Never checked out Google+, but then again, I've barely been on Facebook. I'm really not getting what's the big deal with most social networking sites.
Eri said:This effect is actually called Tragedy of the commons, though you can't really "deplete" internet.Seanchaidh said:A fine example of a collective action problem. Developers as a whole are acting against their best interests by, individually, acting in their own interests. It (apparently) makes no profit to develop for Google+, so developers develop for Facebook because that's where the money is. While, yes, this does strengthen Facebook's position and allows them to take an enormous cut, who wants to be the patsy who loses money developing for Google+? Such would be quite a generous service to all the other developers, but ultimately self-defeating.Grey Carter said:The irony here, is that by weaking Facebook's competitors, developers are acting against their own best interests. Facebook's immense popularity and unchallenged position in the social gaming market means it can get away with taking a hefty chunk out of game revenue. Facebook takes a 30 percent cut of any revenue generated on its service while Google+ takes only 5 percent. Though EA seems to believe that a 70% cut of something is worth more than a 95% cut of nothing.
Really, if Google+ is serious about competing with Facebook, it should maybe pay developers to stay. Otherwise it will just be "Facebook, without all the people or features!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Facebook is doing a mighty good job of breaking thing on their own.Sexy Devil said:Google never fails. Google is simply letting Facebook win this one to lull us into a false sense of security. All hail glorious overlord Google, our lord and saviour!
oh Grey; you kill meYou've heard of Google+, right? It's kind of like Facebook, only ... uh
The irony of this question in the context of this article is so juicyI'm sorry. Can someone tell me what "Google+" is?