Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Google Plus Now Minus Chief Vic Gundotra

Unknown Lamer posted about 7 months ago | from the google-plus-still-exists? dept.

Google 93

JG0LD (2616363) writes "Vic Gundotra, the man behind Google Plus and one of Google's most prominent executives, announced today that he will leave the company 'effective immediately.' Gundotra made the announcement, appropriately enough, in a lengthy Google Plus post, praising his co-workers and saying that he is 'excited about what's next.' However, he did not further outline his future plans, saying that 'this isn't the day to talk about that.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Google- (4, Interesting)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#46835671)

Any chance this means Google is going to back-pedal on Google+ ?

I'd welcome Google splitting it's products such that you can subscribe to YouTube without also being signed up to Google+ and GMail and Maps and the kitchen sink. Or vice versa.

Re:Google- (4, Insightful)

yuhong (1378501) | about 7 months ago | (#46835769)

Or at least comply with EU privacy laws.

Re:Google- (4, Funny)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 7 months ago | (#46836265)

How could you be any more private than by being the only user of Google+ ?

Re:Google- (3, Funny)

fibonacci8 (260615) | about 7 months ago | (#46838059)

How could you be any more private than by being the only user of Google+ ?

Being the first person to like Slashdot Beta.

Re:Google- (2)

Scowler (667000) | about 7 months ago | (#46835953)

Notably, this announcement is coming just days after standalone Google Talk was killed off.

Re:Google- (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46843005)

Really? Is that notable? It is probably just a coincidence.

Re:Google- (-1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 7 months ago | (#46836077)

Why?

Google can accomplish the exact same thing if you sign up individually or don't sign up for any of them. And ... G+ isn't required for any of the things you've listed so go delete your G+ profile and be happy.

All you're saying is 'I don't like unified logins! I want 20 accounts instead of one, even though my behavior makes it easy for Google to identify me across all services anyway!'

You really don't know what you want it, you're just anti-theman

Re:Google- (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836161)

You are incorrect.
You cannot comment on youtube without g+
You cannot, according to ToS, have a g+ profile without having your real name on it.

They already had single sign on using gprofile/gmail as the key. But they did not require a real name for that. Having a real name associated with the account is a no go for some people. I do not feel comfortable for people who follow my art blog having a way to go from my email to my real name. I'll choose to give it to those I am comfortable meeting in real life and no one else.

Re:Google- (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839263)

There are three credentials for Google services:

1) Google Account
This is the backend to all Google services, you get a GMail address and Google Drive space, Calender, Contacts, Hangout etc.
This is THE THING what Google requires.

2) Google+ Profile
This is the personal social network for individuals, this is what you are required to have if you want to share picture via Hangouts.
This is THE BAD THING what Google requires. Why? Because your full name and profile photo is public and anyone can find you and contact you.
Other people can see who you know and who knows you. That is WORST CASE SCENARIO IN ANY SOCIAL BEHAVIOR!

3) Google+ Page
This is for the corporation/brand/group/alias, this is what is at least required to have some of the Google services available what requires Google+. Like you can have this so you can comment on Youtube and not to have a personal data revealed. But you can't use this with a Hangouts so you could share picture to your friends.

Google+ Page and Google+ Profile and Google Account are all separated and either Google+ credentials can be needed as addition to Google Account.

Re:Google- (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 7 months ago | (#46840999)

Oh, another good one - if a site is using the oath2 API to pull your name and such.... you can't authenticate without joining Google+! Delete your "page" and you'll lose your oath access as well. See here [stackoverflow.com] for more information on this nice little fuck-you from Google.

Re:Google- (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46843141)

You cannot, according to ToS, have a g+ profile without having your real name on it.

That may be according to the ToS, but I've signed up using an alias (which could pass for a real name, but isn't), and I've noticed quite a few people who use names that clearly aren't real names on there, so it doesn't seem to actually be enforced.

Re:Google- (1)

fractoid (1076465) | about 7 months ago | (#46846219)

That's all fine if it's just for casual use and you don't care about the account. It's NOT fine if you rely on that account for business communications, or even for your own primary method of personal communication. If they ever DO decide to enforce this clause in the ToS then you have no recourse and stand to lose all of your contacts and communication history.

Even if not currently enforced, this clause effectively renders Google+ unusable for any serious purpose.

Re:Google- (3, Insightful)

Windwraith (932426) | about 7 months ago | (#46836185)

I don't know, I think the same thing and I don't think it's about sticking it to the man, it's just that youtube and gmail/g+/etc are radically different things that should be separate. They will track me anyway, so let me have my video channel separate from a service I am not going to use and didn't ask for in the first place.

