[Sagar Poojari]

Android has Google+ to connect with people having Gmail accounts... So isn't it worth if Microsoft create a networking site similar to Google+??

Windows Live, Outlook and Hotmail accounts are to be found everywhere.. So why not create something that has Outlook, Bing search, Skype, Xbox Music & Video ( this one if possible); but also chats (the 1 we find in desktop Outlook with people available in Facebook n Google), groups/ communities/pages (similar to Facebook), trends streams (similar to twitter) and most importantly, third party support to access data from sites like Pinterest, Soundcloud, Instagram, Xbox etc. ( something we find in Facebook & Google+)..

It will help to fill the void of lack of networking to an extent... May be..

So what you say?? Isn't it worth trying??

[jmshub]

Google put a lot of their resources into Google +, trying to make it a social network large enough to give facebook a run for their money. Google elevated Plus up above all their other products, including search, to try to get adoption. They even went as far as embedding it into their other, more successful products, like YouTube, to the point that YouTube users were complaining about it. Despite all of that, not that many people use google+, and Google has seen the error of their ways and has de-emphasized google+. There is a good chance that someday, you could hear that Google has shut down the Plus project.

Microsoft is in competition with Google and Apple in a lot of ways, but it would be a terrible idea for Microsoft to follow them into every wild idea they come up with. It won't make Microsoft a better company to try to roll out self driving cars or buy an overpriced hip-hop oriented headphones company just to keep up with the Joneses.

[Zulfigar]

Didn't Microsoft try making a social network once before based off a phone and it was a total flop? I can't remember the name though, sadly.

[Pete]

That was Socl - http://www.so.cl/about

[fatclue_98]

That was Socl - Socl

I think he was referring to the Kin.

[tgp]

That was Socl - http://www.so.cl/about

I signed up for Socl, but I never figured out how to use it. It seems that few others figured it out either!

[Greywolf1967]

They also had Windows Live Spaces ( a Myspace like thing). Didn't catch on.

[Squachy]

I don't know anyone who uses google+......
If its like facebook, that's what they use.

[nessinhaw]

well...not many people uses G+ lol it really didn't take off!

[Draconica5]

I hope Microsoft never tuck So.cl down my throat like what Google done with G+... It's really boring!

[raycpl]

FB is more than enuff.... some would say that is already too much

[gMaesterUK]

MS own part of Facebook (think around 2%) that they paid around $250m+. I think MS thought a MS/FB tie in, but FB are going off their own way.

As for Google+, I too wouldn't be surprised it that got canned soon...

G.

[Sagar Poojari]

I agree with you guys.. that microsoft should not hurry on to any silly idea... but isn't it an option??? i mean.. personally when i open up websites that i follow.. they give options like fb, twitter, pinterest, even g+.... bt no microsoft support... feels lonely in there.. :(

[sati01]

so.cl is not a product, it's an experiment of one of the Microsoft's research labs.

[anon(5383410)]

Google+ was an epic fail. Anyone who would use a service like facebook is already using facebook and there's really no incentive to switch even if it's well-designed.

[Marthinus Kotze1]

I actually think that a centralized account would be great, but not a social media bundled with it. Although I have a Google Plus account the only reason I signed up is because Google insisted that I use it.

[tgp]

Google+ has some good concepts. The circles feature is nice so you can post only to certain people. I think its biggest problem is that it came after a well established Facebook. Google was too forceful with it, but they've backed off some.

[jmshub]

I think Google+ failed because a better concept in social media doesn't matter. A social network serves the lowest common denominator by design. I don't think anyone really wants a better social network. Facebook is good enough.

[sati01]

I think Google+ failed because Google doesn't care about humans. For Google humans are just a mean to an end. Google's implicit objective is to create an efficient computational intelligence.

It's not coincidence that Google, the king of the internet, overlooked probably the biggest benefit of the internet, improved human communication. The only successful product they have is gmail, just a copy of Hotmail with a couple of improvements. They tried the same with Google+, just a Facebook clone, but It didn't work because Facebook isn't interoperable as the email protocol.

I think It all comes down to the company's mission and to the objective of the leader. Some people think that mission statements and leadership aren't a big deal, I don't agree with that. The mission statement and the vision of the leader penetrate in the culture and the mind of the employees of the institution and have a big impact in every decision taken.

