×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

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+ Photos To Be Separated From Google+

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the they-always-kill-the-ones-you-love dept.

Social Networks 114

An anonymous reader writes "Speculation on the eventual shuttering of Google+ has once more risen with news that Google+ Photos will soon be developed and run separately from the social media site. This news follows observations that Google+ "was barely mentioned at Google I/O 2014, while there were 15 sessions dedicated to the service in 2013" and that the company has ended its controversial real name policy. Google Hangouts was also separated from Google+ at the end of July." I've actually heard several people praising Google+ lately; scaling it back to "just a social stream" probably fits into some kind of corollary to Murphy's Law.

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

PENIS! BIG PENIS! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47585803)

Ah yeah man penis denis. Fuckin' cockin'. I didn't mean to offend anyone by saying this. Sorry if I bothered you.

Yay! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47585807)

First there were Picasa Web Albums [wikipedia.org] . Last year my albums got moved to my Google+ account. Now there is a new branding coming along.. My albums will be moved to another service once again..

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47585933)

That's one of the reason I stopped using Google anything. Until they do the right thing and give us back our YouTube accounts, they can go fuck themselves.

Re:Yay! (0)

Arker (91948) | about 5 months ago | (#47586175)

"That's one of the reason I stopped using Google anything. Until they do the right thing and give us back our YouTube accounts, they can go fuck themselves."

Hear hear!

That was really an act of astonishing rudeness and arrogance. A formal apology and the firing of the person responsible would not be uncalled for.

Re:Yay! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47587835)

That was really an act of astonishing rudeness and arrogance. A formal apology and the firing of the person responsible would not be uncalled for.

It is much like when someone uses deliberately using a fixed width font in a forum where everyone else is using the default just to get more attention to themselves and to be a karma whore.

We called out these failures years ago. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47586495)

What's with companies like Google, Mozilla and Microsoft continuing to work on projects that are obvious failures, even this is obvious before they've even been released?

Windows 8 is perhaps the best example of this. Everybody who was exposed to it before its final release hated it. When there's that much dislike from the early adopters, it will be absolutely hated by everyone else. That's guaranteed! And what did we see eventually happen with Windows 8? Well, as predicted, everybody who had to use it hated it, and it became Microsoft's worst failure to date.

Google+ is another great example of this happening. In its early days, everybody who was subjected to it hated it. The earliest users predicted it would be disaster, and it was. The fact that it would fail was obvious to everyone at the time, but for whatever reason Google still made the stupid decision to go forward with the guaranteed failure. The near-useless Chromebooks and ChromeOS is another example of an obvious failure that's pushed through anyway.

And then there's Mozilla. Users are leaving Firefox like there's no tomorrow because Mozilla proposes shitty UI changes, everybody points out how stupid these changes are, Mozilla makes them anyway, users are not happy, and some of the users move on to Chrome. On top of this, Mozilla then creates something totally useless like Firefox OS, cripples it by making JavaScript the only usable programming language with it, then pretends they're targeting third-worlders when it and the shitty phones it runs on are called out for being the shit that they are. And like everybody who wasn't stupid pointed out way back when Mozilla started working on Firefox OS, nobody wants it, and nobody will use it!

Why the fuck do these large and formerly successful companies, which have provided useful products in the past, keep making these blatantly stupid mistakes these days? They didn't do it before. When faced with a product that was going to be an obvious failure, they canned it right away!

Re:We called out these failures years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47586699)

When there's that much dislike from the early adopters, it will be absolutely hated by everyone else.

"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

Yep, clearly Apple should have discontinued all work on the iPod after that scathing indictment from our own Cmdr Taco. The early adopters who bitch about literally everything are always right!

Re:We called out these failures years ago. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47587279)

Apple is a special case. They aren't selling devices, like other vendors. They're peddling a religion. The hardware specs rarely matter; it's the logo on the device that people are buying, and the "prestige" within the hipster community that said logo brings.

Malda was right, because he was looking at the iPod not as a religious symbol, but rather as a personal music player. As a personal music player it was technologically deficient in many ways when first released, and still is. As a religious symbol, though, it excelled. It had a huge amount of hype surrounding it, it psychologically hit the right spot with hipsters, and together these caused a lot of stupid people to waste a lot of money on a device that was inferior to others on the market at the time, all while justifying it with their zealous attitude toward Apple and Steve Jobs.

Re:We called out these failures years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47589249)

So what you're saying is, your rule that "if early adopters hate it, the company should abandon the project," works every time, 60% of the time?

Which means, "Sometimes early adopters are right," or "Sometimes, people just don't like products that companies put on the market, and those products fail."

I think I speak for everyone here on Slashdot when I say, "Thanks for the brilliant insight, Captain Obvious."

Re:We called out these failures years ago. (1)

Clsid (564627) | about 5 months ago | (#47589549)

On the other hand, one could say that you find the religion argument attractive because you dislike Apple products, and yet there must be a reason why people are still buying them. So instead of assuming that people just like easy to use, well designed things, even if they are expensive and maybe not even top of the line (technically speaking), it's easier to think of them as people without a clue.

In my case I fail to see myself living happily in one camp exclusively, because I can actually have a Linux/Windows PC, a Mac laptop, an iPad mini and an Android phone. Use them all and you will quickly realize that all of this "religious" product wars in the end are just about some personal preference and not because one is necessarily better over the other. If you were using a Windows 8 PC however... :)

Re:We called out these failures years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47591067)

easy to use

That's debatable.

well designed things

Wait, what? HAHAHAHAHA! Are you fucking serious? HAHAHAHAHA!