It annoys me that trying to comment on Youtube requires having extra sites whitelisted, there's a checkbox that is always enabled by default to post comment to G+, and alerts and notifications are usually not related to youtube itself.

So I don't think the parent post is anti-theman, I think it's just anti G+, which is a perfectly reasonable opinion. The ones that want G+ can just go there and use it, the rest shouldn't be forced to use it if they want to keep their Youtube channel up.

Re:Google- (1)

fractoid (1076465) | about 7 months ago | (#46846225)

It's not even anti-G+ in particular. It's anti-forced-integration.

Imagine signing up at your local video store automatically signed you up to the social club, and anyone in the video store or in the town hall could see what videos you'd rented and what other social club members you hung out with.

Re:Google- (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 7 months ago | (#46836295)

How about a settings page?

I would like to be enrolled in the falling Google services:
Gmail
Google+
Youtube
Google Drive
Google Docs

Etc.
The problem with being universally logged into Google+ is that it introduces a LOT of other spying crap on other websites. Most people log in to Google+ so rarely that they don't even realize all that Midget porn they'd been thumbs upping is plastered all over a google website with their full name, email and phone number on it.

Re:Google- (1)

dkf (304284) | about 7 months ago | (#46839347)

Most people log in to Google+ so rarely that they don't even realize all that Midget porn they'd been thumbs upping is plastered all over a google website with their full name, email and phone number on it.

On the plus side, it's a great way to find out how creepy all you friends and family are.

Re:Google- (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46840417)

I'd rather be enrolled in Google services that are not falling.

Re:Google- (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#46841369)

And ... G+ isn't required for any of the things you've listed so go delete your G+ profile and be happy.

That's not true. Sign up for one you sign up to all. And there's no such thing as delete. They might send you a message saying it's deleted. But then you can reactivate it, so it's gone nowhere.

Why?

Because at one time everybody loved Google. Increasing numbers are starting to hate them. And people hating you is not good business.

All you're saying is 'I don't like unified logins!

There would be nothing wrong with Google offering the option to link accounts. The problem is them forcing creation of accounts in services you don't want, using them to collect data, nag you over and over to use linking features, etc. It's a fucking pain in the arse. And if you don't see why it pisses many poeple off, that's your lack of insight. Because there's a lot of people that have the same feeling.

I want 20 accounts instead of one, even though my behavior makes it easy for Google to identify me across all services anyway!'

No I don't want 20 accounts. I don't want an account in any service that I don't want. It's not hard to understand. If I sign up to a certain service that's because I've decided to make the trade off between privacy and utility for that service. I don't want unasked for services and tracking.

You really don't know what you want it, you're just anti-theman

I know precisely what I want. You're the one who lacks the insight to see why. I'm certainly anti-Google. But that wasn't always the case. I use to love Google. They earned the hatred I now have for them.

Much as Microsoft earned the hatred people had for them. With Microsoft now on the path back to being a well behaved company, Google is taking their place.

Re:Google- (1)

c6gunner (950153) | about 7 months ago | (#46845325)

Much as Microsoft earned the hatred people had for them. With Microsoft now on the path back to being a well behaved company, Google is taking their place.

I was with you, right up until that bit. No way man. Microsoft was on the path to being a well behaved company, right up until Windows 8. Then they threw it all away again. It's obvious that they're tying to go the same way as Google; getting you to tie everything together using a common microsoft account, from your user account on your desktop/laptop, to your phone, your xbox, your search platform and mapping application .... pretty much every service they offer.

Sure you CAN create a Windows 8 user account without linking it to their service, but they make it difficult enough that even I have problems figuring out which sequence of links to click, and my non-tech-savvy friends get completely lost and just give in. And if you do succeed, it prevents you from accessing the Apps Market, unless you want to type in your e-mail address and password every time you go to download or use an app.

Just give them some time to develop their own social networking platform and they'll be an even more demented version of google.

Re:Google- (1)

fractoid (1076465) | about 7 months ago | (#46846521)

Yeah, it took me a while to figure that one. "OK, my options are 'Log in with my Microsoft Account' and 'Create a Microsoft Account'... what?"

Eventually clicked 'create account' and found the checkbox down the bottom saying "just don't, okay?"

Re:Google- (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#46847691)

OK, well I'll take your word on that one. I parted company with Microsoft's products more than a decade ago, and use a Mac now. So I don't know what they are up to at that level. My comment was just giving them credit for finally getting rid of Ballmer, and having a new CEO that seems willing to play better with others.

Re:Google- (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#46841489)

BTW, I note that my comment is +5 with 100% positive mods. Yours is -1 with 100% negative mods. And all the replies you have agree with me and not you.

Of course that's no absolute guarantee of who's right and who's wrong. Especially as it's opinion. But it does show that your feeling that it's just me being anti-theman, and not a widespread view is very wrong. Most people are pissed off with Google's enforced sign up to services you don't want.

