wheel - 1:41 pm on Aug 31, 2011 (gmt 0)
There's a difference. Nobody cares about Nat. Geographic. That'll just rapid a slow death.
Years ago I ran a forum. We competed against the 'official' industry forum run by the regulatory body. How do you compete against that? You can't.
Oh, unless the industry forum requires real registration - you can't post anonymously. Almost nobody was willing to post even professional information other than anonymously. Their forum withered and died (not just for that reason, but that was a big part of it), we got all the traffic.
For example, if manager A wanted to ask a question about pricing or application of regulation from their peers, they wanted to do so anonymously, not Manager A at Company A. And his peers/competitors that were willing to assist, also would not do so other than anonymously.
The regulatory authority, like Nat. Geographic, also seriously pondered the issue and unilaterally said 'everyone registers in their name'.
There was another site run by a similiar regulatory body that had frequent downtime (I put in great efforts to ensure we were never down) and formally chastised a poster over a post - because they knew who the poster was.
In the end, two dead forums on the industry giants, one little forum run by the community and FOR the community dominated.
People forget that they need to run their business for their customers not for their business. It's common to lose site of that and start making decisions that are in the best interests of the business, or that don't listen to their customers.
And in this case, Google is going to see yet again that they can't force consumers to implement crappy products like Google+. It's another horse dead at the gate. For people that are supposed to be bright, these folks are remarkably slow learners.