Re:We called out these failures years ago. (1)

jphamlore (1996436) | about 5 months ago | (#47586835)

For Microsoft there is the obvious counterexample to the "good old days" of Windows Me the OS ...

Re: We called out these failures years ago. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47587605)

Have you actually used a Chromebook? As a 20% Linux sysadmin, 80% manager, I have no difficulties using my Chromebook as my primary computer. Access to web and SSH is pretty much all I need.

Re: We called out these failures years ago. (2, Informative)

geekforhire (300937) | about 5 months ago | (#47587729)

Anyone that hates the Chromebook has probably not watched "regular people" use one. I picked up a c720 new for $175, put a larger SSD in it to dual boot Linux and Chrome OS and its been worth every dime. Everyone that has used Chrome has loved it as they just want a browser and email and I have found it to run Linux very well with the right config. I have been a UNIX sysadmin fo over 20 years and the fact that I can use a sub $200 device to do most of what I need when visiting a client blows my mind. I remember when people dreamed of being able to buy anything that you coukd run X windows on let alone a cheap laptop with 7 hour battery life. Kids these days...now get off my lawn.

Re: We called out these failures years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47587751)

> the fact that I can use a sub $200 device to do most of what I need when visiting a client blows my mind

Ahh... I remember my Psion Revo well. It was sub $200 and did most of what I needed too.

Re: We called out these failures years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47587869)

You have been a UNIX sysadmin over 20 years, and now you're a happy product of an ad broker who uses an army of lobbyists to defeat your privacy. You are the new AOL user.

Re: We called out these failures years ago. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47588287)

They may not say it outright, but your clients probably think you're kind of dumb for using "a sub $200 device to do most of what I need when visiting a client" instead of using a real laptop.

It's the "most" part that's key. The moment you need to do something beyond what crappy web imitations of real software allow you to do, you start wishing that you had a real laptop. Your clients start wishing you had a real laptop, too. It probably takes just one or two incidents, and the $200 you saved by buying a shitty Chromebook rather than getting a $400 laptop ends up turning into big losses for your clients.

And if you're doing any sort of serious work, you'll now have to carry around the Chromebook plus a real laptop, and waste time switching between them on the fly. You might as well just use the real laptop all of the time. It does everything the Chromebook can, plus so much more, at almost no additional cost.

Re: We called out these failures years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47588597)

He has Linux on it. And the device is more powerful than most laptops a few years ago.

Re: We called out these failures years ago. (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 5 months ago | (#47588877)

Anyone that hates the Chromebook has probably not watched "regular people" use one.

(bolding mine)

I picked up a c720 new for $175, put a larger SSD in it to dual boot Linux and Chrome OS and its been worth every dime.

... the fact that I can use a sub $200 device to do most of what I need

I'm not sure that someone who changes the OS and storage is representative of "regular people." Or of a sub $200 device, for that matter. How much did the SSD cost?

Re: We called out these failures years ago. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47589289)

Personally, I'm much more of a fan of buying a really good, long-lived computer (say a ThinkPad or a MacBook Pro), and using that as my only machine for work.

That way:
1) When I go to a client site, they see I'm not using the modern equivalent of plastic tinker toys to run their mission critical infrastructure (believe it or not, the customer's perception of quality service IS impacted by you dressing up nice, and having professional-looking tools);
2) When I go to a client site, I have my entire toolkit with me, not just some bastardized one-off hacked together so I can line Google's pockets;
3) It retains some resale value;
4) I get a better sized screen;
5) I get more than 2GB of RAM, and more than a 16 GB or 32 GB hard drive;

I guess if you're from the old "roll everything by hand" school of thought, you just need a keyboard and a terminal window to type in all those commands. For those of us who value our time and efficiency, having a machine that can function as a legitimate development system is more important than saving a couple hours of billable time buying a cheap piece of plastic that'll fall apart in 6 months.

Re: We called out these failures years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47591079)

I have seen regular people use Chromebooks and they always ask "Why can't I use my applications and games?" shortly before returning the product for a real laptop.

Re: We called out these failures years ago. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47588191)

You're not really using the Chromebook at all in that case, then. It's the servers you're connecting to using the web browser or ssh that do all of the real work. The Chromebook is, at best, a dumb terminal. But unlike a traditional dumb terminal, your dumb terminal may very well be sending information to Google that they then use when advertising crap to you.

I have seen regular people use a Chromebook, and they are not at all happy when they find out that it doesn't run Word, Excel, games, and other Windows or OS X apps they've bought. They're pretty pissed off when they find out that they're stuck using shitty web-based alternatives that rarely do what they need. And so they go out and buy a real laptop, which these days may only cost a couple of hundred dollars more than the Chromebook, but is far more capable.

Re:Yay! (3, Informative)

Solandri (704621) | about 5 months ago | (#47586717)

First there were Picasa Web Albums. Last year my albums got moved to my Google+ account. Now there is a new branding coming along.. My albums will be moved to another service once again.

You can still access your albums via picasaweb.google.com (picasa.com directs to a download without any links to get you to your albums). It's much more flexible and has more options than Google+ (particularly when it comes to album management). I've just continued to use picasaweb for my albums (there's a Lightroom extension which automatically uploads my photos to it). I've just been using it as though my photos also happen to show up on Google+, not the other way around.