Re:Google- (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836567)

Any chance this means Google is going to back-pedal on Google+ ?

I'd welcome Google splitting it's products such that you can subscribe to YouTube without also being signed up to Google+ and GMail and Maps and the kitchen sink. Or vice versa.

Make multiple google accounts for each service like I do. Problem solved.

Re:Google- (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 7 months ago | (#46837487)

Any chance this means Google is going to back-pedal on Google+ ?

I'd welcome Google splitting it's products such that you can subscribe to YouTube without also being signed up to Google+ and GMail and Maps and the kitchen sink. Or vice versa.

Why?

Remember, you're the product in all those services, and by forcing G+ on you, Google's enhancing the product for sale.

About the only thing is that they can take back the whole "Steve Jobs said G+ was a joke" thing, but really, G+ is a great way to get back at Facebook. Because well, Facebook aims to be a closed community - Facebook's tracking is limited to sites that have Like buttons.

Google's ability to sell ads (Facebook can only sell ads within its network - it doesn't sell ads outside of Facebook, yet) means it reaches practically the entire Internet (Google, and Google-owned ad networks are around what, 98% of desktop browsers, and practically all mobile browsers), meaning it's out-Facebooking Facebook in its ability to gather user information (i.e., non-voluntarily-provided information), thus offering advertisers a far better product.

Sure its last results are down, but they're still massively profitable, and within a short period of time (cost-per-click is down, which means the last 2% are dying) Google would really get at everyone.

Hell, Android was released just so Google wouldn't be locked out of iOS ad sales.

Face it - Google's addicted to ad money, and Google knows it - it's their massively primary revenue stream, the alternatives are a joke (iAds - you get LESS information about users from them than Google, they cost mode, and are limited to iOS), so Google's really the big guy. Google's trying to save Google Glass before the internet brands it as an always-present surveillance camera worn by people with more money than sense (i.e., Glassholes). Because otherwise it'll kill it as a data gathering option Google has to sell more ad data.

Hell, think GMail's picture-proxy is for your safety by "not reveailing your IP address"? Why bother, when the proxy will happily load you tagged images confirming your e-mail address and that you read it. Perhaps think what Google has next in store - i.e., that Promotions tab might be the phase.

Re:Google- (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#46841243)

Why?

You sum it up quite well. All those things that are good for the advertisers because they are given out private information is bad for users.

From Google's point of view, whilst the public is their product and not their customer, they do need to keep the people on their side, and not hating and boycotting them.

It's funny, from the early days of search, and then into maps, everybody loved Google. Most even felt good about their "don't be evil" mantra. But then with the purchase of YouTube, and it's integration with all the other G-products, with Google+, and Google Glass, people have started hating Google. It's quite a turn around. One that mirrors Microsoft's fall from grace.

Hell, Android was released just so Google wouldn't be locked out of iOS ad sales.

Google announced purchase of Android in 2005.
Apple announced iPhone 2007.
iAd wasn't announced till 2010.

So Android certainly wasn't an answer to iAd. And if it was an answer to iPhone, then Eric Schmidt is in a lot of trouble. He was working for Google and also on the Apple board. If he informed Google about Apple's early iPhone developments, then he's broken his contract, and the damages payable would be huge.

But it's pretty obvious that's not the case. Early Android prototypes were very much Blackberry copies rather than anything like the iPhone. And Blackberry wasn't really an advertising platform.

Re:Google- (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46843285)

Face it - Google's addicted to ad money, and Google knows it

It is a little odd to describe a corporation as being addicted to money.

Re:Google- (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838223)

I hope so. I also hope "Vic" gets hit by a car and killed for trashing once good services with that Google- filth.

Re:Google- (2)

Craefter (71540) | about 7 months ago | (#46839197)

Any chance this means Google is going to back-pedal on Google+ ?

Yes: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/... [techcrunch.com]

Re:Google- (1)

assertation (1255714) | about 7 months ago | (#46840817)

This site is reporting his leaving as meaning that forced integration of Google+ will end

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets... [arstechnica.com]

Re:Google- (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#46841573)

Great! I wonder how long before Google Glass gets killed off too.

Please... (2)

FuegoFuerte (247200) | about 7 months ago | (#46835673)

Can it die now?

Re:Please... (1)

yuhong (1378501) | about 7 months ago | (#46835755)

I am for fixing the problems with Google+ (such as the real name policy) not killing it.

Re:Please... (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 7 months ago | (#46835777)

Yeah plenty of competition in the social media space is important but I can't get much use out of G+. It comes across as a clumsy answer to a question nobody was really asking.

