Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
Social Networks Google

Google+ Photos To Be Separated From Google+ 114

Posted by timothy
from the they-always-kill-the-ones-you-love dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google+ Photos To Be Separated From Google+

Comments Filter:
  • Yay! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2014 @06:07PM (#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..
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2014 @06:23PM (#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.
      • by Arker (91948) on Friday August 01, 2014 @07:02PM (#47586175) Homepage
        "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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2014 @08:15PM (#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!

      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2014 @08:56PM (#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!

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2014 @11:19PM (#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.

          • by Clsid (564627) on Saturday August 02, 2014 @12:49PM (#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... :)

      • For Microsoft there is the obvious counterexample to the "good old days" of Windows Me the OS ...
      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2014 @01:41AM (#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.

        • by geekforhire (300937) on Saturday August 02, 2014 @02:38AM (#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.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2014 @02:56AM (#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.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2014 @04:09AM (#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.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2014 @07:53AM (#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.

          • by zippthorne (748122) on Saturday August 02, 2014 @10:32AM (#47588877) Journal

            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?

            • by geekforhire (300937) on Monday August 04, 2014 @06:08PM (#47603343)

              Yea, for sure, normal people wont setup a Chromebook to dual boot. I only keep ChromeOS on it for others to use but everyone that I have let use it has found it to work great. Several of them have ditched their larger and heavier laptops to go with a c720 and they are all quite happy with them as all they really need is good battery life and access to a browser and email.

              If I remember correctly the 64GB SSD was only about $25-$30 so the total cost of the setup was right around $200. It runs Ubuntu 14.04 very well as long as you don't need to run anything that requires over 2GB of RAM. I get 6 to 7 hours of runtime on it and since I mostly need it to access web interfaces or run SSH sessions (or serial via minicom) it fits my needs very well. Its probably not an ideal setup for everyone but for average folks ChromeOS gives them what they need and if you need a bit more loading your Linux distro of choice is quite easy as long as you put a larger SSD in.

              As with everything in life you need the right tool for the right job and I find this cheap tool to be a really handy one to have in my arsenal. If I need to do some heavy lifting I will take a fully loaded MacBook Pro with me but most of the time I just don't need it so it stays in my trunk. For really serious work I have a small 1U (not very deep) with two quad core Xeon's and 16GB of RAM that I will just toss on the LAN and use the c720 to SSH to it...works way better than using the MacBook and only weights slightly more ;)

          • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2014 @11:59AM (#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.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2014 @07:24AM (#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.

          • by geekforhire (300937) on Monday August 04, 2014 @06:15PM (#47603377)

            Yep..I pretty much use it as a dumb terminal but I am not sending anything to Google as I only boot to Linux when I use it, it only boots to Chrome when I let my wife of someone else use it. It might not be ideal for everyone but it does the trick for my needs and keeps me from having to tote my expensive MacBook around in crappy areas of LA. For the money they are great devices, and I totally get that they are not for everyone, but for the money they can be great tools.

    • Re:Yay! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Solandri (704621) on Friday August 01, 2014 @08:57PM (#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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2014 @11:48PM (#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...

  • by Virtucon (127420) on Friday August 01, 2014 @06:11PM (#47585835)

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

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2014 @06:58PM (#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.

    • by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Friday August 01, 2014 @08:07PM (#47586457) Homepage Journal

      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.)

      • by ljw1004 (764174) on Saturday August 02, 2014 @12:20AM (#47587417)

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

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2014 @02:33AM (#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 :)

    • by cmorriss (471077) on Friday August 01, 2014 @08:11PM (#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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2014 @09:36PM (#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.
      • by EmperorArthur (1113223) on Saturday August 02, 2014 @05:44AM (#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....

    • by Gothmolly (148874) on Friday August 01, 2014 @11:08PM (#47587251)

      Unlike any other social media site, right?

      • by Virtucon (127420) on Saturday August 02, 2014 @07:58PM (#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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2014 @11:14PM (#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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by ganjadude (952775) on Friday August 01, 2014 @06:14PM (#47585855) Homepage
    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
  • by HaeMaker (221642) on Friday August 01, 2014 @06:17PM (#47585881) Homepage
    Sigh.
  • Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by buckfeta2014 (3700011) on Friday August 01, 2014 @06:21PM (#47585911)
    De-plus youtube while you're at it... Fuck that noise.
    • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Friday August 01, 2014 @08:09PM (#47586461) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2014 @04:47AM (#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)

      • by iampiti (1059688) on Saturday August 02, 2014 @03:45PM (#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
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2014 @06:30PM (#47585965)

    I wasn't aware google+ uses film.

  • by Blue Stone (582566) on Friday August 01, 2014 @06:35PM (#47585995) Homepage Journal

    ... "seperate"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2014 @07:55PM (#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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2014 @08:16PM (#47586501)

    You'll have g00gle praisers and NOT

  • by slashmydots (2189826) on Friday August 01, 2014 @08:40PM (#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*
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2014 @09:00PM (#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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2014 @01:39AM (#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 .

  • by Bob_Who (926234) <Bob AT who DOT net> on Friday August 01, 2014 @09:01PM (#47586753) Homepage Journal
    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....
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2014 @11:22PM (#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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2014 @11:53PM (#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.

  • by Art3x (973401) on Saturday August 02, 2014 @12:13AM (#47587395)

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2014 @12:31AM (#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.

  • by enter to exit (1049190) on Saturday August 02, 2014 @01:45AM (#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.
  • by MMC Monster (602931) on Saturday August 02, 2014 @04:55AM (#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.

  • by gelfling (6534) on Saturday August 02, 2014 @07:00AM (#47588159) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by StripedCow (776465) on Saturday August 02, 2014 @07:57AM (#47588305)

    The first post I made in Google+ is this:

    # go away
    User-agent: *
    Disallow: /

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2014 @08:31AM (#47588427)

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 02, 2014 @11:29AM (#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.

  • by melting_clock (659274) on Saturday August 02, 2014 @05:32PM (#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.

  • by aybiss (876862) on Sunday August 03, 2014 @10:28PM (#47596697) Homepage

    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.

  • Google Plus is only incidentally a social network. It was designed to merge and centrally manage the YouTube, Picasa, GMail, et al accounts. It's been quite effective. The stream was an easy add-on goal and an additional selling point for consumers. Circles offer a nice benefit and are being used now not just for the Plus stream but to notify people about one another's activities on the other sites like YouTube.

He: Let's end it all, bequeathin' our brains to science. She: What?!? Science got enough trouble with their OWN brains. -- Walt Kelly

Working...