Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Social Networks Businesses

Google Plus Now Minus Chief Vic Gundotra 93

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the google-plus-still-exists? dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Plus Now Minus Chief Vic Gundotra

Comments Filter:
  • Google- (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BasilBrush (643681) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @04:34PM (#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- (Score:5, Insightful)

      by yuhong (1378501) <yuhongbao_386NO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Thursday April 24, 2014 @04:46PM (#46835769) Homepage

      Or at least comply with EU privacy laws.

    • by Scowler (667000)
      Notably, this announcement is coming just days after standalone Google Talk was killed off.
    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      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 Faceboo

      • 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 integr

    • by Craefter (71540)

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

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

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

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

  • Can it die now?

    • by yuhong (1378501)

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

      • 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.

        • 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... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by quarterbuck (1268694) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @04:52PM (#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... (Score:5, Informative)

          by lemur3 (997863) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @05:08PM (#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

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

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

          • 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 hundre
          • by Kunedog (1033226)

            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.

          • by X0563511 (793323)

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

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by BitZtream (692029)

          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... (Score:5, Informative)

            by vux984 (928602) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @05:53PM (#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.

      • by RJFerret (1279530)

        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.

        • by X0563511 (793323)

          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?

          • by RJFerret (1279530)

            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.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by FuegoFuerte (247200)

        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, wi

    • by pahles (701275)
      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... (Score:4, Informative)

        by lemur3 (997863) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @05:32PM (#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.

  • by olsmeister (1488789) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @04:35PM (#46835691)
    So, trying to keep it on the D/L?
  • It took me several tries to figure out what that title meant...
  • by adiposity (684943) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @04:47PM (#46835771)

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

  • by kwiqsilver (585008) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @04:54PM (#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."
  • 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'

    • 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.

    • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Friday April 25, 2014 @12:17AM (#46838481) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • 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

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          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.

          • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • by bitt3n (941736) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @05:45PM (#46836223)
    Why did they choose "Google+"? It has all the positive connotations of "HIV+" and the service is not even remotely viral.
  • is the only thing driving users to Google+.
  • 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
    • by Camael (1048726) on Friday April 25, 2014 @02:15AM (#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.

      • by neurovish (315867)

        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.

        • by lemur3 (997863)

          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

          • by Camael (1048726)

            ...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

  • 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 goo

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...