Re:Please... (1)

Gunboat_Diplomat (3390511) | about 7 months ago | (#46838975)

Yeah plenty of competition in the social media space is important but I can't get much use out of G+. It comes across as a clumsy answer to a question nobody was really asking.

Oh, it was an attempt at answering a question Google most certainly was asking - how can we get some of those Facebook ad billions and additional user tracking info.

Re:Please... (4, Insightful)

quarterbuck (1268694) | about 7 months ago | (#46835813)

Well, they'd have to fix the real name policy and allow it to be separate from youtube/gmail etc.
I don't want all my gmail contacts getting notified through Google+ that watzinaneihm liked the latest pop video on youtube.
I don't think I do that many controversial things, but after what happened to the Mozilla CEO, I realize that what is acceptable in the future has no relation to how it is perceived today. I am not saying that donation to anti-gay-marriage was ever right, but I don't think doing what the president of the country was doing at that time was a fire-able offense either.

Re:Please... (4, Informative)

lemur3 (997863) | about 7 months ago | (#46835935)

one can create what is called a "Page" in google+ parlance.. and that page can be pseudonymous,.. you can be named anything you want under that page and use it on youtube, etc..

of course youll have to create it from a 'real name' google+ account, but unless you divulge it in public theres no way to know who it is behind the 'Page' account. .....your gmail contacts dont get notified if you like the latest pop video on youtube when using a google+ account...

on commenting for the *First Time* using an account on youtube which is tied to google+ the default option below the comment box is to 'make public' the comment, which sends it to your google+ feed, if you turn that option off it is sticky and will remain off in the future and that comment only lives within youtube.

while there are annoyances related to google+ ..most of the complaints just dont apply these days, it has changed quite a lot since it came out a few years ago... and for most of the complaints, there is a (mostly) reasonable solution.

the "i want to be totally anonymous" solution some people seem to look for doesnt really apply to the product.. pseudoanonymity is about as best as youll get

Re:Please... (1)

megalomaniacs4u (199468) | about 7 months ago | (#46836969)

Yes - but we should not have to any of this.

All this was forced by the google+ BS, and should never have happened period.

Re:Please... (1)

quarterbuck (1268694) | about 7 months ago | (#46837919)

Do you work for Google ? In that case here is my complaint in specific.
Well I have a "page" already because I had a youtube account which had a different name and I got grandfathered in. So now everytime I even visit youtube, I get asked "do you want to browse as RealName or this nonRealName?" ",Are you sure you did not change your mind?". And everytime I try to comment on a video (usually trying to help with peoples tech annoyances) it asks me "Do you want to post it to your Google+"? .
This is a hundred times more difficult when I try to use the new "Google Hangouts" from my mobile phone - it always gets confused what I should have as my profile pic. Why is it so difficult for Google to know that a pic I use to chat with my friends is not the one I want to have when I use gmail (because there is work related stuff there), which is different from what I want on Google+ (which has people who are more aquaintances than people I would video chat with)? Why does google keep trying to import people from my mail into my old grandcentral account (which became google voice) ? I use that account on Google voice to buy stuff on craigslist (I worry about spammers/con artists) -why would I want to mix up my family/friends with those people or vice versa ?

Re:Please... (1)

Kunedog (1033226) | about 7 months ago | (#46838147)

the "i want to be totally anonymous" solution some people seem to look for doesnt really apply to the product.

Then "the product" (Google Plus), in turn, doesn't apply to products like Search, Youtube, Gmail, Picasa, etc. . . . so keep it the FUCK away from them.

Re:Please... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 7 months ago | (#46841035)

The only change I'm interested in Google+ implementing is the change to a deprecated/decomissioned status.

Re:Please... (1, Informative)

BitZtream (692029) | about 7 months ago | (#46836093)

I don't want all my gmail contacts getting notified through Google+ that watzinaneihm liked the latest pop video on youtube.

So go to your preferences and turn it off. Or uncheck the 'also share on Google+' checkbox when posting.

Seriosly, This isn't hard.

Re:Please... (5, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | about 7 months ago | (#46836287)

So go to your preferences and turn it off. Or uncheck the 'also share on Google+' checkbox when posting.

And relearn how to do that every time google changes anything. Possilby needing to learn new permissions models and settings and interfaces on Google's unpredictable schedule.

Take a look at Facebook's permissions settings history for an example.

Seriosly, This isn't hard.

It's harder than it needs to be.

Separate the accounts entirely that aren't linked to something with your real name eliminates unintended mistakes no matter what google does with the interface tomorrow.

Re:Please... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46837583)

I've been on G+ since the beginning. I've never had to go change a permission setting since the first time, and whenever they've added any sort of setting, the default was quite restrictive.

