Technology Android
- Thread starter THEV1LL4N
- Start date
Casual people don't really use G+. At least not many of them. It's still all about Facebook. Only a few "switched" to G+ but still they have Facebook accounts to stay connected with most of their friends.
Personally I don't really like Google+ and have only a few friends that have accounts there, and that's why I don't have an account there. And if I don't feel like having an account there I'm pretty sure that applies to 99% of the world.
But then again I don't need social networks for anything other than having my friends there, being able to send and receive messages from them and sometimes take a look at their pictures and that's what Facebook does best for me.
Personally I don't really like Google+ and have only a few friends that have accounts there, and that's why I don't have an account there. And if I don't feel like having an account there I'm pretty sure that applies to 99% of the world.
But then again I don't need social networks for anything other than having my friends there, being able to send and receive messages from them and sometimes take a look at their pictures and that's what Facebook does best for me.
Google+ Usage Jumps 30 Percent
It's the fastest growing social network of all time. I don't know what casual people means. I know lots of people of all professions and backgrounds that use it. These people are more interesting than the people on Facebook for the most part. And the conversations are more engaging.
It's the fastest growing social network of all time. I don't know what casual people means. I know lots of people of all professions and backgrounds that use it. These people are more interesting than the people on Facebook for the most part. And the conversations are more engaging.
Google Wave had the same excitement around it, where people were dying for invites. What happened to it? Just because there's millions of people registered for it as "users" doesn't mean they use it. Look at MySpace. G+ will go the way of MySpace too. Wasn't Buzz the shit too? Once G+ gained its temporary popularity for a month, they quickly killed off Buzz and "merged" it with G+.
G+ lost.
G+ lost.
No, most people had to be shown how to use Wave and have some use cases explained to them. And yes, most of the users do use it. The new Ripples feature shows that most of the usage is as intended - sharing to specific private circles of people.
G+ is winning. And I don't understand what you mean by "look at myspace". MySpace was the #1 social network. Facebook didn't take over statistically until 2008 - 4 years after it was launched. G+ will do to FB what FB did to MySpace. Maybe it'll take the exact same amount of time - 4 years. Maybe it'll take 2. But, as the technology gap increases (G+ is already far more technically advanced than FB), the users will shift.
Facebook's hits have been dropping since the summer. G+s keep going up.
G+ is winning. And I don't understand what you mean by "look at myspace". MySpace was the #1 social network. Facebook didn't take over statistically until 2008 - 4 years after it was launched. G+ will do to FB what FB did to MySpace. Maybe it'll take the exact same amount of time - 4 years. Maybe it'll take 2. But, as the technology gap increases (G+ is already far more technically advanced than FB), the users will shift.
Facebook's hits have been dropping since the summer. G+s keep going up.
Well, like I said, you might be on the other end of the spectrum and might be in a position where you do see G+ being utilized properly. But after speaking to many people (people I truly do know), it seems as if everyone signed up all at once during the invite-only period, thus giving the exponential growth figures you quote, and then just stopped using it.
So just because G+ continues to grow 30%, it doesn't people are actually using it.
The MySpace example was to show that at one point, MySpace had an insane amount of users, back when social media was just getting started on a large scale. MySpace still has people signed up with MySpace. But it's different from how many people actually use it.
Sure, Facebook has users that sign up and stop using it after some time, but they still hold their lead in the competition. What I'm trying to point out is my observations that it appears the usage of G+ has dropped of substantially from when it initially started and it hasn't even surpassed Facebook yet. You're telling me otherwise. But my news feed is empty on G+. I may not have as many friends/circles/fans/whatever as you, but if you're following celebrities or just "famous" people in general, it can't be much different from Twitter when it comes down to who is updating these things. Some may update these themselves. Others have companies that do it for them. And when that happens, it's something cheesy, promoting a new product or something similar in nature.
So if you follow family and friends, that's another thing. But if you're trying to tell me you follow singers, actors, athletes and doing so on G+ magically makes them more "engaging" then I disagree. I feel the same way about blogs on Twitter. There's Android and Me and all those other tech blogs that update their Twitters with their new stories. But if I use Google Reader, and I like it that way, then there's really no need to follow them, right? If I follow celebrities, I have them "liked" on Facebook and so I get their stories that way. And for you, who is a user of all three, and possibly more, social networks, how do you feel about seeing the same post, multiples times after seeing it once in another place? Sure you can scroll past it and ignore it, but if you're fanbase/followers are almost synchronized between all networks, then why have three to begin with? Why not use the more popular one (Facebook or Twitter) over the others (G+ and whatever the new, coolest network is)?