I suspect the "another service" they'll move it to is photos.google.com (redirects to plus.google.com/photos). They've already migrated the photo viewer in Android to a Photos app. As long as they keep the additional functionality that's on picasaweb, it won't make any difference to me what they call it nor what URL I have to use to get to it.

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47590597)

At least in my case picasaweb.google.com redirects to horrible google+ photos interface.

To access old picasa, I have to use this link: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/myphotos?noredirect=1

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47587339)

uh no

This is simply the photos APP, which is now rolled into the main Google+ Android app, being separated out instead of coming bundled. They aren't moving your pics to yet another service...

Until Google comes clean (2, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | about 5 months ago | (#47585835)

Until they come clean on what they're mining from your activities, I'd stay away from it.

What's the issue? (1, Troll)

mozumder (178398) | about 5 months ago | (#47585885)

They're in the business to find out your interests to sell ads.

Why is that a mysterious thing? This is the job of any media company: to find your weaknesses and manipulate you in order to sell you goods.

I don't understand why people have a problem with that? Sales and marketing is what society has been doing since life was invented. You brush your teeth in the morning to sell yourself to your personal audiences over the people that DON'T brush their teeth in the morning.

Everything that Google does is known and predictable. There is nothing wrong about what they do, and we should encourage them to find out your sales weaknesses in order to extract more money from you via the advertising they sell.

After all, you do the same personal sales and marketing for yourself. Everybody does sales and marketing. It's a fundamental life property, not just for humans, but all species.

We should encourage sales and marketing, over the objection of the libertarian douchebag princesses that are losing the attention-whoring war against professional marketers like Google.

It's always amusing when libertarian princesses cry about losing at attention-whoring.

Re:What's the issue? (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 5 months ago | (#47585913)

You brush your teeth in the morning to sell yourself to your personal audiences over the people that DON'T brush their teeth in the morning.

I brush my teeth to prevent cavities and help clear up bad breath.

Re:What's the issue? (0)

KamikazeSquid (3611985) | about 5 months ago | (#47586037)

"clear up bad breath" = "sell yourself to your personal audiences"

Re:What's the issue? (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 5 months ago | (#47586187)

No, "clear up bad breath" = "I have a bad taste in my mouth, and I don't like the smell of my breath, so I'm going to try to remove it." Seriously, how can you be that dense? Not everyone is an attention whore; I'm an extreme introvert.

Re:What's the issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47586639)

I've heard that if you stop brushing your teeth for awhile, you don't notice it anymore. Just sayin'.

Re:What's the issue? (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 5 months ago | (#47586733)

You'll eventually notice the cavities, though. Especially with as much sugar as I eat.

Re:What's the issue? (-1, Troll)

thunderclap (972782) | about 5 months ago | (#47586897)

You are being deliberately obtuse because you don't like that fact that the statement is obviously correct.
So I go broad. You work for a living.
Whether you work for yourself or a company you dress a specific way. While you can say they tell me how to dress for blah blah reason, no they expect you to dress because they are paying you to market themselves and their profit. If you work for yourself, you dress to project an image. That image is "sell yourself to your personal audiences".
Slobs don't make money. People who look like they slept in a dumpster don't make money unless they just finished 39 days on an island trying to win a million bucks.
If you brush your teeth to remove bad breath, you are a] doing it wrong. Thats what mouth wash and breath mints are for (Seriously, how can you be that dense?) b] the true purpose is to keep your teeth white. Guess what? Society judges you on that subtly. If they are, they you will be able to get things you are seeking easier. Thats "selling yourself to your personal audiences."
Everyone is an attention whore. Even if you seek your own attention.

Re:What's the issue? (2, Insightful)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 5 months ago | (#47586999)

Whether you work for yourself or a company you dress a specific way.

I don't care about the clothes I wear. I go to job interviews dressed in what are essentially rags simply to eliminate employers who are worthless and superficial. Other than that, I just dress in random comfortable clothes (not suits or anything formal, since I don't find them comfortable).

Slobs don't make money.

I seem to be making quite a bit of money, so your absolutist statement is incorrect. It's all about finding the right place to work in. I choose not to surround myself with worthless people who only care about the superficial.

But it's probably true more often than not. But what does that mean, other than that our species is mentally diseased?

If you brush your teeth to remove bad breath, you are a] doing it wrong.

Nope. It does actually help.

the true purpose is to keep your teeth white.

You don't get to decide what my true purpose is; I do. Society can go fuck itself, because my teeth aren't even straight.

Everyone is an attention whore.

Speak for yourself.

Re:What's the issue? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47587667)

Jesus, fuck. You are a seriously pedantic, trolling douche.

congratulations, your request for attention has been fulfilled.

Re:What's the issue? (0)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 5 months ago | (#47587737)

Jesus, fuck. You are a seriously pedantic, trolling douche.

I don't see where I was being pedantic. I was simply countering his arguments that I believed to be wrong.

congratulations, your request for attention has been fulfilled.

As has yours, it seems.

Re:What's the issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47590911)

I don't know what's pedantic. I do the same thing and know others who do as well.

It might be an east/west coast thing, but I've never worn tie to work, generally dress in t-shirts and jeans and have had a 6 figure job for > 10 years. It's common from my perspective.

Re:What's the issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47591417)

the true purpose is to keep your teeth white.

You don't get to decide what my true purpose is; I do. Society can go fuck itself, because my teeth aren't even straight.

