And That's Really It For Google+ (techcrunch.com) 29
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Last year, Google launched the beta of Currents, which was essentially a rebrand of Google+ for G Suite users, since Google+ for consumers went to meet its maker in April 2019. While Google+ was meant to be an all-purpose social network, the idea behind Currents is more akin to what Microsoft is doing with Yammer or Facebook with Workplace. It's meant to give employees a forum for internal discussions and announcements. To complicate matters, Google kept Google+ around, even after the launch of Currents, but in an email to G Suite admins, it has now announced that Google+ for G Suite will close its doors on July 6, after which there will be no way to opt out of Currents or revert back to Google+. And with that, Google has driven the final nail into Google+'s coffin. The Google+ mobile apps will be automatically updated to Currents. All existing links to Google+ will redirect to Currents.
Because what we really need (Score:2)
Is another piece of software for people to say, "I'm here!" and "Heading out!" every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Because what we really need (Score:5, Insightful)
When I looked at it, I thought Google + was better thought out, from a user perspective, than Facebook.
But of course serving the user's perspective isn't what Facebook is about. In fact it's not about serving users in any way; users aren't the customers, they're the product. Facebook is a ruthless, data-driven exercise in shaping user behavior. It is to social interaction what the Cheetos are to food; it's engineered to be engaging but stubbornly unsatisfying. If you ever got *satisfied* by Cheetohs you'd stop eating them.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they aren't the same. I think Facebook is better at it.
Re: (Score:2)
I miss G+... there were a lot of good maker communities there. The quality of the comments were much better than on FB. In general, it was a decent platform that borrowed from Twitter, FB, and older blogs but was killed because it wasn't dominating, just a small player. And Google wants a win or to take its ball and go home.
Pity. (Score:5, Insightful)
It was actually great before Google tried to force everyone to have a G+ account. After that, I had a ton of people on my friendly list that simply never used it. The same went for Hangouts.
It literally would have been better had Google done nothing.
Re: Pity. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
That was the point of Google+. It wasn't ever meant to be a successful social network. It was meant to consolidate accounts across the web and to collect people's real names and locations en masse. In that regard, it was successful.
It was meant to be both a unified account, single-sign-on for all Google products and a successful social network. And the "real names" thing was a legitimate effort to reduce spam and abuse (which didn't work). I think if they'd reversed the order, unifying all the gmail, YouTube, etc., accounts first it wouldn't have generated so much anger, because everyone interpreted the account unification as an effort to pump up the social network, not as a thing itself. I don't know if it would have made any diffe
What's wrong with Spam? (Score:1)
> a legitimate effort to reduce spam and abuse
One person's "Spam and Abuse" is another persons "Breakfast and Sexual Foreplay". Ba-Dum-Bump. I'll be here all week.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep - I was a user of google+, initial experience was very nice, a lot more controlled than facebook at the time (you put folks in circles and shared with specific circles). Feed wasn't spammey. I thought it would have had good organic growth as facebook lost its luster a bit.
Then it totally went haywire.
You had to link your google+ account to your youtube and other accounts (with lots of weird confusion depending around channels etc). Then it had to be linked to everything else too which was just crazy. I
Re: (Score:2)
I realise Facebook is as bad but this would have been a way for Google+ to differentiate its offering.
The real problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I’m 93 Escort Wagon and I approve this message
Re: (Score:3)
Google had fixed all the big problems with G+ when they killed it. It was technically superior to Facebook. It was cleaner and worked better. Basically they gave up on it just when they finally got it right.
Google can get it up, but they can't keep it up.
Vanishware? (Score:2)
So is Current going to do a vanishing act further down the line?
The way Google has treated it's services in the past will make me very wary of using it.
It’s called “Currents”? (Score:2)
Did it come with its own magazine?
... cancelled for no good raison (Score:3)
Currents is really grape though.
Not quite... (Score:2)
I got an email saying all my Google+ data will carry forward to Currents.
Re: (Score:3)
Great, can search get it’s f’n + opera (Score:2)
Can we PLEASE have '+' back in search? (Score:2)
Long ago, in the times before Google+ was a thing, putting '+' before a search term meant "must include", just as a leading '-' meant "must exclude". Then Google+ arrived, and '+' was replace by surrounding "must include" terms in cumbersome double-quotes.
Now that Google+ is dead, may we once again use a leading '+' in our searches?
Re: (Score:1)
Google Wave, then Google Current? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
More half-baked unsolicited Google garbage (Score:2)
As a G Suite user, I find it increasingly frustrating that there are limited opt-out mechanisms for Google's pet project of the week. I have the basic functionality I require for my organization, and I certainly have no intention of forcing something company-wide that will just disappear or be rebranded in 6 months when Google invariably changes its mind again. How about a rollout policy of "don't bother unless google can keep it alive for more than a year while experimenting on its non-paying users".