Re:Please... (2, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about 7 months ago | (#46837657)

and whenever they've added any sort of setting, the default was quite restrictive.

Well good enough for me then, right? Nothing bad has happened so far, so nothing ever well.

Re:Please... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836527)

I am not saying that donation to anti-gay-marriage was ever right, but I don't think doing what the president of the country was doing at that time was a fire-able offense either.

Who was fired?

Eich voluntarily stepped down. I'm not going to pretend to feel sorry for him; he could have explained himself or apologized if he recognized a past poor choice, he chose to step down instead.

Re:Please... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836851)

He stepped down because he cares enough about Mozilla to not drag their name, a name he helped build for over a decade, through a huge fight with online social justice warriors. Of course, that's something a liberal faggot would never understand.

Re:Please... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838729)

Brendam was victim of a group of blackmailers who used a threat on the reputation of Mozilla as a mean to impose their views. Apparently you are one of these morons.

Re:Please... (1)

RJFerret (1279530) | about 7 months ago | (#46836143)

Um, the real name thing was resolved a long time ago, you can make pages with any names you want, I have several for different purposes and venues (such as one for my character in an MMO).

That is one great thing about G+ unlike Twitter or others, they actually listen to their users and design the system for users rather than solely their own whims/needs.

Re:Please... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 7 months ago | (#46841075)

That is one great thing about G+ unlike Twitter or others, they actually listen to their users and design the system for users rather than solely their own whims/needs.

Really? Then why does it still exist?

Re:Please... (1)

RJFerret (1279530) | about 7 months ago | (#46841291)

Sarcasm aside, it's obviously beneficial to both parties, the sign of a good deal, users get a tool that offers the best aspects of email, Twitter, SMS, and Flickr/Pinterest all combined in an easier to use environment, without the liabilities of each of those; the provider gets slightly improved demographics to pay for it all, as well as other services they provide, and competitive market share to bolster their declining revenues.

Why should you care? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835799)

Serious question... why should you care?
 
Too many goofballs and fanboys around here want everything they don't like to die. Why?
 
I'm not even a GooglePlus user, I'm just looking for an honest answer as to why so many Slashdot users want to feed themselves into a monoculture. We've seen the bad that can come from it, tell me about what's so bad about an ecosystem that supports multiple platforms and multiple vendors.

Re:Why should you care? (3, Insightful)

FuegoFuerte (247200) | about 7 months ago | (#46835949)

The biggest reasons I hate it are 1) The "real name" policy and 2) The fact I'm basically forced to use it if I want to use any of the Goog's other services as a signed-in user (YouTube, gmail, etc.).

The fact that I think it's utterly pointless shite is besides the point - I think the same of Twitter but don't wish it death. I don't have any need or want to interact with it, therefore its existence doesn't bother me. The Goog on the other hand has other things unrelated to G+ which I /do/ wish to use, without being forced to use G+. Hence, I wish death to G+.

HTH.

Re: Why should you care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836277)

Because they are so ham-handed about it, destroying useful things in the process. For instance, Google Talk logs (if enabled) used to be accessible via IMAP. This has been broken for about year, without any comment from Google, despite the attention given when the feature was announced a year or two prior.

Re:Please... (2)

pahles (701275) | about 7 months ago | (#46835905)

Oh come on... The fact that you don't like it, does not mean it does not fill its niche. I remember people saying the same about Facebook and Twitter. Some people like it, get over it.

Re:Please... (3, Informative)

lemur3 (997863) | about 7 months ago | (#46836127)

Oh come on... The fact that you don't like it, does not mean it does not fill its niche. I remember people saying the same about Facebook and Twitter. Some people like it, get over it.

I think google+ is pretty darn good as far as social networks go. It gets a lot of hate, but judging by what people say, a lot of that is from what it was in 2011, and concerns of anonymity. (The 'nag' screens feel like a different issue)

As for anonymity I am fine with not being anonymous to Google itself. I send email using Google Apps for Business account using my real name, they have my billing info and I don't mind sharing stuff I like to friends, family, and the public using my name on my public Google+ account. I did the on a personal website long before Google+ existed.

As for (pseudo)anonymity on Google+ I can choose how I share. I can choose whether or not to be BasementHacker20129 for my online profile using the "Pages" feature, sure, Google still knows that the name BasementHacker20129 that I used to reply a trollish comment about the Tea Party on youtube was sent by my Real Name.. but nobody else would. This seems reasonable to me, maybe not to others...

I happen to enjoy seeing Wil Wheaton posting about the stuff he is doing that week on my Google+ feed. I enjoy seeing the stuff Linus Torvalds posts on Google+. Those guys are pretty geeky. It is good enough for me, and them. It has no ads.