Insensitive clod. I don't have teeth (well a few).

Re:What's the issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47598405)

I don't care about the clothes I wear. I go to job interviews dressed in what are essentially rags simply to eliminate employers who are worthless and superficial. Other than that, I just dress in random comfortable clothes (not suits or anything formal, since I don't find them comfortable).

I agree with the general premise of not caring much about how you dress as long as your job doesn't force you to interact with customers (then you'd be the face of the company, so they'd understandably want you to be presentable).
But showing up for a job interview in rags doesn't make sense to me. You're eliminating employers who are superficial, but a good employer might eliminate you for reasons which are just as good.

In interviews, first impressions count for a lot, and in your case I'd be worried that if you couldn't be bothered to try and dress appropriately to the interview, you might not have the social development required to interact profitably with the rest of my team.
I don't mind someone showing up in t-shirt and jeans, as long as they're tastefully dressed. But showing up with old, ripped, or dirty clothes (i.e. "rags") is a red herring that you don't understand social norms and will be difficult to deal with.

On the job itself I don't care as long as you don't dress offensively, but in an interview I have to make a split decision, so those things count.

Re:What's the issue? (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 5 months ago | (#47598495)

You're eliminating employers who are superficial, but a good employer might eliminate you for reasons which are just as good.

No, they'd eliminate me for superficial reasons.

is a red herring that you don't understand social norms and will be difficult to deal with.

No, it means I reject illogical social norms that encourage superficiality, not that I don't understand them. There is a difference.

Besides, I found a nice workplace, thanks.

Re:What's the issue? (0)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 5 months ago | (#47587003)

You are being deliberately obtuse because you don't like that fact that the statement is obviously correct.

In your heart, you know that you're 100% incorrect. You're being deliberately obtuse.

You seem like a creationist.

Re:What's the issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47588693)

And that is where you completely lost it. I am surprised you didn't call him a nigger. Oh, I guess, you would have 30 years ago, it wouldn't work do well now, so you use "creationist".

Re:What's the issue? (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about 5 months ago | (#47590829)

And that is where you completely lost it.

Nope. It's a common tactic among religious idiots to tell other people what they believe, and make statements such as, "If you don't believe in God, you're dead inside!" or "You know in your heart that God exists!" He tried to tell me what I think, so he reminded me of creationists.

Re:What's the issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47589725)

Brush your tongue too, mouth(wash) doesn't remove the film(yuck) sticking to it. So no, mouthwash for fresh breath is a partial solution. For the win tell your close friends to call you on bad breath, many times you can't smell your own til it's way over the top.

Re:What's the issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47588675)

>You brush your teeth in the morning to sell yourself to your personal audiences over the people that DON'T brush their teeth in the morning.

I brush my teeth not only for the reasons jellomizer states, but also because I don't want to offend others. You can suggest I'm selling myself to them, but I'm actually just not wanting negative attention. There is a difference, and it's not slight.

McDonald's doesn't advertise to prevent negative attention towards their brand. They advertise to attract positive attention. That's what we call "selling" yourself. Trying to attract positive attention. In fact, I can't think of much advertising at all dedicated towards simply trying to get people to stop thinking about your brand entirely.

It's been, oh, almost 7 years since I had to sell myself (job interview), as I still retain that high paying position. As the interview is done, it's back to the real me: Don't offend co-workers, because if they're offended, my life gets more complex for no useful reason. That's also the motivation for completing the boring work the company requires that doesn't appear to impart anything of value. Offending the boss = pain in the ass for me.

>There is nothing wrong about what they do, and we should encourage them to find out your sales weaknesses in order to extract more money from you via the advertising they sell.

Disagree. I don't spend my entire waking life trying to attract positive attention because that would make me a used car salesman, and that comparison alone screams "ineffective".

>After all, you do the same personal sales and marketing for yourself. Everybody does sales and marketing. It's a fundamental life property, not just for humans, but all species.

Speak for yourself, I don't sell myself except when society has deemed it necessary. Society only deems it necessary very rarely, at least in my case. I simply avoid offending others, which I've explained is very different than attempting to impart positive attention.

>It's always amusing when libertarian princesses cry about losing at attention-whoring.

It's far more amusing when someone attributes to a political process a broken idea about selling things.

Re:What's the issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47589337)

McDonald's doesn't advertise to prevent negative attention towards their brand. They advertise to attract positive attention. That's what we call "selling" yourself. Trying to attract positive attention. In fact, I can't think of much advertising at all dedicated towards simply trying to get people to stop thinking about your brand entirely.

Are you kidding me? Of COURSE they advertise to detract from negative attention. They advertise to blunt the effects of criticism - "their food is crap, it's garbage, it's bad for you!" - but their ads show smiling, happy people eating their food that looks so delicious and is absolutely covered with crispy greens, fresh onions, giant slabs of tomato, and now you can buy their low-salt low-cal meals with apple slices and a big fresh salad because how could anybody say that's bad for them?!

If you don't think that advertising and marketing are explicitly designed to increase positive attention and deflect, sidestep, or mitigate criticism, you're fucking crazy.

I don't spend my entire waking life trying to attract positive attention because that would make me a used car salesman, and that comparison alone screams "ineffective".

BULLSHIT . You just outlined that you expend effort every day making sure you're not offending your co-workers and pissing off your boss. Why do that? because if you don't, it will change how they view you, and that will lead to hassle and pains in the ass for you. In other words, you are selling yourself to them.