Unrelated, but Diaspora was this other thing that was supposed to take down Facebook. I constantly get "reassurance" emails from them. My invite is on the way, Diaspora will change everything, we're almost done. Still nothing. Didn't G+ fix whatever used to be wrong with Facebook, kinda what Diaspora promised to do as well?
So just because G+ continues to grow 30%, it doesn't people are actually using it.
The MySpace example was to show that at one point, MySpace had an insane amount of users, back when social media was just getting started on a large scale. MySpace still has people signed up with MySpace. But it's different from how many people actually use it.
Sure, Facebook has users that sign up and stop using it after some time, but they still hold their lead in the competition. What I'm trying to point out is my observations that it appears the usage of G+ has dropped of substantially from when it initially started and it hasn't even surpassed Facebook yet. You're telling me otherwise. But my news feed is empty on G+. I may not have as many friends/circles/fans/whatever as you, but if you're following celebrities or just "famous" people in general, it can't be much different from Twitter when it comes down to who is updating these things. Some may update these themselves. Others have companies that do it for them. And when that happens, it's something cheesy, promoting a new product or something similar in nature.
So if you follow family and friends, that's another thing. But if you're trying to tell me you follow singers, actors, athletes and doing so on G+ magically makes them more "engaging" then I disagree. I feel the same way about blogs on Twitter. There's Android and Me and all those other tech blogs that update their Twitters with their new stories. But if I use Google Reader, and I like it that way, then there's really no need to follow them, right? If I follow celebrities, I have them "liked" on Facebook and so I get their stories that way. And for you, who is a user of all three, and possibly more, social networks, how do you feel about seeing the same post, multiples times after seeing it once in another place? Sure you can scroll past it and ignore it, but if you're fanbase/followers are almost synchronized between all networks, then why have three to begin with? Why not use the more popular one (Facebook or Twitter) over the others (G+ and whatever the new, coolest network is)?
Unrelated, but Diaspora was this other thing that was supposed to take down Facebook. I constantly get "reassurance" emails from them. My invite is on the way, Diaspora will change everything, we're almost done. Still nothing. Didn't G+ fix whatever used to be wrong with Facebook, kinda what Diaspora promised to do as well?
Yeah, I have to say that most of my friends who signed up for G+ went there to check out what's that and stopped using it, or only check it out from time to time. The fact that most people don't care about it doesn't help, because what makes any Social networking site are people - and Facebook has that. They also stole some of the crucial ideas that could've made G+ a success, and implemented them. Most casual people still either haven't heard much about G+ or don't check it out because they have no reason to. I know that there are groups of people that use G+, that will spread the G+ love further but I'm not sure if it'll be enough in the end.
OK. "Stole?" When Apple claims Samsung "stole" the design for the GS2 from the iPhone, most people here said that there was no "patent" or "copyright" for that design and just because Apple uses it, doesn't mean others can't.
So G+, like Apple, didn't "invent" anything (see: chiclet keys on the MacBooks that now everyone copies) but instead addressed an issue that Facebook users had for a long time, and that was privacy and the concept of Circles. Actually, Facebook had "lists" before G+ came out. It just wasn't as good.
So FB didn't "steal" G+ concepts, it saw them, saw there was finally a solution to the users' problems, and incorporated it.
Unless I'm missing something blatant here, it was merely Facebook adapting to the times. It's a shame they couldn't figure out the Circles concept first, though.
So G+, like Apple, didn't "invent" anything (see: chiclet keys on the MacBooks that now everyone copies) but instead addressed an issue that Facebook users had for a long time, and that was privacy and the concept of Circles. Actually, Facebook had "lists" before G+ came out. It just wasn't as good.
So FB didn't "steal" G+ concepts, it saw them, saw there was finally a solution to the users' problems, and incorporated it.
Unless I'm missing something blatant here, it was merely Facebook adapting to the times. It's a shame they couldn't figure out the Circles concept first, though.
I think G+ is definitely here to stay but I think it's impossible to predict how long Facebook will be successful. I think it's not too crazy to assume that both platforms will be successful in their own right in the marketplace. I don't know how it works, but I don't see why we wouldn't be able to log in to G+ and see our friend's Facebook updates and vice versa.
