6 ms·

This is annoying, but how is it a huge mistake on Google's part? Sure, they're going to annoy a few people, but I think that these tactics forcing people to us

This is annoying, but how is it a huge mistake on Google's part? Sure, they're going to annoy a few people, but I think that these tactics forcing people to use G+ will probably work. People will be forced onto this G+ platform whether they like it or not; the mass exodus threats about any social networking platform never materialize into anything more than a few users deactivating their accounts.

pavel_lishin 14y ago
How much does Google gain from having a bunch of people who technically have G+ accounts, but don't actually use them for anything aside from liking/disliking videos?
- xxbondsxx 14y ago
  They already have a ton of people who have G+ accounts and do nothing. Automatically sharing youtube likes to your G+ stream would an explosion of activity for the majority of users. It's all about baby steps. The chicken and egg problem sometimes needs coercion in the beginning
- notcertain 14y ago
  If you extend this thinking far enough, they have a lot to gain. It's an extra dimension that Google can use to further refine their ad inventory against your interests. The theory is that you will see more relevant ads and Google will earn more because of it. i.e. if you like this video, and someone else liked this video, and they clicked on that ad, then maybe you'll click on that ad. Perhaps on its own this single dimension doesn't add all that much value, but in aggregate and with a mass number of participants, it should.
- ajross 14y ago
  They gain a bunch of people with an easy and painless upgrade path to G+ usage if/when their friends start using it. It reduces the technical friction, which is always the biggest blocker for early adopters. Like most people, all of my friends use Facebook more or less exclusively. But I know if I have a photo in my G+ account (the Android app syncs all photos to the G+ cloud by default) I can send people a link and have a pretty reasonable assurance they can see it.
  - masklinn 14y ago
    > They gain a bunch of people with an easy and painless upgrade path to G+ usage Do they, or do they just piss people off and result in them using their services less? When Google mandated migrating youtube accounts to G+, I just let mine rot.
    - ajross 14y ago
      Normal users don't get "pissed off" like that. There's no requirement to "use" G+ to have a youtube account. They just click "OK" and continue using youtube as before. You (and the author of the linked blog) have a bone to pick with Google, which is fine. Just recognize that most people don't care. There's nothing objectively more difficult about youtube now that it's linked to G+, ditto gmail, etc...
      - adamc 14y ago
        On what do you base that astounding assertion?
        ajross 14y ago
        Uh... masklinn was self-admittedly "pissed off", Will Wheaton "made a rageface" and posted "go fuck yourself, Google"., I paraphrased those both to "bone to pick" because I thought it sounded better. What is "astounding" about that? They sound like synonyms to me. Do you have an argument with the substance of what I wrote (regarding average users' reacions to youtube merging accounts with G+)?
        philwelch 14y ago
        A "bone to pick" implies a preexisting grudge, which is different from simply being displeased with one decision or other.
        ajross 14y ago
- zmmmmm 14y ago
  Apart from anything else, under the 'real name' policy, it means they now attach your real name to your likes / dislikes, which presumably means they can increase the value of information they give to advertisers for targeting (I'm not saying they sell the names, but the fact they can cross reference you to a real person means they dramatically increase the value of the portfolio of other info they have). NB: I haven't done the upgrade, but I'm presuming that when you opt into it you come to a page that exhorts you to give them your profile with your 'real' name on there instead of whatever you might have had previously in your Google account.
idleloops 14y ago
Actually I do think it's a big mistake and here is a simple reason why: I was wanting to share a Google document with family members a year ago. And those without Google accounts simply were not interested in getting one - despite my want for them to access the document. When I said it was quite simple to get themselves a log in they still weren't interested. They just didn't want to sign up to yet another service.
- tomkarlo 14y ago
  If you were sharing the doc via another service that required a login (and pretty much anything that doesn't post it to a public URL is going to), wouldn't you hit the same problem? It's hard to do collaboration (even if it's read-only collaboration) without identities. Overall, it seems to me it's probably both more likely than a random family member will have a Google account, and/or be willing to sign up for one, than sign up for a different service that's less well-known and has fewer services based on that login.
  - idleloops 14y ago
    It didn't matter if it was Google or another company to them. What was putting them off was the thought of having to manage yet another online identity and remember the credentials. These people aren't power users. They can just about cope with doing an online search, and occasionally sign into their web mail to read and send messages. The one member who had a Google account had no problems. I could have just emailed them the document. But it was a work in progress. I just wanted them to give it a once over. In part this is why Google are integrating their services in the first place. Centralising signing in increases the chance of participation in their other apps. It's a case of what you already know and anything beyond that is a barrier to entry.
Bud 14y ago
Oh really? You mean like when everyone over age 12 threatened to leave Myspace as soon as there was something better, and then they did?
- aggronn 14y ago
  i really can't think of any company on the internet who botched and ruined everything they had more than myspace. i still don't even think they're trying to improve their product yet.
  - AlisdairO 14y ago
    Digg's probably the only other example I can think of.
    - aggronn 14y ago
      i wanted to say digg might be an example, but myspace was such a massive development that i didn't want to draw the comparison. digg's death was certainly quicker.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - protomyth 14y ago
    Yahoo and Digg certainly seem intent on trying. It would take pretty deep pockets to compete with YouTube at this point. Content isn't like search, so YouTube can tick a lot of people off and still not notice. If Hulu (or Yahoo) had built professional channels, then they might have taken some of the high traffic stuff from YouTube. If the cable-viewers only rule is implemented on Hulu, then they might take myspace's crown away.
- tomkarlo 14y ago
  Threatening to leave because you want something on a service to be left unchaged is not equivalent to leaving a service because there's a newer, better service available. If site designers listened to everyone who gripes when a feature changes, they'd never change anything much, and inevitably would end up losing out to someone who comes along with a better product. That's much closer to what happened with MySpace - they failed to innovate, and got overtaken by FB.