You seem to be confusing "selling yourself" - i.e., expending effort so people have a positive impression of you - and "underdelivering on your promises" - which is what a used car salesman does. The used car salesman tries to get you to think he's your best friend in the world so he can make some money off you and sell you a car that will ultimately not live up to any of the promises he's made. That's different than expending genuine effort motivated by genuine concern that other people around you view you as a friendly, nice guy who does his job well and doesn't cause a hassle.

Re:Until Google comes clean (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47586153)

it would be easier and faster for them to list what they don't mine.... here, i'll list them out for you.

1. (this space intentionally left blank)

done.

Re: Until Google comes clean (1)

Mitsoid (837831) | about 5 months ago | (#47586391)

They mine blank spaces to

Re: Until Google comes clean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47587755)

1. Bit coin.

Done.

Re:Until Google comes clean (5, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about 5 months ago | (#47586457)

Until they come clean on what they're mining from your activities, I'd stay away from it.

What's to "come clean" about? Their privacy policy says they aggregate information about you from all your uses of their services. There you go. That's it. What else do you want to know? What they'll use it for? For providing you services, and for selling ads which they display to you.

Seems pretty obvious and straightforward to me.

(Disclosure: It's not really relevant to the content of my comment, but I'm a Google employee. I'm not, however, a Google spokesperson. The above is my own words and opinions only.)

Re:Until Google comes clean (1)

ljw1004 (764174) | about 5 months ago | (#47587417)

I'd like to know *which* information they aggregate.

Re:Until Google comes clean (1)

GNious (953874) | about 5 months ago | (#47587525)

aaaaaallllllll of it.

simples

Re:Until Google comes clean (1)

swillden (191260) | about 5 months ago | (#47590799)

I'd like to know *which* information they aggregate.

I think it's safe to assume that all of the data you put into Google services is fair game. I suspect (but don't know), that Google isn't actually able to make the kind of detailed, nuanced use of the data that is often speculated, but the privacy policy says they collect the data you put into their services, so I'd assume that all of it is collected.

Re:Until Google comes clean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47587715)

damn, they know hookers I use and how to get to them. Baaaaaad!
Quite frankly - I just wonder can google help clarify this maybe - they say that in this country every other man uses hooker services - with all the data this should not be difficult to prove or? I guess NSA maybe mildly interested in hookers in niche markets (young hookers for politicians although Berlusconi got off the hook anyway so why bother?) but I am sure police in bigot states like USA are, would love to know all the hookers and all the customers. In this way half of the population that was still missing the prison experience could enjoy stay there. That would do good those tough on crime types - I guess they would be first in jail :)

Re:Until Google comes clean (1)

thsths (31372) | about 5 months ago | (#47587775)

Which is exactly why politicians cannot touch the NSA. It is a typical problem when the secret service gets too powerful. Nothing new here.

Re:Until Google comes clean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47589807)

What's to "come clean" about?

Not withstanding the free-access pipe straight to the NSA..
We'd like to know which data Google sells to who. Its clear that they do sell the data.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/... [google.com]

"We may share aggregated, non-personally identifiable information publicly and with our partners"

MAY SHARE.. yeah right. Billion dollar Ad companies are all about sharing valuable data for free. They'd never charge for anything valuable. Oh no !

Whats the "aggregated" information on breast cancer patients aged 40-41 in zipcode 33333. Oh look ! Its only a single person. Lets sell that to some pill company to peddle some shit to this unfortunate user. Oh and ofcource .. google wont ever sell information. lol.. they only seel "non personally identifiable aggregated information". A distinction without a difference.

It's not really relevant to the content of my comment, but I'm a Google employee.

An ad company employee saying mining private data "is no big deal". No shit. Your company went full retard long ago. They've even got the shitty MBA language down. Just read this crap.,..

"Google Apps customers have been taking advantage of both Google+ and Hangouts for long enough that we recognize the separate use cases for both,"

Lol.. the users want both? So why seperate the two? Um.. Hello, its because they DONT WANT Google+. There would be no need to seperate the two otherwise.

" Our customers recognize the value of connecting face-to-face and are driving this demand."

Translation to normal speak: We fucked up.

Ad companies are and have always been slimy. Google is just good at seperating the engineers from the MBA slimeball crowd.

Re:Until Google comes clean (1)

swillden (191260) | about 5 months ago | (#47590795)

Not withstanding the free-access pipe straight to the NSA..

Doesn't exist. Government requests have to go through the process of being vetted by Google's attorneys and are rejected if not legitimate, including if overly broad. The NSA shouldn't be able to tap the lines between data centers any more, either, because it's all encrypted now.

We'd like to know which data Google sells to who. Its clear that they do sell the data.

They don't, except for aggregated non-personally identifiable. That means it's not possible to identify a person.

Whats the "aggregated" information on breast cancer patients aged 40-41 in zipcode 33333. Oh look ! Its only a single person.

Google isn't that dumb, and neither are attorneys or judges.

y mine everything just like everyone else. (3, Insightful)

cmorriss (471077) | about 5 months ago | (#47586473)

Good lord people. They use your information to display ads. Just like almost every other social network in existence. Clearly this isn't a sticking point for most people or Facebook would be a ghost town.

Problem for you? Fine don't use it, but it's not like it's a secret. For most people it's worth the conveniences Google provides to have their data mined. I know it is for me.

