Google Begins To Merge Google+, Gmail Contacts 339
An anonymous reader writes "Google today announced new integration between Gmail and Google+ that sees your social connections show up in auto-complete when you're composing an email. Google says the feature is rolling out "over the next couple of days" to everyone that uses Gmail and Google+."
Great.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry Google, but I've had I'm jumping ship. Microsoft looks like a saint in comparison.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google+: Google's third failure of a social network that nobody wants but Google is going to push by forcing integration with their popular services such as YouTube and Gmail.
This is the kind of thing that antitrust laws are supposed to stop. Unfortunately, we don't do antitrust enforcement in the U.S. any more, at least not in any meaningful sense.
Re:Great.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Google+: Google's third failure of a social network that nobody wants but Google is going to push by forcing integration with their popular services such as YouTube and Gmail.
This is the kind of thing that antitrust laws are supposed to stop. Unfortunately, we don't do antitrust enforcement in the U.S. any more, at least not in any meaningful sense.
I don't like Google integrating its other -- more useful or popular -- services like YouTube GMail with Google+, but where's the antitrust angle to that?
Re: (Score:3)
If G+ was market dominant, the argument could be made that by showing completions only from google services was anticompetitive.
G+ is not market dominant... (Score:4, Insightful)
If G+ was market dominant, the argument could be made that by showing completions only from google services was anticompetitive.
G+ is not market dominant... even among Google employees.
Re:G+ is not market dominant... (Score:5, Funny)
What Google needs to bring to the market is Google porn.
That would be an instant success!
Re:G+ is not market dominant... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, like a search engine that produces porn pics, no matter what search term you enter.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, like a search engine that produces porn pics, no matter what search term you enter.
The "Rule 34" Option.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, like a search engine that produces porn pics, no matter what search term you enter.
We already have that. It's called "Bing".
Ever wonder where the "Bing" name came from? Remember Wayne's World? Rhymes with "schwing!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They used to. Image search was quite nice for a quick and high quality porn fix. Then Google decided to replace "Save Search" with some fucked up "we'll detect if you want to see porn" setting which tends to find lower quality porn then before.
Google is getting worse every year.
Re: (Score:2)
What Google needs to bring to the market is Google porn.
That would be an instant success!
But then they would have to redefine the term 'Googlewhack'...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Just add "xxx" to every search, and the free porn avalanche begins again.
Re:G+ is not market dominant... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the point. G+ isn't market dominant, but GMail, Google Search and Youtube are.
IE was not market dominant, but Windows was.
I'll give you Google Search, but you don't have to sign into G+ to use it.
YouTube doesn't seem market dominant, but as long as you aren't commenting, you can use your previously created YouTube account to post videos and they've *claimed* there's no intention to change that, so it's irrelevant (this is a "wait and see" for me).
GMail doesn't seem market dominant, but I'd be willing to look at numbers if you have them relative to Yahoo! Mail and Hotmail/Outlook.com, and if you can show 75% market share or above, I'll grant you that, though I think that the market for free stuff is more or less infinite.
I kind of don't see how this is any different from the Yahoo single sign-on or the Microsoft single sign-on that goes across all their properties, other than people don't like having their anonymity stripped away. Neither do I, but then I avoid it by not using merged single sign-on services from any of the three companies in question.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll give you Google Search, but you don't have to sign into G+ to use it
...yet
Re:G+ is not market dominant... (Score:4, Informative)
YouTube doesn't seem market dominant
What planet do you live on? What other large sites out there allow users to post videos? YouTube is easily, by far, the largest site of its type.
GMail doesn't seem market dominant, but I'd be willing to look at numbers if you have them relative to Yahoo! Mail and Hotmail/Outlook.com
Here again you seem to be out of touch with reality, but maybe not so much as with the YouTube comment above. Hotmail has been going down for ages, ever since the MS takeover and conversion to "Live", though maybe they're doing a little better now with outlook.com but I kinda doubt it, and Yahoo's been going down the toilet for years now too. I don't have any hard data, but I definitely see far more people with Gmail addresses than the other two.