Okay, SGS2 is not similar to the Iphone at all other than the fact that it has a huge screen in the middle and buttonS below it, like all smartphones/pocket pcs etc. Facebook just stole G+ ideas that made G+ what it was, its main positives over Facebook. Groups, privacy settings, chat availability to groups etc. Not to mention video conversations (Skype integration). In my book that were the reasons to use G+ over Facebook, and Facebook implemented them when they found that out. It's what I've been missing and whining about and Facebook did nothing. Then G+ was introduced and Facebook just implemented exactly the same things immidiately to keep users who wanted to switch to G+ for those things. To me that was kind-of stealing.
Chiclet keys in keyboards were invented before Apple even released their first keyboard, the first most notable device to use them was ZX Spectrum (most of its variations) and they were also used in numerous laptops before Macbooks were even released. I don't think that Macbooks contribute to their popularity that much.
Chiclet keys in keyboards were invented before Apple even released their first keyboard, the first most notable device to use them was ZX Spectrum (most of its variations) and they were also used in numerous laptops before Macbooks were even released. I don't think that Macbooks contribute to their popularity that much.
I never used Diaspora so I can't comment on that.
Your point about seeing the same content three times or whatever is invalid because it assumes that people use FB, G+, and Twitter in the same manner. That's not the case. Each has it's own "personality" and people use them in drastically different ways. As do I. I have fans and friends who follow me on Twitter, are friends with me on FB, and have me circled on G+. I don't post the same things on all three. Actually I barely use my FB and I feed in posts from Twitter for the people that don't already follow me there. But even people who follow me on Twitter might want to friend me on FB because of people tagging me in pics, videos, etc.
On all three, it's a mix of friends, fans, celebrities, family. All kinds. When I said G+ was more engaging, I mean that (for example) if someone does post the same thing on FB and G+, it seems that it starts a better conversation on G+. Rather than people just clicking "like" and making a short form comment which seems to be the norm on FB - on G+, there's more value in conversation, which in that sense is similar to Twitter but without the character limit.
Instant Upload also makes it more convenient to share pics. I don't remember the last time I uploaded a picture to FB (on my personal profile, obviously I have to keep the music stuff updated).
The Circles feature is still one of the best things. I have a circle of friends interested in pro audio, for example. I know damn well that nobody else I know outside of that circle gives a fuck about how I discovered an awesome new reverb plugin or how to use parallel compression so your drums don't sound weak or the latest mastering techniques. So I'm not gonna post that stuff on Twitter or FB, but I can post it to that one circle and start a great debate and conversation that nobody else who doesn't care gets annoyed by.
Also - the UI is beautiful. Using facebook just looks like some caveman shit to me now. G+ has a much better interface.
Maybe it'll be the case that the minority of "power users" create most of the content. But that's fine, because Twitter is the same story. But when it comes to content sharing, I seem to be clicking that +1 button on various sites more and more, and that "Like" button less and less. Because not every story or link is suitable for everyone. In fact, most of them aren't. And as G+ gets integrated into more products, like Google Music, Google TV, Google Reader (I think this is about to get rolled out), etc etc etc, it just makes the whole process much more painless. Technologically, G+ is FAR more advanced than FB. Go edit a photo on G+ using the new built in editor and you'll see what I mean. That and the UI are just two examples. I'm not expecting everyone to stop using FB and start using G+ overnight and I never said otherwise. BUT - as that technological gap increases (which it will), more and more will make the switch. Which is exactly the same as what happened with MySpace. Also, spam. Every day I have to delete tons of spam from my FB inbox. Flawed system. Turns people off. Again, this happened with MySpace. I've yet to see any spam with G+.
Side note, I showed a bunch of my cousins, nephews and nieces the new FB "Timelines" layout, which most people don't yet have, but will be rolled out to everyone, like it or not, within a year. They all hated it. Which is funny, because I actually prefer it to the old one and I found myself being slightly more active on FB once I enabled it through the developer program. But when it comes to "the casual users", people are going to fucking HATE such a drastic change.
Anyway, it's not a zero sum game. G+ is a better, newer, more 21st century system. FB is 8 years old and bloated to fuck. But the user base is huge. I don't think everyone has to leave or stop using FB for G+ to get popular. But when I hear people saying G+ usage has dropped off, or whatever, I have to scratch my head in confusion. My stream on G+ is more active than it's ever been, I get circled by a bunch of new people every day, and I find myself sharing more and more to it, simply because I prefer the results and it's more convenient.