Re:y mine everything just like everyone else. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47586909)

But if he portrays it as some sinister secret, he can be all, like, counterculture-y. Braggin' about how he's sticking' it to "The Man", and all that other juvenile fantasy stuff.

Re:y mine everything just like everyone else. (1)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about 5 months ago | (#47588031)

Good lord people. They use your information to display ads. Just like almost every other social network in existence. Clearly this isn't a sticking point for most people or Facebook would be a ghost town.

Problem for you? Fine don't use it, but it's not like it's a secret. For most people it's worth the conveniences Google provides to have their data mined. I know it is for me.

The problem isn't the data mining or the ads, it's the potential for abuse of the raw data. Your search history is gold to anyone who wants to stalk/harass/blackmail/steal from you. The good news is that Google doesn't have police powers, and is pretty neutral about people's viewpoints and what they want to do. The bad news is at the least the NSA has/had access to it. Search for the wrong thing on Google and you'll never fly again in the US. Plus it's a prime target for hackers. Potentially worth more than a persons credit card information, and much easier to get.

Saying that I still use them as my search engine, plus Gmail, Google Voice, and my Android phone....

Re:Until Google comes clean (0)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 5 months ago | (#47587251)

Unlike any other social media site, right?

Re:Until Google comes clean (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 5 months ago | (#47591265)

Not with the same depth. To be sure Google has been successful but now like Facebook there's not an area they aren't trying to penetrate. I get the whole advertising idea, fine. But when your every preference, your every movement, email, text message while going about your daily routine is going way too far.

Re:Until Google comes clean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47587267)

Then don't use it? It's really not that difficult. Which free service do you use that doesn't mine your information? And no, your own service that you made/setup doesn't count.

And if you're not fine with them mining your information to serve better ads, then what would you prefer? Showing you ads for vaginal fungal cream when you're a guy? I don't know about you, but I'd actually want them to show me ads for the cheapest place to get a game when I search for said game's reviews.

android games (4, Informative)

ganjadude (952775) | about 5 months ago | (#47585855)

The only thing google plus is used for by me is games on android. I prefer it than having 1000 logins, nor using facebook for game logins. I havent found a real use for it other than that

Re:android games (4, Informative)

Parker Lewis (999165) | about 5 months ago | (#47586367)

The tech communities are really good. You can stay in touch with some tech leaders, discuss about some nich stuff (like your favorite Linux distro, Astronomy), etc. To me, Facebook = family and friend network. G+ = tech network.

Re:android games (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 5 months ago | (#47586817)

The best thing about G+ is that you don't have to be on facebook.

Re:android games (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | about 5 months ago | (#47588361)

in games that allow it, i choose to login thru fb than g+. because that allows me to play against my friends with iphone or the rare windows phone. but yeah, except this, there is no other use for g+.

Hey, they should call it Picasa! (5, Funny)

HaeMaker (221642) | about 5 months ago | (#47585881)

Sigh.

Re: Hey, they should call it Picasa! (1)

Robert Emmerich (3772559) | about 5 months ago | (#47586855)

I logged in w/ my Google+ account just to Like you or +1 you or give you karma or something. Seriouly Ive been on /. since day 1 and I dont know how to do whatever it is Im supposed to do. Maybe Google will just read this and do it for me? Anyway, what you said.

Re:Hey, they should call it Picasa! (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 5 months ago | (#47586939)

Nah, Plus Photos needs an insane frenetic unusable landing page like Hangouts and then only ten percent of the features of Picasa, so they can go ahead and kill Picasa and then kill Plus Photos in two years when nobody uses it.

Good. (5, Insightful)

buckfeta2014 (3700011) | about 5 months ago | (#47585911)

De-plus youtube while you're at it... Fuck that noise.

Re:Good. (4, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about 5 months ago | (#47586461)

De-plus youtube while you're at it..

I have to disagree with that. YouTube is a much friendlier and saner place since the integration. The integration did increase the noise on Google+, but all in all I think it's better.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47587935)

Still doesn't make the chat system useful. It is everything but useful. It is like wrapping a Ferrari in shit.
Not to mention it lags a little when it loads, which is annoying as hell when I am trying to watch a video.
Google, the height of efficient coding. *
I straight-up blocked the entire API because of it.

* funny because people do think that, which is hilarious.
Google are hardly efficient. They brute-force crappy servers in to a network to create what you see as Google. (crappy in bad way, not crappy in a cheap way)
They (at least the last time I checked) wrapped so much code in JavaScript that it bogged everything the hell down and made sites slow as hell. **
This was extremely apparent in Google Wave. Everything had a wrapper around it for GOD KNOWS WHAT REASON. Google Wave would have been INSANELY FASTER if it weren't for that terrible JavaScript. It might have even been still ar.. aha no I can't even finish that.
Every layer of abstraction in JS cuts efficiency down considerably.
Not to mention using Python. The slowest of the slow. I'd honestly rather see them use PHP and PHP is disgustingly bad.