Re: (Score:3)
YouTube doesn't seem market dominant
Are you serious? I can't even remember the name of any other similar service (though I do know that a few others exist).
as long as you aren't commenting, you can use your previously created YouTube account to post videos and they've *claimed* there's no intention to change that, so it's irrelevant (this is a "wait and see" for me).
Well, first of all, commenting is kinda a major part of what YouTube is.
Also, didn't they basically just made all YouTube accounts G+ accounts? I know that it's what happened to mine. You can still keep it separate, yes (though they will keep spamming you again and again asking whether you want to merge them), but it's all G+-based now.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they dominant in the markets of google+ or gmail?
Re:Great.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your pedantry aside, they are dominant in the areas of email and video sharing which are the places they are forcing Google+ integration.
Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
It is no different when people made a stink over Microsoft bundling IE with Windows.
Wrong
They do not wield monopolistic power in the marketplace, and they are not leveraging monopolistic power (which they don't have) to obtain a monopoly in another market.
This is very different from Microsoft, which leveraged it's desktop monopoly in order to try to obtain a browser monopoly, and was convicted of same in a Federal Court.
Re: (Score:3)
Operating system: ... etc.
At the time, Windows had more that 75% of the desktop makretshare, so it counted as "monopolistic power".
As I said, the same thing and you are a Google marketing shill.
And you have obviously never read my posts about Google...
And what are you talking about with sock puppets? I am an AC, how can AC be a sock puppet?
It's really easy. Except, you know, on YouTube, where AC's are no longer allowed to make comments. And the newspaper sites where they are now requiring accounts. Bet that really pisses you off.
Re: (Score:2)
I never saw a desktop computer offered without Windows prior to the anti-trust legislation. It's still rare now.
Although I actually think the IE thing was positive. Purchasing Netscape or using an AOL disk with custom browser was hurting the widespread use of the internet.
Jason.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Desktop operating systems: BeOS, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD MacOS.
By your reasoning Microsoft never had a monopoly to leverage either. Take your double standard and cram it. "Monopoly" in the context of anti-trust and anti-competition laws means "dominant market position",
Microsoft had a >85% share of the desktop market, and this is a point Federal Investigators made at the time they were considering bringing charges against Microsoft. None of those competing operating systems, taken together, had anywhere near enough market share to disrupt Microsoft effectively targeting Netscape and nearly putting them out of business. The E.U. agreed with this assessment, and brought similar charges to those brought by the DOJ in the U.S..
This is a matter of historical fact and court record.
Google has a dominant market position in search, webmail and web video, Microsoft has/had a dominant position in desktop operating systems.
Apparently you don't understand what wielding monopolistic power means either, but lever let details stop you from getting your frothing at the mouth on.
Say we grant your premise for the sake of argument. What services is Google forcing you to use, in place of what other services, by leveraging their dominant position? The only thing they are doing is using G+ as the primary placeholder for their combined credentials store, and even then, unless you are creating a new YouTube account, you can choose not to attach your existing YouTube account to the G+ credential.
The only thing that they are doing, which I think is kind of piss-poor on their part, but has nothing to do with the use of monopolistic power in any way, is preventing you creating *new* separate accounts for their various services, the same way you are unable to create separate accounts for Word or Excel on the Office365 site.
From a services management perspective, maintaining multiple back end account databases is a PITA, so I can understand why they are doing this, although I really hate that they are doing the whole Facebook-like thing and insisting on "Real Identities or well known pseudonyms", and denying account creation outside those categories. I think anonymity is important, but you aren't going to resolve that particular issue by having separate accounts, since giving that up is pretty much part of their TOS agreement, just as it's becoming part of everyone else's.
Re: (Score:2)
Learn to read. It was a comparison to show just how ridiculous the Google shill's claims are. Of course MS had a monopoly, as do Google now.
You still haven't stated what non-Google services are being displaced by what Google service due to the account unification using G+ authentication as a back end, as opposed to an account unification under GMail or YouTube or Google Docs as the back end instead.
I really do not see G+ or Google Docs getting a lot of traction as a result of your sign-on working across different Google properties. Facebook is still the #1 social network, and Office is still the #1 productivity suite, and the G+ based authenti
Re: (Score:3)
I really hate that they are doing the whole Facebook-like thing and insisting on "Real Identities or well known pseudonyms", and denying account creation outside those categories.