I see it becoming even more convenient as they build in new features, and from ICS onwards G+ is weaved into the very fabric of Android, which itself is showing no signs of slowing down (It's been suggested that it'll reach 1million new activation EVERY DAY in the not too distant future)....
and there's one mega card left to play. YouTube. MOST content shared to Facebook is what? YouTube videos. But you have to do it manually, right? Copy and paste that link. Have you seen how simple it is to do the same thing to G+? It's one click. And better believe YouTube ain't gonna have a "Like" button any-motherfucking-time soon. With the new $100 million boost Google just put into over 100 channels of original content on YouTube (including a hip-hop channel by Jay-Z, a Hispanic channel by Sofia Vergara, a dance channel by Madonna, a comedy channel by Ashton Kutcher and much much more), plus the planned integration of Google TV 2.0 with large numbers of forthcoming Sony, LG and Samsung TV's..... well, I think it's pretty obvious where the potential is.
It boils down to convenience because people are lazy. I never said G+ would come out and obliterate FB within months of launch. Google never thought that either. It's a long term slow burner. But for as many users as FB has, the reason Zuckerberg is shitting himself is because Google owns all the keys to the internet, when you really stop to think about it. What would be worse for the internet - if Facebook disappeared tomorrow? Or if Google.com, YouTube, Maps, Gmail, Chrome, Google Docs and GCal went?
It's like internet monopoly. Facebook has built a huge fuckoff mansion, but Google has properties on every side of the board. When you roll that dice and move your game piece, who's in the better position, the one square that if you land on it, you pay a huge sum, or the other player with a whole bunch of vital properties that you can't help but land on?
......I wish my brain wasn't so freakin active at 2am when I've been up and working all day.
Your point about seeing the same content three times or whatever is invalid because it assumes that people use FB, G+, and Twitter in the same manner. That's not the case. Each has it's own "personality" and people use them in drastically different ways. As do I. I have fans and friends who follow me on Twitter, are friends with me on FB, and have me circled on G+. I don't post the same things on all three. Actually I barely use my FB and I feed in posts from Twitter for the people that don't already follow me there. But even people who follow me on Twitter might want to friend me on FB because of people tagging me in pics, videos, etc.
On all three, it's a mix of friends, fans, celebrities, family. All kinds. When I said G+ was more engaging, I mean that (for example) if someone does post the same thing on FB and G+, it seems that it starts a better conversation on G+. Rather than people just clicking "like" and making a short form comment which seems to be the norm on FB - on G+, there's more value in conversation, which in that sense is similar to Twitter but without the character limit.
Instant Upload also makes it more convenient to share pics. I don't remember the last time I uploaded a picture to FB (on my personal profile, obviously I have to keep the music stuff updated).
The Circles feature is still one of the best things. I have a circle of friends interested in pro audio, for example. I know damn well that nobody else I know outside of that circle gives a fuck about how I discovered an awesome new reverb plugin or how to use parallel compression so your drums don't sound weak or the latest mastering techniques. So I'm not gonna post that stuff on Twitter or FB, but I can post it to that one circle and start a great debate and conversation that nobody else who doesn't care gets annoyed by.
Also - the UI is beautiful. Using facebook just looks like some caveman shit to me now. G+ has a much better interface.
Maybe it'll be the case that the minority of "power users" create most of the content. But that's fine, because Twitter is the same story. But when it comes to content sharing, I seem to be clicking that +1 button on various sites more and more, and that "Like" button less and less. Because not every story or link is suitable for everyone. In fact, most of them aren't. And as G+ gets integrated into more products, like Google Music, Google TV, Google Reader (I think this is about to get rolled out), etc etc etc, it just makes the whole process much more painless. Technologically, G+ is FAR more advanced than FB. Go edit a photo on G+ using the new built in editor and you'll see what I mean. That and the UI are just two examples. I'm not expecting everyone to stop using FB and start using G+ overnight and I never said otherwise. BUT - as that technological gap increases (which it will), more and more will make the switch. Which is exactly the same as what happened with MySpace. Also, spam. Every day I have to delete tons of spam from my FB inbox. Flawed system. Turns people off. Again, this happened with MySpace. I've yet to see any spam with G+.
Side note, I showed a bunch of my cousins, nephews and nieces the new FB "Timelines" layout, which most people don't yet have, but will be rolled out to everyone, like it or not, within a year. They all hated it. Which is funny, because I actually prefer it to the old one and I found myself being slightly more active on FB once I enabled it through the developer program. But when it comes to "the casual users", people are going to fucking HATE such a drastic change.
