4 ms·

I think Google and Apple already see the facebook threat, and are trying to limit helping it grow any further. Even without G+, you may not have had this sort o

I think Google and Apple already see the facebook threat, and are trying to limit helping it grow any further. Even without G+, you may not have had this sort of FB integration to Google. The only reason Microsoft is sidling up to FB is in an effort to get some traction in mobile and the web space.

danielhunt 15y ago
I suppose 'lock in' was the wrong choice of words to use. I understand that the data is only there because I chose to auto-upload it, and I also understand that I can easily re-upload the photo to facebook, but my point was that Google themselves are actively preventing me from doing something like that through the Picasa interface. I think you understood the meaning behind my point, but I'd argue that they shouldn't even be in that space in the first place. The very first thing that any photo-storage/sharing site should be looking at, after the service itself is working, is social sharing and interaction. Google are restricting the interaction on their platform (understandably, I might add) because they have built a competitor to Facebook. that is what I have a problem with.
- jrockway 15y ago
  "Actively preventing"? How?
  - danielhunt 15y ago
    By not allowing users to share directly from their plus.google.com interface, to twitter/facebook.
    - jrockway 15y ago
      That's passively preventing. (YouTube lets you share to Facebook and Twitter, so the lack of this ability from G+ is a lack of a feature, not one of Google's design goals. Code takes a long time to write and everyone wants a different feature. Eventually we will have them all, but right now, not enough code has been written :)
      - Drbble 15y ago
        Prioritizing G+ over an open API (and a "Chinese wall" between the apps and the platform) is still preferential treatment, and is the sort of thing that got Microsoft consent-decreed. I am not saying Facebook is better, but you can't say Google is better, either.

danielhunt 15y ago

I suppose 'lock in' was the wrong choice of words to use. I understand that the data is only there because I chose to auto-upload it, and I also understand that I can easily re-upload the photo to facebook, but my point was that Google themselves are actively preventing me from doing something like that through the Picasa interface. I think you understood the meaning behind my point, but I'd argue that they shouldn't even be in that space in the first place. The very first thing that any photo-storage/sharing site should be looking at, after the service itself is working, is social sharing and interaction. Google are restricting the interaction on their platform (understandably, I might add) because they have built a competitor to Facebook. that is what I have a problem with.

jrockway 15y ago
"Actively preventing"? How?
- danielhunt 15y ago
  By not allowing users to share directly from their plus.google.com interface, to twitter/facebook.
  - jrockway 15y ago
    That's passively preventing. (YouTube lets you share to Facebook and Twitter, so the lack of this ability from G+ is a lack of a feature, not one of Google's design goals. Code takes a long time to write and everyone wants a different feature. Eventually we will have them all, but right now, not enough code has been written :)
    - Drbble 15y ago
      Prioritizing G+ over an open API (and a "Chinese wall" between the apps and the platform) is still preferential treatment, and is the sort of thing that got Microsoft consent-decreed. I am not saying Facebook is better, but you can't say Google is better, either.