Sure, it wants to know your real name.. But I found, after poo-pooing it in 2011, that when I came back for a 2nd look in 2014 that it was actually pretty damned good.

Great! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835679)

Who fucking cares? He should have been fired for incompetence years ago. Google is great because of its engineers. The marketing fucks and "idea guys" like Vic are worse than dead weight.

Re:Great! (1)

Bahamut_Omega (811064) | about 7 months ago | (#46836519)

Just add termination of the G+ product and crew, and everything will be fine with the world.

Made the announcement in a Google+ post (5, Funny)

olsmeister (1488789) | about 7 months ago | (#46835691)

So, trying to keep it on the D/L?

My bet is Twitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46835731)

Twitter. That's my bet.

That Title... (1)

SBJ95 (992570) | about 7 months ago | (#46835757)

It took me several tries to figure out what that title meant...

Re:That Title... (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#46836053)

What's so hard to understand about "Plus Now Minus"?

Oh wait...

Re:That Title... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46838651)

That's simple operator overloading

What's Next (2)

adiposity (684943) | about 7 months ago | (#46835771)

Not having to post this sort of thing in Google Plus.

If he did it using Google+... (5, Funny)

kwiqsilver (585008) | about 7 months ago | (#46835829)

I'm surprised anybody found out. I bet a bunch of people showed up at the office the next day asking, "Where's Vic? It looks like he cleaned out his office."

Vive Vacation Vic! (1, Troll)

Dantoo (176555) | about 7 months ago | (#46835913)

G+ seemed a good idea at the very start. It seemed that you could fine-control the what, when, who and how of your information and I had no problems with Google pawing around in it for targetting ads.

It is now the most evil shit that you face daily. My daughter has removed every hidden tick from every hidden box she can find on G+, but every personal photo she takes on her Nexus 5 ends up straight away "shared". She has now stopped taking photos with it completely. Won't buy another. Iphone people don't complain about the same problem and Apple isn't exactly the Good Witch of the East.

If this guy was in charge of that shit then his bosses should also be flung through a window because they have deeply darkened Google's reputation. When it comes down to it Google has ridden high, hard and long on their "good" name. It's not Microsoft, Oracle and Apple that have tarnished Google, it's internal and maybe it already costs them billions. If not, it will.

easy to fix, STFU (1)

koreanbabykilla (305807) | about 7 months ago | (#46836317)

Seems to me if it is auto uploading pictures it has internet. Have you considered using this newfangled "search engine" at www.google.com to find out how to turn this off? https://support.google.com/plu... [google.com]

I dont use G+ or use a smartphone, but I found that in a few seconds. I'm 100% sure you took longer writing your post about how it sucks it does that than it took to find a solution.

Re:Vive Vacation Vic! (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46838481)

My daughter has removed every hidden tick from every hidden box she can find on G+, but every personal photo she takes on her Nexus 5 ends up straight away "shared".

Amusingly, this is a feature which defaults off. She asked for this. Now she can't figure out how to turn it off, and Google is the bad guy? Maybe the apple just doesn't fall far from the tree.

Re:Vive Vacation Vic! (0)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | about 7 months ago | (#46838961)

it defaults off, thats true. but they use a very sneaky message to get you to enable the auto upload thing as soon as you open the gallery. and you get a fucking notification on EVERY SINGLE PHOTO YOU EVER CLICK! you get 3 notifications actually. one on your phone, other on every single google webpage you visit (including chrome start tab), third as an email in your gmail inbox. and what does the notification say?

your photo is ready to be shared

it was ready to be shared the moment i took it, bitch! there's this neat android feature called share using which you can share your photos!

Re:Vive Vacation Vic! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46839693)

it defaults off, thats true. but they use a very sneaky message to get you to enable the auto upload thing as soon as you open the gallery.

There's nothing sneaky about a literally black and white inquiry as to whether you want every picture you take with your camera uploaded to Google. If you can't read, perhaps an Android phone is not for you.

Re:Vive Vacation Vic! (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | about 7 months ago | (#46839785)

it never says its uploading to google+. it just says "turn on auto upload? it will keep your pics safe blah blah" not one word about google+. i hate shills like you who are ready to accept anything google shits onto the device YOU paid for.

Re:Vive Vacation Vic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46840609)

I know I'm feeding a troll, auto upload goes to a hidden (to the rest of the world) folder on Picasa Web Albums. Picasa Web Albums had some serious issues managing face tags (linking names/emails to faces). Google over the last few years have been merging Picasa Web Albums into Google+, as someone who paid money for picasa storage this makes me happy as I'm getting a better service.

On my Sony I am not asked if I want to upload photo's when I start it or select a photo (well it does ask the first time if I want to put in to the Sony cloud). I am asked if I use the Photo's application, which installs when you install Google+. This application is desired to show you your Google+ photos so you can manage them, it also shows locally stored photos.