Anyway, it's not a zero sum game. G+ is a better, newer, more 21st century system. FB is 8 years old and bloated to fuck. But the user base is huge. I don't think everyone has to leave or stop using FB for G+ to get popular. But when I hear people saying G+ usage has dropped off, or whatever, I have to scratch my head in confusion. My stream on G+ is more active than it's ever been, I get circled by a bunch of new people every day, and I find myself sharing more and more to it, simply because I prefer the results and it's more convenient.
I see it becoming even more convenient as they build in new features, and from ICS onwards G+ is weaved into the very fabric of Android, which itself is showing no signs of slowing down (It's been suggested that it'll reach 1million new activation EVERY DAY in the not too distant future)....
and there's one mega card left to play. YouTube. MOST content shared to Facebook is what? YouTube videos. But you have to do it manually, right? Copy and paste that link. Have you seen how simple it is to do the same thing to G+? It's one click. And better believe YouTube ain't gonna have a "Like" button any-motherfucking-time soon. With the new $100 million boost Google just put into over 100 channels of original content on YouTube (including a hip-hop channel by Jay-Z, a Hispanic channel by Sofia Vergara, a dance channel by Madonna, a comedy channel by Ashton Kutcher and much much more), plus the planned integration of Google TV 2.0 with large numbers of forthcoming Sony, LG and Samsung TV's..... well, I think it's pretty obvious where the potential is.
It boils down to convenience because people are lazy. I never said G+ would come out and obliterate FB within months of launch. Google never thought that either. It's a long term slow burner. But for as many users as FB has, the reason Zuckerberg is shitting himself is because Google owns all the keys to the internet, when you really stop to think about it. What would be worse for the internet - if Facebook disappeared tomorrow? Or if Google.com, YouTube, Maps, Gmail, Chrome, Google Docs and GCal went?
It's like internet monopoly. Facebook has built a huge fuckoff mansion, but Google has properties on every side of the board. When you roll that dice and move your game piece, who's in the better position, the one square that if you land on it, you pay a huge sum, or the other player with a whole bunch of vital properties that you can't help but land on?
......I wish my brain wasn't so freakin active at 2am when I've been up and working all day.
Well, I hope I made it clear this time around that Apple did not invent the chiclet style keys but I was making the point that once their keyboards came with the chiclet keys and Mac sales took off, then other manufacturers jumped in. Just the other day I saw a keyboard for a tablet that had the chiclet keys on it. Forget the Sony VAIOs and LGs also making their notebooks look just like the MacBook Pros, forget using the same styling of keyboard. I didn't say they stole the design, but instead saw that that design was what brought in alot of customers, so they incorporated that into their computers.
Take that analogy and apply it to Facebook seeing what consumers saw/wanted in G+ and then incorporating those features into their product. How is that different from LG or Sony doing the same with their keyboards? It's not stealing. It's improving and adapting your product to the market.
Casey, again, I'll mention your unique case. It works for you because you follow people that actually use it. I don't know if these are everyday, casual users, like your friends and family, or if these are celebrities or blogs. Either way, they are active users. The point I'm trying to make is that my friends are not active. Apparently, masta's aren't either. The others on here haven't chimed in on their activity, but if we assume that their friends are just like masta's and mine, then there isn't much activity there either. So for you G+ is amazing, and this-and-that. For us, it's just something that a lot of hype at one point, but is like an abandoned house now, with just a few mice crawling around making some news every other day or week. You being the rockstar/philanthropist/etc. have all these venues to keep in contact with certain people. People that are always connected at all times to some sort of social network. Their livelihood lies in their phones, where they get emails, makes calls, texts, and in some cases, update their Facebook/Twitter/etc. But most of my friends, and I speak solely from my experience, do not update Facebook with many important things that I feel I need to know. They're not all degenerates working as baggers at a grocery store. These are people that are out and working as teachers, with companies as financiers, engineers, etc. Some are in graduate school or still in undergrad. Point being, they don't have the time to update their stuff, and if they, it isn't something they'd feel the need to share. Switch to your groups and I'm sure there are musicians and actors tweeting their doings, contests, their whereabouts, their next tour dates, etc. I don't know, I'm just assuming, I have no experience with this because I don't follow my "likes" on Facebook that closely to begin with. But these people actually have shit to say and places to be where they have the option of sharing their locations and doings. What about the rest of us with friends that just simply work or go to school? Most update with trivial things and others vent/bitch about life. I think that's the "rest of us" on this forum that don't live the fast lifestyle, fueled by working in the entertainment industry. So our Facebooks read a lot like the "My Life is Average" website.