For example, Microsoft's mission was "a computer on every DESK in every HOME", so It was obvious that Microsoft was going to neglect mobile. In the mind of the thousands of Microsoft employees the computer had to be in a desk at home, anything beyond that was just a secondary complement. The web and mobile were accessories of the main computer experience at home. Microsoft was disrupted by the lack of vision of their employees, they were limited by a view of the world explicitly stated in the culture of the company.
Ballmer called himself a pattern, he was replaced with a very different leadership. Microsoft used to be seen as the evil empire. Nadella is described as a good man with good intentions.
Nadella first task was to change the motto, now It's "mobile first, cloud first", he will repeat that phrase a thousand times if necessary so the idea penetrates in the mind of the employees and influence their micro decision taking, their focus. Now Microsoft is the company investing more money in the cloud, and they're sacrificing Windows, their core asset, to get a foot in mobile with their services.

Google's motto was "don't be evil". But why not "be good" or "be generous"? It's really "don't be evil [because we need these people to fulfill our objectives]". People is a tool for Google, they use people to get money, resources and workers to build their projects. The projects aren't for humans, the projects are an end in itself, but humans has to be respected -while we're needed-.
The current Google's mission is "to organize the worlds information and make it universally accessible and useful", for whom? For people? Of course, because humans are the key economic factor right now, but little by little machines become a more important factor in production and the main consumer of Google's information.
Google is investing a lot in AI, they believe that real AI is possible. Humans are biological beings that evolve so slow, machines aren't limited by a biological structure, so the day machine intelligence starts anything is possible, they could do an equivalent of millions of years of biological evolution in just a couple of decades, or years. So, according to their investments, Google is organizing the information for that future artificial super intelligence, not for the messed up and limited humans.

Facebook's mission is "to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected". Facebook is centered in people. For Google the most precious assets are the algorithms used to organize the information and the infrastructure of machines, for Facebook It's the billion of people in their social network organizing the information with Likes. Google's engine is a machine, and the ultimate beneficiary of all the activities of the institution is the soon to be super intelligent machine. For Facebook the engine is the human being, and the ultimate beneficiaries are human beings, machine intelligence is just a tool.

There are many differences in the views of the leaders of the tech companies. In an interview, Larry Page said that the most exiting thing in the last couple of years was a computer exploring the web and understanding the concept of a cat. One of the most interesting projects for him is driver-less cars. The name of mobile operating system he chose is "Android", compare that to iOS, or "Windows" (machines don't need windows). Gates is spending his time and fortune helping people, for Page charity is nonsense, he would donate his money to Elon Musk to develop crazy projects like the colonization of Mars, do humans really need to colonize Mars?. It seems both Page and Zuckerberg have problem interacting with people, but I think the difference is that Zuckerberg keep trying and Facebook is just the expression of his fascination for humans and their interaction. I think Page gave up on people, and Google is the reflection of that lack of humanity.

So, who will win?
Google's mission is to organize the information, but they're using the wrong tool, machines. I think real machine intelligence with consciousness is not even remotely possible, so machines will always be just a tool for humans, and machines won't understand humans and their context. Facebook dominates communications, Facebook is all the time listening to what people say and what people like. So, my prediction is that Facebook will disrupt Google using people as the engine to organized the information. The commercial key aspects of information is ads. Facebook will destroy the Google's business providing more relevant ads with its new ad network. In a couple of years Google will use Facebook ads in the search engine, youtube and their other products.

Google is doomed because Larry Page don't like humans, Google's implicit main objective is to develop an alternative to humans, and I think that's not possible, consciousness is the distinct aspect of beings and its beyond human comprehension.

[tgp]

I think Google+ failed because Google doesn't care about humans.

I see this a lot, "Google+ failed...". Since when did it fail? Isn't that like saying that Windows Phone failed?

[Slovenix]

The thing is Google+ is not going away, I don't get what are you smoking. I find it more useful than Facebook with posts I don't care about haha. On the other hand I really prefer Messenger over Hangouts.

[Slovenix]

There's just too much Google haters on Windows Central so everyone thinks that Google+ is not useful after reading all these nonsense comments.
Please put all the energy in writing something useful instead. Would make a better community.

[someone2639]

I use Google plus, and I don't say that Microsoft should create some thing LIKE it. Create exactly that! I want my Google+ app!

[Slovenix]

I use Google plus, and I don't say that Microsoft should create some thing LIKE it. Create exactly that! I want my Google+ app!

Exactly that.

[jmshub]

I see this a lot, "Google+ failed...". Since when did it fail? Isn't that like saying that Windows Phone failed?

In Google's eyes, Plus is a failure. For a while, they prioritized G+ above all their other products, probably even search. They wanted to be THE social network of record. That is why they made it that you couldn't comment on Youtube until your google account was converted to a G+ account. They have backed off this somewhat, and it looks like they have turned down the heat on Plus. While I don't think they have Plus on the chopping block, they certainly aren't pushing it like they were a few years ago.