pavel_lishin 14y ago

How much does Google gain from having a bunch of people who technically have G+ accounts, but don't actually use them for anything aside from liking/disliking videos?

xxbondsxx 14y ago
They already have a ton of people who have G+ accounts and do nothing. Automatically sharing youtube likes to your G+ stream would an explosion of activity for the majority of users. It's all about baby steps. The chicken and egg problem sometimes needs coercion in the beginning
notcertain 14y ago
If you extend this thinking far enough, they have a lot to gain. It's an extra dimension that Google can use to further refine their ad inventory against your interests. The theory is that you will see more relevant ads and Google will earn more because of it. i.e. if you like this video, and someone else liked this video, and they clicked on that ad, then maybe you'll click on that ad. Perhaps on its own this single dimension doesn't add all that much value, but in aggregate and with a mass number of participants, it should.
ajross 14y ago
They gain a bunch of people with an easy and painless upgrade path to G+ usage if/when their friends start using it. It reduces the technical friction, which is always the biggest blocker for early adopters. Like most people, all of my friends use Facebook more or less exclusively. But I know if I have a photo in my G+ account (the Android app syncs all photos to the G+ cloud by default) I can send people a link and have a pretty reasonable assurance they can see it.
- masklinn 14y ago
  > They gain a bunch of people with an easy and painless upgrade path to G+ usage Do they, or do they just piss people off and result in them using their services less? When Google mandated migrating youtube accounts to G+, I just let mine rot.
  - ajross 14y ago
    Normal users don't get "pissed off" like that. There's no requirement to "use" G+ to have a youtube account. They just click "OK" and continue using youtube as before. You (and the author of the linked blog) have a bone to pick with Google, which is fine. Just recognize that most people don't care. There's nothing objectively more difficult about youtube now that it's linked to G+, ditto gmail, etc...
    - adamc 14y ago
      On what do you base that astounding assertion?
      - ajross 14y ago
        Uh... masklinn was self-admittedly "pissed off", Will Wheaton "made a rageface" and posted "go fuck yourself, Google"., I paraphrased those both to "bone to pick" because I thought it sounded better. What is "astounding" about that? They sound like synonyms to me. Do you have an argument with the substance of what I wrote (regarding average users' reacions to youtube merging accounts with G+)?
        philwelch 14y ago
        A "bone to pick" implies a preexisting grudge, which is different from simply being displeased with one decision or other.
        ajross 14y ago
zmmmmm 14y ago
Apart from anything else, under the 'real name' policy, it means they now attach your real name to your likes / dislikes, which presumably means they can increase the value of information they give to advertisers for targeting (I'm not saying they sell the names, but the fact they can cross reference you to a real person means they dramatically increase the value of the portfolio of other info they have). NB: I haven't done the upgrade, but I'm presuming that when you opt into it you come to a page that exhorts you to give them your profile with your 'real' name on there instead of whatever you might have had previously in your Google account.

idleloops 14y ago

Actually I do think it's a big mistake and here is a simple reason why: I was wanting to share a Google document with family members a year ago. And those without Google accounts simply were not interested in getting one - despite my want for them to access the document. When I said it was quite simple to get themselves a log in they still weren't interested. They just didn't want to sign up to yet another service.

tomkarlo 14y ago
If you were sharing the doc via another service that required a login (and pretty much anything that doesn't post it to a public URL is going to), wouldn't you hit the same problem? It's hard to do collaboration (even if it's read-only collaboration) without identities. Overall, it seems to me it's probably both more likely than a random family member will have a Google account, and/or be willing to sign up for one, than sign up for a different service that's less well-known and has fewer services based on that login.
- idleloops 14y ago
  It didn't matter if it was Google or another company to them. What was putting them off was the thought of having to manage yet another online identity and remember the credentials. These people aren't power users. They can just about cope with doing an online search, and occasionally sign into their web mail to read and send messages. The one member who had a Google account had no problems. I could have just emailed them the document. But it was a work in progress. I just wanted them to give it a once over. In part this is why Google are integrating their services in the first place. Centralising signing in increases the chance of participation in their other apps. It's a case of what you already know and anything beyond that is a barrier to entry.

Bud 14y ago

Oh really? You mean like when everyone over age 12 threatened to leave Myspace as soon as there was something better, and then they did?

aggronn 14y ago
i really can't think of any company on the internet who botched and ruined everything they had more than myspace. i still don't even think they're trying to improve their product yet.
- AlisdairO 14y ago
  Digg's probably the only other example I can think of.
  - aggronn 14y ago
    i wanted to say digg might be an example, but myspace was such a massive development that i didn't want to draw the comparison. digg's death was certainly quicker.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- protomyth 14y ago
  Yahoo and Digg certainly seem intent on trying. It would take pretty deep pockets to compete with YouTube at this point. Content isn't like search, so YouTube can tick a lot of people off and still not notice. If Hulu (or Yahoo) had built professional channels, then they might have taken some of the high traffic stuff from YouTube. If the cable-viewers only rule is implemented on Hulu, then they might take myspace's crown away.
tomkarlo 14y ago
Threatening to leave because you want something on a service to be left unchaged is not equivalent to leaving a service because there's a newer, better service available. If site designers listened to everyone who gripes when a feature changes, they'd never change anything much, and inevitably would end up losing out to someone who comes along with a better product. That's much closer to what happened with MySpace - they failed to innovate, and got overtaken by FB.