** let's check!
Yep, I can still see much of the same stuff.
JS file at gmail [gstatic.com]
There is why your gmail is slow.
This one is much worse. So many pointless functions that could have been inserted and compressed by the server and decompressed by the browser.
Needless source compression for a smaller footprint. [gstatic.com]
You'd think they would have learned from Wave and the fact they have their own JS engine. (that while better than most, still suffers from not even highly-layered code. JS needs a huge rewrite to fix that issue)

Re:Good. (1)

iampiti (1059688) | about 5 months ago | (#47590327)

The comments might be better, but who the hell thought it was a good idea to add the Google+ shares in the comments? It ads nothing but pollution

Re:Good. (1)

swillden (191260) | about 5 months ago | (#47590769)

I suppose that's true for the shares that don't add a comment. Well, except that I like to see when my G+ friends have shared something, whether I'm looking at it from G+ or from YouTube. So, just removing the text-free shares wouldn't be quite the ticket, either. Hmm.

Re:Good. (1)

iampiti (1059688) | about 5 months ago | (#47592511)

I think that kind of thing belongs more in Google+. Anyway they should offer an option to remove that from the Youtube comments

Re:Good. (1)

swillden (191260) | about 5 months ago | (#47594929)

There is no difference between a share with a comment on G+ and a comment on YouTube. They are the same thing. I think there's an argument to be made that shares without any comment are noise on YouTube... of course, I think they're largely noise on G+ as well, so maybe the solution is to find a way to encourage people to write something when sharing.

Developed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47585965)

I wasn't aware google+ uses film.

Re:Developed? (1)

jd (1658) | about 5 months ago | (#47587341)

If it did, the quality of the pictures would be better.

Sure ... (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | about 5 months ago | (#47585995)

... "seperate"

Like Chrome don't have Google account (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47586407)

Although I like some things Google does and especially Chrome. I do not have a Google account anymore. I gave up when Google started to force everyone even if all they wanted was a basic account to sync bookmarks and history in Chrome. To signing you up for Google +. Even my Chromebook has become nothing more then a browser in Guest mode because I did not want to have to sign in to Google which no doubt sends everything I do to a Google server somewhere. I want more choice on what to do with my documents, pictures, and files then to just upload everything to Google. OK, I am done ranting now and feel better.

Re:Like Chrome don't have Google account (1)

thunderclap (972782) | about 5 months ago | (#47586913)

Which basically means you want to use their services but not pay for them by sharing your information. How do you think people on 4chan and other hackers dox people? YOur info, my info, everyone's info is already out there. Google is simply asking for permission via using their services. Others do not.

Oh Salibean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47586501)

You'll have g00gle praisers and NOT

something worked (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 5 months ago | (#47586623)

I tried silver bullets, garlic, holy water, blessings, etc and Google+ still wouldn't die. I wonder what finally killed it. Maybe a knight in shining armor, accompanied by the court wizard, went on a quest to destroy Google+ and he's finally at the final boss.
Everyone hates it? Complete immunity! The FTC, protests, petitions, foreign government lawsuits, HA! Laughable. WHAT? IT'S NOT MAKING ANY MONEY? *dies*

EU may have contributed pressure (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47586739)

One of the big problems that EU countries have with Google is the inter-linking of the services it offers, which is a strong intrusion on privacy in European eyes. Americans seem not to care about that, but all EU countries have Data Protection Authorities and applicable laws about that kind of thing, so Google has been getting a lot of heat over it. Indeed, Google's banner line of "One account. All of Google." reads like a threat over here.

So, it's possible that Google has realized that its previous business plan just isn't going to work in Europe, and may be dismantling some of the interconnections between services. They probably don't care too much about the EU fines, but the bad PR every time a fine or an investigation is announced does them no good, and might well spread EU discontent beyond the European countries.

Re:EU may have contributed pressure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47587593)

One of the big problems that EU countries have with Google is the inter-linking of the services it offers, which is a strong intrusion on privacy in European eyes. Americans seem not to care about that, but all EU countries have Data Protection Authorities and applicable laws about that kind of thing, so Google has been getting a lot of heat over it. Indeed, Google's banner line of "One account. All of Google." reads like a threat over here.

So, it's possible that Google has realized that its previous business plan just isn't going to work in Europe, and may be dismantling some of the interconnections between services. They probably don't care too much about the EU fines, but the bad PR every time a fine or an investigation is announced does them no good, and might well spread EU discontent beyond the European countries.

I could be less bothered by what google hope to gain from any info they THINK they gain from me it is all bogus as hell designed to be that way my IP addres shows as far enough away from the correct location to make me very happy .
Google+ did seem a nice idea at first but now it is just a PITA full of idiots that want you to include them in everything they can go fuck as like .

Bring back iGoogle that was a HUGE fuck up killing that off the best bit if google and they got rid of brains of an flea or what .

Its all about getting an accurate head counts. (5, Interesting)

Bob_Who (926234) | about 5 months ago | (#47586753)

Google needed to sort out users versus user accounts. They had to distiguish all of the duplicate human beings, as separate from their various accounts. The high value data is gmail storage, google docs, and especially picasa web albums. Google sites hosted my web site experiments, and docs and forms, cloud stored my binaries, and voice relayed to my phone numbers, wallet, etc etc. The process of attempting to force feed Google+ to me, though futile, still accomplished their primary objective: It functioned to consolidate my multiple user ids and to figure out what I claim is the meaningful data.

While Google+ is a marketing fail, it was a database validation success, while also changing the overall TOS. This process unified various random accounts to identify the actual user. It combined the data of browsing habits, purchases, phone numbers, handles, ips, mac addresses, adress books, etc. They were all mined and combined to fully implicate individuals accessing anything Google. The fact is, that until all of this Google+ bullshit, I had quietly tucked away thousands of photographs which filled several accounts to the brink. The process of contending with the change forced me to access everything which eliminated the redundancy of me as multiple users. Now Google can be sure its all one of me, which they knew all along, but this just confirms my usage profile and actual breathing existence. I'm not worth as much money to advertisers if I am a redundant user already counted and sold. Just one of me is their assurance to clients so there's no double dipping on real head count. I feel so special, like social currency of unique importance to statistical metrics....