You can work around that by creating a "page", which is essentially a pseudonymous sub-account, and using that instead. Pages can have any sort of name you like, and can be used as an identity for posting, commenting, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Anti-trust is not synonymous with anti-business that are jerks and stupid heads.
Re: (Score:2)
> This is the kind of thing that antitrust laws are supposed to stop. Unfortunately, we don't do antitrust enforcement in the U.S. any more, at least not in any meaningful sense.
That would be because antitrust laws are meant to help end competition for existing monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but there is a way to avoid it so far. Do not log on to youtube unless you absoultely need to (it's mostly usable without login) and use POP3 to fetch your gmail.
That way you can avoid all the "do you want to join google+? yes/no, but we're going to make you join it anyway" prompt.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not here to say it's a good thing. I'm here to point out a way to avoid having to mess around with the g+ crap for majority of people.
Re: (Score:2)
No, G+ is fine. Better than FB, in fact. I don't trust Google really, anymore than I trust Facebook, and its network effect is much smaller. But those are different matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I know a better way of solving this: I have nobody in my circles :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Spam City, here we come. Why is this opt-out instead of opt-in? Because nobody would want it.
Yeah that and hardly anyone tends to "opt" when allowed. Why would a company bother to release a feature and make it opt in?
Re:Great.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this opt-out instead of opt-in? Because nobody would want it.
Oh, wait, you're talking about Google. For a second there, I thought you were talking about Slashdot Beta.
Re: (Score:2)
Same dung, different manure manufacturer.
Re:Great.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Spam City, here we come.
Do you circle a lot of people who will spam you?
Re:Great.... (Score:5, Funny)
Do you circle a lot of people who will spam you?
That's not that game where everyone... never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Spam City, here we come.
Do you circle a lot of people who will spam you?
Sure. I don't post publicly in general, because I know that most people aren't interested in half of what I write. If I'm writing about something FOSS-related it goes to one circle, and if it is family-related it goes to another. I have circles for people I follow, and I have circles that I broadcast to but don't read.
My threshold for putting somebody in a broadcast-only circle is VERY low. Why would I want to restrict access to my own posts? Again, I don't post publicly most of the time.
If Google fixe
Re: (Score:2)
My threshold for putting somebody in a broadcast-only circle is VERY low. Why would I want to restrict access to my own posts? Again, I don't post publicly most of the time.
Then for your particular mode of using G+, you should probably remove permission for people you've circled to e-mail you.
I wouldn't be surprised if this particular permission becomes more fine-grained over time, so you can specify it on a per-circle basis. In fact that's the way I think it should go. Another alternative would be to make it easy to create gmail filters by the circle(s) the sender is in, then you could create a filter than just trashes e-mails from any of your "broadcast" circles. Actually,
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I should also mention that my personal take on this feature is "Yay, finally!". I've wanted for some time to be able to send e-mail to a circle, so I can use circles as poor man's mailing lists. Yeah, I can set up a real mailing list easily enough, but for example, I have circles for people in various branches of my extended family, and for groups of former co-workers, and I occasionally need to send an e-mail inviting people to some family gathering or friendly dinner. I don't do it often enough to bot
Re: Great (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But usually under the guise of a GoogleApps account.
Re: Great (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Great (Score:5, Funny)
on my personal accounts, where I look at political stuff and the like
I see what you did there.
Re: Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Mistakenly use the wrong account ONE time and you probably won't be able to undo the mess it will cause. I didn't like it when my "smart" phone linked my contacts and social apps and I don't like the idea of G+,FB, etc doing things auto-magically for me either.
This crap is just chasing me away from Gmail and G+.
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, it broke the ability for a relative to borrow your computer to check their email. Typing in a username while not logged in became impossible. It wants you to enter your password. Googling for a solution shows you have to log in, then manage accounts to create the other user's profile showing a corrolation even if it is a casual connection.