Perhaps before spewing vitirol you should learn what applications you are using and what they are meant for.

Re: Vive Vacation Vic! (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | about 7 months ago | (#46840665)

Perhaps you should go and look at a nexus device and how it handles photos before making a fool out of yourself.

Re: Vive Vacation Vic! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46842771)

Oddly, I have two Nexus devices and I at least know how they handle photos — apparently better than you do, because I only have autoupload on one of them, and only by choice.

Re:Vive Vacation Vic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46841767)

No that's not it - what a lot of people want is some cloud storage to store their photos, then they can give their friends/the world the link..

What Google+ and others does is it tries to micromanage your life, taking away basic copyright rights on your stuff and posting it where the fuck it wants (note copyright includes the right to choose where your stuff is published)- as a minimum it's annoying as fuck, *creates nothing of value*, and takes more time to try to fix that the whole thing was worth in the first place.

This is what you get for free .. so no point complaining..

But why waste peoples time in the first place.? Google+ works for public figures/organisations trying to promote there stuff (includes famous software developers etc) - as a social network ie for real people - it's a pile of shit.

Re:Vive Vacation Vic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46839291)

Fix daughter: Let her do a factory reset (just to be sure .. she obviously doesnt know what settings she touched) and dont tick the "send all my photos to a server" and "backup my device" checkbox next time.

Good (1)

willoughby (1367773) | about 7 months ago | (#46836011)

This might be a step in the right direction. I can't even leave an app review on the Play Store unless I sign up for Google +. Kill it now.

G+ was killed by trying to force people to use it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836193)

So, he wasn't agressive enough when shoveling the G+ into everybodys throat? Now that the G+ policy killed user reviews on Google Play, will you try to force G+ for every Android user before they can use their phone? What about the google.com itself, why is that still available without submitting all the user details before searches happen?

I don't understand the name (3, Funny)

bitt3n (941736) | about 7 months ago | (#46836223)

Why did they choose "Google+"? It has all the positive connotations of "HIV+" and the service is not even remotely viral.

Ingress (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | about 7 months ago | (#46836691)

is the only thing driving users to Google+.

Re:Ingress (1)

emj (15659) | about 7 months ago | (#46839559)

I would recommend Mozstumbler [github.com] or openwlanmap [openwlanmap.org] instead. They do the same thing basically.

Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46837465)

After the abysmal crash of Google+ as an abject and utter failure, I've been asked to leave the company and go destroy someone else's platform.

Google+ is a Winner (1)

enter to exit (1049190) | about 7 months ago | (#46838245)

I suspect Google will eventually use G+ to power Google Now. You could ask your phone for movie recommendations and it will reply with a curated list based on what movies or youtube trailers your G+ friends have seen.

Now that social networks have supplanted personal webpages/blogs and small independent sites are dying from inactivity Google has less and less to crawl. They need G+ to power their mobile search (Google Now) and make their results personal, it might not make money on its own but they can't kill it, it's their long term lifeline - it might completely change over time, but it'll be a gradual evolution not a restart.

Googe+ has a nice communities feature that i like. https://plus.google.com/commun... [google.com]
People can subscribe to page dedicated to a topic they like and post to the page.

G+ is centered around your interests, not your high-school friends. This data is more valuable to Google.

If you won't post something to G+ with your real name chances are you shouldn't be posting it. It reduces the amount of "keyboard warriors" on the site and increases the value of the data. yes i know there are legitimate reasons for anonymity, but in these situations G+ isn't your best outlet.

The people against Google's single sign in policy are misguided, Google can create a standard sign in form for all their services and make you sign up to each one. Or you can fill out one form and use the services you like. It's the same thing.

Humans hide things from each other all the time (4, Insightful)

Camael (1048726) | about 7 months ago | (#46838801)

I'm sorry, but G+ will fail because it doesn't reflect how humans interact with each other. We hide things from each other all the time. Human beings are multi-faceted creatures, and throughout our day we present different masks to different people.


  1.    
  2. To my pro-Republican boss, I show my hard worker side. I don't tell him I post rabidly on liberal websites.
  3.    

  4. To my co-worker, I show him I'm a cooperative team player. I don't show him that I bitch about his back stabbing habits to my colleagues.
  5.    

  6. To my wife, I show that I am a loving husband who appreciates her love handles. I don't let her know that I am a card carrying member of the Playboy Club.
  7.    

  8. To my secretary, I show that I am a pro-feminist boss who buys gifts on Secretary's Week. I don't let her know that I visit Hooters every other week and that I tell my friends she has a hot ass.
  9.    

  10. To that cute florist on the ground floor of my building, I am that that guy who always has time to chat with her in the morning. I hide my ring.

