Threads can avoid Google+'s failure by not simply relying on the scale of Meta's existing products, but by giving users a compelling reason to keep coming back
https://lists.w3.org/... Twitter: Harry McCracken / @harrymccracken : Google worked VERY hard to make Google+ work, and it didn't, because it wasn't in its wheelhouse and Facebook was so strong. Threads feels like second nature for Meta, and Twitter is damaged. It might do quite well with way less effort. https://www.nytimes.com/... @kombiz : Honestly, as twitter went down in flames and @jack was promoting rfk jr - i kind of missed google +. It had potential for a world where twitter is toxic. The circles feature is most like how i use lists and tweetdeck till it's gone. https://twitter.com/... Amelie Sutton / @eastouest : Have you ever read a book and thought, “this could have been an article”? Well, whenever I read a @MikeIsaac article, I think: “This should be a book.” https://twitter.com/... @mikeisaac : @eric_seufert @anildash (as a smart friend pointed out, MSFT using its scale to force Teams onto everyone is a more current analogy but i liked the bill gates/Marc Andreessen comparisons since both are connected to Zuckerberg...) Rat King / @mikeisaac : time for a journey backwards in tech history! Threads is the most downloaded app ever. But tech companies using their scale to launch new apps isn't a guarantee of success. will Threads be a Google+, or Zuckerberg's Internet Explorer moment? https://www.nytimes.com/... Threads: Harry McCracken / @technologizer : Google worked VERY hard to make Google+ work, and it didn't, because it wasn't in its wheelhouse and Facebook was so strong. Threads feels like second nature for Meta, and Twitter is damaged. It... Kara Swisher / @karaswisher : I hate to disagree with @mike_isaac, but this instance is nothing like Google+. 1.) Google was a search and not social company and one might posit that its execs — none of whom used social media at... Steven Sinofsky / @stevesi : This isn't a pattern. G+ was launched by a company that only after admitted it didn't understand social/community/humans. Dare Obasanjo / @carnage4life : I'm still laughing about @nytimes writing an article that was basically “Sure, @threadsapp had a launch so successful it broke records but it could still fail” 😂😂😂 Dare Obasanjo / @carnage4life : The NY Times can't help itself when it comes to hating on Meta. It's kinda cute how consistent they are. Even a successful product launch is a failure if you just spin the narrative hard enough😁. Ben Collins / @oneunderscore__ : Think it's probably closer to Zoom, in that it filled a gap in an emergency. Adam Mosseri / @mosseri : The Google+ analogy feels like a low blow, but the reality is inevitably going to be somewhere between the hype and @mike_isaac's words of caution. Something new like this will spike as everyone... David King / @deekay : Could Google have pulled off Threads? Tom Gara / @tomgara : Introducing Google Live Hangouts, a new real-time conversation space integrated into Google Meet, previously known as Hangouts Meet, which merged with Google Duo, which replaced Google Hangouts Charles Tyson Jr / @neverskurred : The difference being...nobody asked for G+. We've all basically been begging for an a-hole free alternative to the bird app. Dustin Moskovitz / @metamoskov : Never change NYT Mike Isaac / @mike_isaac : the original point wasn't saying this is google plus — I think there are a lot of differences in product and how they implemented it that clearly aren't the same It was more “here are two ways that... Jon McEwen / @datawithjon : Easy comparison, bad analysis. Rob Christ / @robc.hrist : The difference is that Twitter wasn't under Musk and wasn't hated as it is now when Google+ came out. Meta's timing is right. Hongcheng Zhu / @hczhu_stg : Such an analogy works until it doesn't.
Context & Ripple Effects
Threads entered the market with Instagram-based sign-in and account-following continuity, giving Meta an immediate distribution advantage through its Instagram-linked launch. At the same time, Twitter's unresolved reading limits created an opening for users to test an alternative during a period of disruption.
The central question is whether that onboarding advantage can become a durable habit. Later coverage of Threads' difficulty attracting influencers and defining its purpose reinforces the distinction between rapid sign-ups and sustained participation.
First-order effects
- Meta can use its existing social graph to reduce the friction of trying Threads, but it must establish a recurring use case beyond that initial import.
- Users gain a low-cost alternative for text-based posting and following familiar accounts; whether they remain active depends on the service's distinct utility, not access alone.
Second-order effects
- A credible Threads audience would pressure Twitter and other text-based networks to improve reliability, creator appeal, and feed control rather than rely on incumbent user bases.
- Meta's product priorities shift toward retention features and user choice—later reflected in testing default and custom feeds—because distribution alone cannot resolve a weak reason to return.
Third-order effects
- The episode points to a broader split between social platforms that can acquire users through an existing ecosystem and those that can retain them through a clear social function; the two advantages are not interchangeable.
- If this pattern persists, competition in social networking will increasingly center on portable audiences, creator participation, and controllable feeds rather than launch-day signup scale.
The trend: Social-network challengers are learning that incumbent distribution can accelerate adoption, but durable engagement requires a differentiated habit and meaningful user control.