As a work arround, I make multiple user accounts for guests, and then delete them after they checked their email. I don't need my account directly as
Re: (Score:3)
There aren't really any great options when it comes to phones. You can get an Android phone, which is inexpensive but has Google's tentacles in it, or you can get an iPhone which is expensive as hell and forces you to stay confined to Apple's walled garden and their One True Way of doing everything and fuels a company which now seems have taken the crown of most evil corporation (in the tech sector) away from MS, or you can get a Windows Phone which is ugly, forces you to do everything in MS's One True Way
Re: Great (Score:5, Insightful)
There's plenty of things on YouTube that I would be embarassed for the world to know I saw I'm sure. Tame or not.
Re: (Score:2)
And just so you CANNOT do just that, they weave them together so you can't escape them.
Remember: You're the product. Not the customer.
bad bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
When will they force everyone using any google service to use G+?
What about all these people that have problems having G+? This could well be the real beginning of the end
Re:bad bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
You aren't actually forced to use G+, even if it is enabled on your account. Realistically, Google won't be able to force you to use G+ either since that would break interoperability with other email providers.
As for the privacy concerns associated with G+, they should exist whether or not these are independent services. It is the same company collecting your data after all.
Re:bad bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
You aren't actually forced to use G+
Most Slashdotters aren't actually forced to do much of anything, but that doesn't stop them from bitching about just about everything.
Re: (Score:2)
So your argument is basically "yes you'll have a forced social account you don't want (which if you follow the rules has to be in your name,) but it's not that bad." Fuck you and Google.
I've had a gmail account almost as long as it's been out, I love my Nexus 5. I'm not someone who flips out over small issues (IMHO,) - but I'm seriously considering dropping all google services due to forced integration, and several of my friends are in the same boat. If I can't have contacts outside of G+ I'll drop them w
Re: (Score:3)
Just don't use google + and everyone in a while check the security settings o that it stays locked down.
google is just merging all of it's products to one username/password combo. instead of having an account with youLube, Docs, mail, etcs, it is google +.
It will make adding features easier on the backend. the down side is I don't use social networking, of course since I have an iPhone I can't use google contacts anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
There are more than privacy concerns with G+
G+ requires that you use your real name, your first and last real name
Will people who don't use their real name on the gmail account be screwed because they've been integrated with the G+ system?
This is all very anti-user
I just received the email about the update
Receiving email from people outside your circles
If you receive an email from someone outside your circles, it will be filtered into the Social category of the inbox (if enabled) and only after you respond or add them to your circles, can they start another conversation with you.
So it looks like there is a setting, that can only be modified via web browser on a desktop, so people who only use tablets are kinda SOL, that disables this
Re: (Score:3)
Good lord. I understand Slashdot folks generally don't like to read the actual article, but I don't think a single comment on this has come from someone who actually read it.
It is simply and integration between G+ and gmail. They are NOT merging. IF you use G+, then you'll be able to send emails to people in G+ without having to know their email address. It's a nice convenience. That is all.
So if you're not using G+ for anything now, nothing at all will change for you in gmail. If you are using it, you will
Easy enough to disable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Though the obvious response is, "for now."
What motive would Google have for removing this feature?
If anything I expect it to go the other way. I bet we'll ultimately end up with a global email-from-circles kill switch (what they've provided so far) along with per-circle settings, so you can allow people in some circles to e-mail you and not others. Since most G+ users have separate circles for friends & family vs random people whose posts they like to read, that would make a lot of sense.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything I expect it to go the other way. I bet we'll ultimately end up with a global email-from-circles kill switch (what they've provided so far) along with per-circle settings, so you can allow people in some circles to e-mail you and not others. Since most G+ users have separate circles for friends & family vs random people whose posts they like to read, that would make a lot of sense.
Actually, IIRC that's already the setting--you can select which circles can send you emails. But to answer the question of why would they remove your option to opt out: I dunno--why did Google force its Youtube users to link their accounts to G+ when they first made it optional? Near as I can figure is that Google really wants G+ to succeed, because they want to directly compete with Facebook. But since no one was actually interested in using G+, they're trying to force you to by saying, "if you don't use i
Whatever (Score:3, Interesting)
That's great Google. Keep trying to make google+ a thing. That's great.
Can't say I'm happy about how that worked out for youtube but keep trying. You never know.