None of this is true of course, but I'm simply illustrating that we tell white lies all the time. Everyone has something to hide. Putting everything under one unified identity, with the possibility of those that you deal with discovering previously unknown sides to you that you have been keeping secret from them is simply too big a risk to bear.

Re:Humans hide things from each other all the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46840381)

You can share with only one person or no persons or everyone or a circle or several specific and defined individuals. If you don't want the world to know you write Ugly Betty fan fiction, then perhaps sharing it publicly with the world via G+ is counter productive.

Re:Humans hide things from each other all the time (2)

neurovish (315867) | about 7 months ago | (#46840399)

G+ is explicitly designed around this idea. That is the whole purpose of circles which is at the center of everything. You create a boss circle for those in your management-chain, a co-workers circle for the co-workers, a family circle for the wife, and a douche circle for all of the cute florists.

Re:Humans hide things from each other all the time (2)

lemur3 (997863) | about 7 months ago | (#46842323)

i think that a simple appraisal of most peoples opinions/fears/gripes of google+ shows that theyve never actually used it.

the circles thing was one of the big selling points going all the way back to 2011.. and probably covered here on /. ...now they allow you to create pseudonymous sub-accounts that cannot be tracked back to any real life identify ....and yet people are still crying from the rooftops 'OMG I CANT RISK PEOPLE KNOWING' ...well if you want yer head in the sand, ..theres that option too

Re:Humans hide things from each other all the time (1)

Camael (1048726) | about 7 months ago | (#46856985)

...now they allow you to create pseudonymous sub-accounts that cannot be tracked back to any real life identify

I'm sorry, that wasn't possible when I joined G+. Back then they ban accounts with fake names

And setting one up doesn't sound so easy to me [mashable.com] .

The use of actual pseudonyms is a little more complex. All pseudonym requests will require some kind of evidence, which could range from a URL to your scanned driver’s license. Google+ is not, however, accepting new pseudonyms. This is designed for “established ones.” Horowitz explained that the new account naming option is intended for “people who have earned credit in other social systems and want to redeem that credit in Google+ We will swing the doors open and welcome them to our system.” Google will destroy all documentation you send them once the account verification process is complete.

And the G+ faq [google.com] pretty much wants you to use real names. No help on making these pseudonymous accounts there.

A lot of hoop jumping just to get some anonymity, won't you say.

Re:Humans hide things from each other all the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46840555)

I'm sorry, but G+ will fail because it doesn't reflect how humans interact with each other. We hide things from each other all the time. Human beings are multi-faceted creatures, and throughout our day we present different masks to different people.

  1.  

  2. To my pro-Republican boss, I show my hard worker side. I don't tell him I post rabidly on liberal websites.
  3.    

  4. To my co-worker, I show him I'm a cooperative team player. I don't show him that I bitch about his back stabbing habits to my colleagues.
  5.    

  6. To my wife, I show that I am a loving husband who appreciates her love handles. I don't let her know that I am a card carrying member of the Playboy Club.
  7.    

  8. To my secretary, I show that I am a pro-feminist boss who buys gifts on Secretary's Week. I don't let her know that I visit Hooters every other week and that I tell my friends she has a hot ass.
  9.    

  10. To that cute florist on the ground floor of my building, I am that that guy who always has time to chat with her in the morning. I hide my ring.

None of this is true of course, but I'm simply illustrating that we tell white lies all the time. Everyone has something to hide. Putting everything under one unified identity, with the possibility of those that you deal with discovering previously unknown sides to you that you have been keeping secret from them is simply too big a risk to bear.

Lol what an hypocrite.

Re:Humans hide things from each other all the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46853751)

Interestingly, that's exactly what circles allows you to do.

Google plus epic fail (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 7 months ago | (#46838549)

I am not sure that I can count the ways I hate google plus. Normally in a slashdot comment I would make a long list of my favorites but I will sum it up as saying that my "circle" of friends call it Google Bully.

I hope that with the defenestration of this bozo that the beginning of the end is soon to be in site. Quite simply if Google had listened to their customers over a single login it would have centered around GMail. That is the main service that makes sense to log into. Then if they wanted this google plus crap they could have done one of these would you like to use your GMail login to get into Google plus?

Reading spaces (aka between the lines) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46844439)

Since then I've thought a lot about how similar this is to our life's endeavors. We pour our heart and soul into our work and it becomes something we love and cherish. But even the challenges we work on today will one day become "and thens" as we move on to the next.

g+ isn't "finished". If you think about nothing in Google is finished and in O&M. All the above statement says is progress was not fast enough, and Page wanted a change, whether either person wanted it or not.

His decision looks like there was a more personal conflict brewing in the org.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?