Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. Social Media
  3. Legacy Archives

Google engineer: Google+ is ‘a pathetic afterthought’

Add as a preferred source on Google

steve_yegge-Google+Google engineer and well-known blogger Steve Yegge last night published a poignant 4,550-word rant lambasting his employer for mishandling Google+ (and a variety of other things, as well). Thing is, the epic screed, which was actually published on Google+, was only meant to be seen by other Google employees, but Yegge forgot to disable the “public” sharing option, and released it for everyone to see. (Face, meet palm.) He later deleted the post, but it has been re-published, with permission from Yegge, here.

While the first chunk of the rant focuses on how Amazon (where Yegge worked for six years) became the platform powerhouse that it is today, the primary gist of Yegge’s well-written and informative manifesto is that Google+ will not succeed because it is not a platform for which third-party developers can create products; it’s simply the product itself.

Recommended Videos

It is because Facebook is that kind of platform that has helped make it so successful; Facebook got a bunch of other people to think of good ideas, do the hard programming work, and implement them in the site. Google, on the other hand, is trying to control every aspect of Google+, and that will be what kills the company’s first sudo-successful attempt at social networking

We highly recommend reading through the full post, but here are the most damning bits, in case you’re short for time:

  • “The Google+ platform is a pathetic afterthought. We had no API at all at launch, and last I checked, we had one measly API call.”
  • “Google+ is a knee-jerk reaction, a study in short-term thinking, predicated on the incorrect notion that Facebook is successful because they built a great product. But that’s not why they are successful. Facebook is successful because they built an entire constellation of products by allowing other people to do the work. So Facebook is different for everyone. Some people spend all their time on Mafia Wars. Some spend all their time on Farmville. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of different high-quality time sinks available, so there’s something there for everyone.”
  • “The problem is that we are trying to predict what people want and deliver it for them…You can’t do that. Not really. Not reliably. There have been precious few people in the world, over the entire history of computing, who have been able to do it reliably. Steve Jobs was one of them. We don’t have a Steve Jobs here. I’m sorry, but we don’t.”
  • “Amazon gets it. Amazon’s AWS (aws.amazon.com) is incredible. Just go look at it. Click around. It’s embarrassing. We don’t have any of that stuff.
  • “Apple gets it, obviously. They’ve made some fundamentally non-open choices, particularly around their mobile platform. But they understand accessibility and they understand the power of third-party development and they eat their dogfood. And you know what? They make pretty good dogfood. Their APIs are a hell of a lot cleaner than Microsoft’s, and have been since time immemorial.
  • “Facebook gets it. That’s what really worries me. That’s what got me off my lazy butt to write this thing. I hate blogging. I hate… plussing, or whatever it’s called when you do a massive rant in Google+ even though it’s a terrible venue for it but you do it anyway because in the end you really do want Google to be successful. And I do! I mean, Facebook wants me there, and it’d be pretty easy to just go. But Google is home, so I’m insisting that we have this little family intervention, uncomfortable as it might be.”
  • “I’m just frankly describing what developers.google.com looks like to an outsider. It looks childish. Where’s the Maps APIs in there for Christ’s sake? Some of the things in there are labs projects. And the APIs for everything I clicked were… they were paltry. They were obviously dog food. Not even good organic stuff. Compared to our internal APIs it’s all snouts and horse hooves.”
  • “I’m not saying it’s too late for us, but the longer we wait, the closer we get to being Too Late.”

All in all, the post is amazing. Here’s hoping Google’s upper management overlooks the public publishing mishap, and takes Yegge’s advice to heart. From what we can tell, he deserves to be heard.

Andrew Couts
Features Editor for Digital Trends, Andrew Couts covers a wide swath of consumer technology topics, with particular focus on…
X’s creator payouts are changing, and original content is the new currency
The platform is replacing Revenue Sharing with a program designed to reward creators who actually make something.
X Twitter on iPhone

X is changing the rules for creators yet again. This time, the platform wants to put less emphasis on simply generating engagement and more on actually making something original. X is replacing its controversial Creator Revenue Sharing program with a new initiative called Original Content Rewards, which will officially launch on September 8, 2026. The existing Revenue Sharing program will continue paying participating creators through September 7, after which the new system takes over.

X wants to reward creators, not engagement farmers

Read more
Snapchat’s Spotlight algorithm now favors human-made videos over AI-generated ones
Snapchat is taking a firm stance against AI slop.
Snapchat-App-Store-open-on-iPhone

If you've been uploading fully AI-generated videos on Snapchat in hopes of earning rewards, it might be time to rethink your strategy. Snapchat has announced changes to Spotlight that prioritize authentic, original creativity over content created entirely by artificial intelligence. The company says its recommendation system will now favor videos made by real creators, while fully AI-generated submissions will no longer qualify for monetization.

So what's changing on Spotlight?

Read more
LinkedIn is crowdsourcing its fight against AI slop
The company is rolling out a new button that lets you flag posts that seem AI generated.
LinkedIn seems like AI slop button

LinkedIn has a serious AI slop problem, and it's now turning to its own users to help fix it. The platform is rolling out a new button that lets users flag posts they suspect were generated by AI. It plans to use that feedback to fine-tune the system that decides how much reach a post gets outside a user's own network, based on how AI-generated it appears.

The announcement comes shortly after an analysis by Pangram found that more than forty percent of long-form LinkedIn posts are fully AI-generated, and it suggests that the reach-trimming measures the company rolled out earlier this year haven't been enough on their own.

Read more