I don't care that much anyway. I switched my gmail account to be my spam account a while ago and only check it via outlook any so whatever. Good luck though.
Re: (Score:2)
G+ is a thing - might not be to you, but it is a thing.
Google+ is supremely annoying (Score:5, Interesting)
Guess what? It's a condo. It only concerns the 12 people who live here. No one else cares about who cleans our carpets and who's complaining about the squeaking hinges on the door over at #201.
It's so stupid. I downloaded all the documents in the drive but Google doesn't handle french accents too well in file names, AND it creates a flat zip... We lost the whole tree. Oh well, I'll manually re-create it when I migrate over to Yahoo groups.
You can say what you want about Yahoo, they don't annoy you at the same level as Google.
Re:Google+ is supremely annoying (Score:4, Informative)
A few years ago we created a gmail account for the condo administration to communicate with the residents....Recently I had to go through the whole "upgrade the account to google+ and you can't opt out" rigamarole.
I have a gmail account and I don't recall anytime that I was required to upgrade to google+. Sure, I have had the occasional "friendly reminders" that I need to update my contact information or I could permanently lose access to my account if I forget my password, but other than that no troubles. What the hell did you do to piss them off so much?
Re:Google+ is supremely annoying (Score:4, Informative)
The main problem Google seems to have is with the name. It's a long sequence of letters and numbers at gmail.com.
We don't want other people to find us. We don't want to find other people.
We are not going to help Google+'s bogus social networking numbers simply because like I said we're boring. Just let us keep our name...
The pop-up I get is in French but it boils down to that the name "doesn't sound" like a name and we must change it. Even though I sent the document showing that it's the name registered with the government, it's not good enough for Google??
Re: (Score:2)
I lost you somewhere around the point where you linked a youtube account to administrate a condo.
Re:Google+ is supremely annoying (Score:5, Interesting)
You are full of shit. I just created a Gmail account without a real name to prove it.
Email: a38749238467332443@gmail.com
Pass: supersecure
Feel free to log in and check it out. The name on it is "Not Real". It is required for email headers. Fake birthday too, which is of course required because minors can't agree to TOS.
They don't force you to create a G+ account just to continue using Gmail. Obviously they are aware that many Gmail accounts are not personal (they have a whole Gmail for business thing going on) and provide email services for other companies (like UK ISP Virgin) who would not take to kindly to having their customers forced to join G+.
Unless you have provide some evidence that you were forced to sign up to G+ against your will I'm afraid you have been exposed as a fraud or a chump who didn't see the "no thanks" button.
Re: (Score:2)
At no point did I want or attempt to create or agree to a google+ account.
The bastards gave me one and linked it to my gmail without my permission.
And I still can't post comments to youtube videos.
Re: (Score:2)
You claimed they are upset that this account does not have a real name on it, yet do not require one just to have an email account. Where is your evidence?
Re: (Score:2)
You should ask yourself, why would Google want your business, when your use case is what it is, and when you have the requirements you have?
Perhaps you should pay them. Of course with your experience, you're not likely to, but you were not likely to before, either. Lost or badly handled sales opportunity for them, I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
Your use case better fits Google Apps, which we use for exactly the same purpose as you without a hitch. We registered our domain when GApps was still free, but alas, now it would cost you a bit per user (you can register only one user and use people's private email addresses in a mailing list).
Re: (Score:2)
You can say what you want about Yahoo, they don't annoy you at the same level as Google.
Just 'cause they know they can't get away with it. Rest assured, they would, if they just could.
Lesson to learn from this: Never join the biggest bandwagon. Choose someone who will think twice before giving you the "my way or the highway" attitude.
I only want to use GMail. Don't want Google+ (Score:4, Insightful)
Just give me GMail.
Why is it so hard for Google to give me something I want and not something that I don't want?
Or is this part of Google's plans to increase their Google+ numbers by forcing everyone with GMail to become part of Google+?
Give it a break Google.
You were cool.
But now you're becoming annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
*ALL* of my gmail accounts? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone up for making.... (Score:2)
.....mud pies?
