fair in comparing Google+ to Facebook, let's take into account only the users accumulated by FB after they went full on public. How long did it take for them to accumulate 20 million users after that point? By then they had an established brand so I think that is more of an apples to apples comparison. Let's get that graph. I'm still betting that Google+ has accumulated user much more quickly than when FB went public. The fact that G+ is still in beta with invite only status further equalizes the playing field. Let's get a more fair graph! +1 this if you're with me! :-p
 
+Evan Sanchez

Considering google+ isn't public yet either, I didn't think it was fair to start when facebook opened for public. Also, they had almost 12 million users already when they opened, so it wouldn't show the whole story.

But, since you asked; It took approximately 187 days for Facebook to go from ~11 million users September 2006 when they opened for public before they hit 20 million in April 2007.

source: http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?timeline
 
Right, Google+ isn't public yet either, but they have established street cred from their numerous other offerings like Gmail, their search engine, and their Android platform. They aren't starting from scratch, so I feel that's not the fairest comparison either.

I feel that you can sort equalize that by looking at Facebook's numbers once they had access to a larger population than when they were starting from scratch (since Google+ obviously isn't starting from scratch as a college only social network).

What I was asking for was not how long it took for Facebook to go from 11 million users to 20 million users. I wanted to know how long it took facebook to accumulate a fresh 20 million users once it went public. So...it sounds like they had 11 million or so when they went public. So I want to know how long it took for Facebook to get 31 million users. Does that make sense?

-Evan
 
+Evan Sanchez - okay, so 31 million would be at ~254 days.

FB had 20 million in april 2007, and 50 million users in october 2007, 6 months later. with linear growth from 20 to 50 mil it would take 2 months and 6 days to get to 31 million from 20, 187 + 67 = 254.
 
Thanks, Leon! You rock like whoa. :)
 
curious on how much users did Buzz and Wave were able to attract for a particular period. I think that would make an interesting chart too.
 
I heard it opened to the public a couple days ago. Bad rumor?
 
In reality though, Facebook made Google+. I would imagine most of those 20m heard of it on FB or Twitter. All the people like me that like the idea of facebook but don't really like facebook itself, loved the idea of a legit alternative. Plus so many had google accouns already.
 
If Facebook and Twitter were not around, do you think G+ would have reached such numbers in a short span of time?
 
Excel? Shhhh! don't use that word around here. Google Docs all the way ;)
On a serious note, thanks this is interesting to see.
 
Nice curves. Good markettiming again.
 
facebook are following the "u" shape graph
 
Will G+ even get a hockey stick growth period like Twitter + Facebook?
 
Is there a way I can link this on Facebook to try and get people to convert?
 
That's all very impressive, but curb the optimism. Google+ just came out. The true judge of whether or not it will be successful will be in 6 months time.
 
Suggestion: If it doesn't get too cluttered, keep the icons from each multiple of 10 million that the lines hit, so it is easy to see that 10 mil was hit at 16 days even on the 20 and 30 million charts.
 
The raw numbers are impressive, but where is the context? What percentage of Internet users were on those three when the goals were hit? The alternative to FB at the time was MySpace, which seemed to cater to the younger crowd. Twitter was a somewhat new technology so it would obviously have longer rampup time, no? Like I said, the raw numbers are still impressive. 
 
Also, what were Orkut and Buzz's numbers like at the same timeframe? Or Wave?
 
I think that it's very soon to we can judge about these three companies...
 
קצב הגידול מהיר יותר מפייסבוק
 
Leon, it would be interesting to see how long it took gmail, perhaps, to reach 20M users. I say this because G+ is built upon a pre-existing network, which was not the case for FB or Twitter. I understand the desire for comparisons but it's not a one-to-one.
 
Now you have to take into account that Facebook was quite restrictive in it´s beginnings only branching out to colleges it deemed important, thus taking longer than an open social network to hit these 10M and 20M user milestones. ¿Right?
 
...And also that g+ came to play in an already mature market.
 
Just looked at the photo details for the graph and it says taken by Leon Haland on 1 Jan 1970 at 00.00 - was this some kind of vision into the future?!
 
Whatever the reason it's still bloody awesome! 
 
even this post. a thousand shares so suddenly? i do question the statistics. i would rather see the raw data than the graph. anyone can make a graph.
 
The graph is so skewed it really counts for nothing other than comparing an end number. The ways in which the three services reached 20m simply don't compare.

Comparing them as such is not only unfair, it's grossly inaccurate.

With Google's existing user base across all their products and the number of people who use their products on daily basis, don't you think that 20m users is actually a pretty poor return so far?

J.
 
Can't help thinking that Twitter actually helped the awareness of G+. Certainly it was the case for me. There was no Twitter equivalent when Twitter launched.
 
You should use Google Docs Spreadsheet, not Excel!
 
still impressive, i'am very curious, what will happen when google open g+ for everyone and what that means for facebook.maybe we see a second migration like myspace to fb.......anyway very exciting
thx for sharing
 
i really wonder where you got those numbers for twitter, because as I tried to look them up @ their blog I really don’t see any real statistics except “200 million” and “we added more than 100 million new registered accounts” in 2010.. would be glad if you could help me out. Thanks a lot, nicely done though :)
 
Please, please, please fix the chat system before you go public!
 
http://goo.gl/4ZKlA gogo
 
my chat system works fine. I loved yahoo for notepad, voice chat, video chat shortly after, and email in the past. Google made it easy to switch from yahoo to gmail, bringing all old messages over. Quicker and better designed than even the most simplified yahoo email version IMHO.
 
Renewed creativity of Google Inc. ..
We wish you luck on this wonderful work and effort commendable
Add a comment...