Google+ Photos To Be Separated From Google+ 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.
Yay! (Score:4, Informative)
We called out these failures years ago. (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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, thou
Re: (Score:2)
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/Win
Re: (Score:2)
Re: We called out these failures years ago. (Score:2, Insightful)
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. (Score:2, Informative)
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 reme
Re: (Score:1)
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 sh
Re: (Score:1)
My clients care that I get the job done not what I use to do it. I have several powerful laptops but mostly what I need is a device to run SSH sessions (and some serial sessions) so a Chromebook running Ubuntu works just dandy. If I need more I will obviously use the right tool for the job but a $175 c720 lets me do 95% of what I need and I dont worry about theft of any damage it might take since its so cheap. Now excuse me while my dumb ass walks a block to the beach from my home that I paid for by doing d
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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 ver
Re: (Score:1)
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 wi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 Window
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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.
Until Google comes clean (Score:2, Insightful)
Until they come clean on what they're mining from your activities, I'd stay away from it.
Re: (Score:1)
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 (Score:2)
They mine blank spaces to
Re:Until Google comes clean (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I'd like to know *which* information they aggregate.
Re: (Score:2)
aaaaaallllllll of it.
simples
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 mor
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
You'll eventually notice the cavities, though. Especially with as much sugar as I eat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 superf
Re: (Score:1)
Jesus, fuck. You are a seriously pedantic, trolling douche.
congratulations, your request for attention has been fulfilled.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Also, "offensive" is subjective.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I would think you'd want to maintain basic hygiene for other reasons. I don't care about being "presentable" (which is subjective), but then again, I don't hang around with superficial drones.
Re: (Score:1)
So, if your intimate partner doesn't like it when your breath smells bad, that makes them a "superficial drone?"
If your co-workers don't like it if you smell like body odor because you haven't showered in days, that makes them "superficial drones?"
Re: (Score:2)
So, if your intimate partner doesn't like it when your breath smells bad, that makes them a "superficial drone?"
Not liking a smell is a practical matter. We're speaking of the superficial, here. Pay attention.
Re: (Score:2)
But your insinuation that I don't want bad breath so I can be presentable to others was wrong. I don't want bad breath because I don't like the smell or taste. The end.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually calm while making such insults.
android games (Score:5, Informative)
Re:android games (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The best thing about G+ is that you don't have to be on facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Hey, they should call it Picasa! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it did, the quality of the pictures would be better.
Sure ... (Score:2)
... "seperate"
Re: (Score:2)
something worked (Score:1)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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 bus
Its all about getting an accurate head counts. (Score:5, Interesting)
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....
About this (Score:2)
I am nonplussed and yet, not nonplussed. Figure that out ;)
Google Has Other Services Less Used (Score:3)
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 + (Score:2)
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? (Score:1)
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+ cl
robots.txt (Score:2)
The first post I made in Google+ is this:
# go away
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
Re: (Score:1)
You were one of the people they were trying to chase away. They don't want you back.
About time (Score:1)
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
My last Android phone had them uploading to Google+ by default, without my explicit approval or agreement.
Odd. I've always been asked, very explicitly and clear, if I approve of having my photos backed up to Google+ from my Android phone. I've always answered No, and they haven't.
I know why (Score:2)
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.
Plus is primarily centralized account management (Score:2)
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.