Google seems to be up for it.
why don't google (Score:2)
Whatever Happend to "Do No Evil" Google? (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/ [google.com]
YRS
Re: (Score:2)
Never got a notification from the Big G (Score:2)
this case may trun out bad for google (Score:2)
http://www.salemnews.com/local/x1221263334/Unwanted-invitation-lands-Beverly-man-in-trouble [salemnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VeXEw3P932QJ:www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3Fterm%3DThomas%2520Gagnon+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz [googleusercontent.com]
1. Thomas Gagnon A lying cheating boy who has no selfworth. He makes you fall for him and then rips everything out from under you. Be careful when near him. May occasionally act immature and like a girl. WARNING: He will say he loves you but is just saying that to get into your pants. Avoid at all costs. Thomas Gagnon has small man parts...mark as favorite buy thomas gagnon mugs & shirts cheater lying immature egotistical rude by love,exgirlfriend :) December 15, 2010 add a video
When it's said google knows all, it really means it.
Don't know what this guy did, but it seems as tho
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, such naivete. Yes, Virginia it has been a decades long established practice esp. in divorce cases to use restraining orders as leverage and revenge. The threshold for getting such order has been reduced so low, there is little disincentive to get one for spurious reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
You complain? Try to convince them that your last name is really Suckmydick.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. I use it for commenting on YouTube and will soon be using it for my Google Contacts (Gmail and Voice) as well.
Yeah, Google+ isn't replacing Facebook. But it's working as a way of consolidating overlapping aspects of their various services. If you don't want to go post to your feed, that's fine.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's working as a way of consolidating overlapping aspects of their various services.
Overlapping aspects?
They overlap because they, through "integration", made them overlap. They did not overlap until then.
Consolidation? Sure. Overlapping? Only in the sense of a snake choosing to eat its own tail...
Re: (Score:3)
Uh... no? At least, I don't see any real overlap in mine. Email address book is for people I want to email, and phone contacts are for people I want to call. The union of those two sets is in the single-digits.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think my Google Voice contacts and my GMail contacts were naturally overlapping features?
I email lots of people that I never want to have an audio chat with, and there are people I want to have verbal chats with that I never want to be exchanging emails with.
Period. End of the fucking story. You are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yeah? Well, a grue eats your face!
Re:I'm about to give up on Gmail... (Score:4, Insightful)
This.
I have my own domain and a small rack in the basement, with mail I haven't used much in a while.. but this G+ stupidity might just roust me out of my slumber. I've stayed with Gmail out of inertia mostly; the handy features just barely outweigh the irritation. But it's really, really close. The Gmail interface changes from a year ago still suck. Badly. Google+ is an irritating solution to a problem I don't have, and becoming terribly intrusive. Youtube integration is actively conterproductive, a constant intrusion of personal browsing into potential business activity. When I log into gmail and open up a youtube tab, it constatntly pops up a link to some warplane videos I watched a year ago. So... I can't browse youtube because if I use gmail to communicate with clients for moonlighting gigs, because those who use g+ might see that and think I'm a nut? No thanks.)
Gmail is a handy web interface to email functions I had thru IMAP a decade ago, nothing more. I could easily switch back. Better yet, I could update the whole mess and run it in a couple of VMs at AWS for pennies a day.
I hesitate because Google docs is handy for helping my kids on their school reports, annotating, correcting, making suggestions as they work on it.. but really it's a nice-to-have. I would miss it, but if the price for docs is forced use of Google+, it's not worth the hassle.
Re: (Score:2)
I left google for my own little email server as part of a New Year's resolution. This makes me confident I made the right decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The end of privacy is coming, but it's no reason to be a potty mouth...
Gee, people, priorities for fuck's sake, dammit.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely. Since they're both just out to screw US.
Re: (Score:2)
I have NOTHING to do with Google OR GMail. I know friends who have GMail accounts, but that does not imply that they use it for social purposes and linking someone's GMail contacts violates any contact who has FUCKING NOTHING TO do with g00gLE. I will sue this spying fucking company
I can assure you that if you don't use gmail of G+ you will not be affected. People who use G+ will be able to email your friend even if they don't know the friend's email address (unless said friend opts out). Also your friend will see people in G+ circles in their mail contacts. Your email address won't be affected.