G+ can be useful as a business tool - not social (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47587289)

I, and many others, tend to use G+ as an adjunct to LinkedIn for various things related to work and some non-work professional interests. Maybe this is like Facebook for grownups. So I hope three things - they keep it, they don't try to turn it into another Facebook, and LinkedIn resists the temptation to 'go social' any more than it already has. IMHO LinkedIn is less useful now than it was before they made recommendations so trivial and started adding gratuitous stuff that is intended to just drive linkage and views up.

Haven't used picasa since it was part of Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47587345)

I used to use Picasa regularly and then Google rolled it into Google+ and then I stopped using both Picasa and Google+. The real name policy was the clincher and I haven't been back to either since (I don't care that Google changed their real name policy, I can't trust Google to not change their mind again.)

To see that Google is now thinking of moving what was Picasa into Google+ Photos still won't bring me back to Picasa - I'm now on flickr.

I now very deliberately use different web services from different companies. gmail is the best email product. facebook is still the best social network. flickr is the best photo sharing website. Of these only facebook gets my real name. None get my mobile phone #. None get my address or where I went to school, etc.

With all of these moves by Google, are the desperate to find a strategy that works?

One thing that's for sure - if I were looking for stability in a web service then I wouldn't use anything from Google as they're too likely to bin it.

About this (1)

Art3x (973401) | about 5 months ago | (#47587395)

I am nonplussed and yet, not nonplussed. Figure that out ;)

Figures... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47587443)

It finally became usable by not insisting that my real name be available to anyone and everyone who wants to look at my social circle forever with but a google.

The alias thing, instead of the fucking idiotic zuckerberg whatever, has been huge- I've started using G+ and actually like it. Hopefully they don't kill it, but who knows.

Google Has Other Services Less Used (2)

enter to exit (1049190) | about 5 months ago | (#47587609)

Considering Google killed off Orkut at the end of last month, and still haven't killed blogspot/blogger i suspect Google+ will hang around for a while longer.

It's a lot more integrated into their other services than Orkut and blogger ever were as well.

I suspect Google+ will morph into a "Value added" social backend for some of their products, youtube, hangouts, gmail all have Google+ hooks. They are starting to use Google+ to rank your searches, I see my friends posts in my search results often now. They could use this to add personalization to Google Now.

In a couple of years Google+ may be closer to Discus's "embed everyone" model than Facebook's silo. They might end up using Google+ to integrate the data across their products, which were (and still are) siloed until recently and just remove the Google+ homepage.

Kinda like Google + (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about 5 months ago | (#47587951)

My friends don't hang out on Google+ and I sure as hell don't post to the site... But it's a nice social stream to get info about my hobbies and people I follow. Heck of a lot better than FB. Not sure where I'll go if G+ shutters down.

So yet another interface? (1)

gelfling (6534) | about 5 months ago | (#47588159)

There's now 2; 1 for G+ and 1 for Piscasa and they don't play well together especially for Mobile. Instant Upload and AutoBackup create 2 different directories and Instant Upload isn't viewable from Android even when you use it in Android. The UI is different for Picasa and G+ even though they're supposed to be the same thing. They have different features. So is this going to be a THIRD way? Because that will suck and it will be time to move everything somewhere else.

On the upside, not needing an 80MB G+ client in Android just to use pictures will be nice.

robots.txt (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 5 months ago | (#47588305)

The first post I made in Google+ is this:

# go away
User-agent: *
Disallow: /

thank you jesus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47588427)

google+ makes me avoid the rest of google, might actually go back to youtube if this is true.

Re:thank you jesus (1)

CauseBy (3029989) | about 5 months ago | (#47591317)

You were one of the people they were trying to chase away. They don't want you back.

100Mb video limit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47589167)

Google, while you're at it, increase the upload limit for videos through the Picasa API. A 100 Mb video limit might have been ok in 2006 but now that means videos longer than 1 minute cannot be uploaded through 3rd party apps.

About time (1)

melting_clock (659274) | about 5 months ago | (#47590693)

Sorry for the following rant...

My photos should stay entirely offline unless I chose to upload them. My last Android phone had them uploading to Google+ by default, without my explicit approval or agreement. Private online photo storage for backups is something that I sometimes use, along with backing up other files. If there is a photo that I want to share with people I will but having them stolen is not appreciated.

I use my Android phone for personal and business purposes. It is frustrating that the amount of data that leaks has greatly increased in recent years. I do not want my contacts, or the rest of the world, to be able to see my activity. Even though I don't use Google+ and have made everything private on the profile the Google forces on me, I still see information on things like what my contacts think of Play apps and these are people that are not in any circles... Some of my business contacts have strong political and/or religious views that I don't share and they might not approve of all of my apps. Social media should always be opt in and not forced on customers.

Basically, I hate G+ and have not liked a lot of what Google has done to their apps over the last couple of years.

I know why (1)

aybiss (876862) | about 5 months ago | (#47596697)

Something to do with that period where Google+ thought it could upload my photos without asking. Google+ is just distancing itself from what is now no-doubt the largest repository of kiddy porn on the internet.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?