Take that analogy and apply it to Facebook seeing what consumers saw/wanted in G+ and then incorporating those features into their product. How is that different from LG or Sony doing the same with their keyboards? It's not stealing. It's improving and adapting your product to the market.
Casey, again, I'll mention your unique case. It works for you because you follow people that actually use it. I don't know if these are everyday, casual users, like your friends and family, or if these are celebrities or blogs. Either way, they are active users. The point I'm trying to make is that my friends are not active. Apparently, masta's aren't either. The others on here haven't chimed in on their activity, but if we assume that their friends are just like masta's and mine, then there isn't much activity there either. So for you G+ is amazing, and this-and-that. For us, it's just something that a lot of hype at one point, but is like an abandoned house now, with just a few mice crawling around making some news every other day or week. You being the rockstar/philanthropist/etc. have all these venues to keep in contact with certain people. People that are always connected at all times to some sort of social network. Their livelihood lies in their phones, where they get emails, makes calls, texts, and in some cases, update their Facebook/Twitter/etc. But most of my friends, and I speak solely from my experience, do not update Facebook with many important things that I feel I need to know. They're not all degenerates working as baggers at a grocery store. These are people that are out and working as teachers, with companies as financiers, engineers, etc. Some are in graduate school or still in undergrad. Point being, they don't have the time to update their stuff, and if they, it isn't something they'd feel the need to share. Switch to your groups and I'm sure there are musicians and actors tweeting their doings, contests, their whereabouts, their next tour dates, etc. I don't know, I'm just assuming, I have no experience with this because I don't follow my "likes" on Facebook that closely to begin with. But these people actually have shit to say and places to be where they have the option of sharing their locations and doings. What about the rest of us with friends that just simply work or go to school? Most update with trivial things and others vent/bitch about life. I think that's the "rest of us" on this forum that don't live the fast lifestyle, fueled by working in the entertainment industry. So our Facebooks read a lot like the "My Life is Average" website.
To add to what Casey said, I've noticed too that there seems to be more depth and more breadth in G+ conversations. With Google Ripples, G+ is heading further in that direction of being a combination of Twitter and Forum/Blog/Metafilter posts. What I mean by that is, I've come across more than a few G+ users who aren't particularly celebrities or experts on certain things. However, they make their posts public and every day ask questions that lead to debate. Every post seems to have like hundreds, sometimes thousands of replies. I haven't taken advantage of that but that's because I don't want to make my posts public or post comments on public posts. Sometimes I mak the mistake of doing so.
So, basically, I feel like G+ is being used for different reasons.
So, basically, I feel like G+ is being used for different reasons.
Let me put it this way. I like G+ and its layout and all that, but its lack of adoption amongst my peers is what is hindering my use and acceptance of it.
That's how social networks work. The more people that use it, the more "social" it becomes. Not many of my friends use it continuously. Therefore I don't use it.
As far as the depth of conversations on G+ go, that might be because of what masta said, that casual users use Facebook. G+ seems to be big in the tech community. I don't want to say geeks or nerds, but people that are a bit more computer-literate than the average user. People that spend a good bit of time on the internet for things other than shopping for clothes and "liking'" status updates. I'm speaking strictly on adoption of G+. As I mentioned earlier, signing up doesn't make you an active user.
That's how social networks work. The more people that use it, the more "social" it becomes. Not many of my friends use it continuously. Therefore I don't use it.
As far as the depth of conversations on G+ go, that might be because of what masta said, that casual users use Facebook. G+ seems to be big in the tech community. I don't want to say geeks or nerds, but people that are a bit more computer-literate than the average user. People that spend a good bit of time on the internet for things other than shopping for clothes and "liking'" status updates. I'm speaking strictly on adoption of G+. As I mentioned earlier, signing up doesn't make you an active user.
What did people on facebook have to do when most of their friends were on hi5 or myspace? tell them to join facebook. it was over a period of time when most people jumped over to facebook which saw the decline of myspace. the same thing will happen with Google+. The fact that facebook has the monopoly means that it won't be going away any time soon. so no-one wins just yet. These things don't happen over night.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.