5 ms·

Google doesn't force you to use Google+ as a social network, it forces you to create a profile so it can unify identity across Google accounts.

jessaustin 13y ago
Who wants this? Are Google so hopeless in strategy that they have to borrow from Facebook?
- lawdawg 13y ago
  Do you have a better solution for unifying identity across Google accounts? If your opinion is that separate products should have separate accounts and credentials then we will just have to agree to disagree. I can understand why that would be someone's preference, but I can't understand why someone would bash a company that has the desire to utilize a single profile/account for all of their products.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    Many services do not require an "identity", and in fact are of less value when associated with an identity, or when using them while not so associated is more difficult. "Credentials" do not contribute to the act of reading a map. ("Location" might, but not in all circumstances, so that shouldn't be required either.) I probably misunderstand you, but are you saying that a user should not let her own preferences guide her choices? If she is allowed that small concession, should she not share her preferences with others on HN? I'm not bashing Google, but I am bashing this "desire" that you've articulated more explicitly than most. This user doesn't want to use that sort of suite of services. That's one reason I'm not on Facebook. If there are important strategic reasons to ape Facebook in this fashion, I don't see them. If the reason is more a perception that they have to do something, that's sad.
rm999 13y ago
I clicked a hackernews link yesterday and forgot about the tab for an hour. When I finally got to it I was somewhat shocked to see it was a google+ page that automatically signed me into hangouts, where several tried to chat with me. About half my google plus home screen area is devoted to chat or attempts at convincing me to upload a profile picture or attempts at convincing me to find more friends. I'm sure if I was a regular user of google+ I'd turn off many of its social features, but by default it's at least as social as facebook. I agree ultimately its "lowest common denominator" purpose is a unifying platform for google, but as a heavy google user who isn't looking for another social network (which describes a lot of people out there) google+ is way too social. It's simply something I want to avoid, yet I feel like I'm forced to interact with it too much.
spankalee 13y ago
Disclaimer: I work for the big G Exactly. Google needs a way to identify and canonicalize people and organizations. I think they've tried various automated and smart techniques to limited success, and it's much easier to say that if you create a profile so that you tell us what your identity is and what your websites are, then we can attribute your work in searches much better. You don't ever have to use G+ the web site after that. I think that there's a basic misunderstanding of what G+ is, even inside Google, and it's our fault for not making it more clear. Maybe things needed different names. Google+ is really three main things: At it's core G+ is an identity service. It knows who you are because you have a profile. Authorship requires this I guess. Then it's a sharing service. Google needed a way to enable sharing in all it's products. Finally, it's a web site with a social stream. It's possible they should have stuck with "Google Profile" for the first part, and then the author might not be so upset that Google needs some information to attribute correctly. Also, it'd be ideal if there were standards for these things. Google definitely used to go more that route, like Open Social, but those attempts failed against proprietary systems like Facebook. I think things are just moving to fast right now for the slow process of standardization to be competitive. I hope that when certain _features_ of identity, sharing, messaging, etc. standardize again, then new protocols can be standardized around those features. New XMPP extensions, or an entirely new protocol, to support the features of Hangouts would be great for example. A system for securely asserting identity and profile information (not log-ins) in the way that people use Twitter, Facebook and G+ would be wonderful too.
- Sven7 13y ago
  Feature request: Open up google search (API access). Create a marketplace around that index, that no one else on the planet has any hope of duplicating.
  - ori_b 13y ago
    https://developers.google.com/custom-search/v1/overview https://developers.google.com/custom-search/v1/overview
    - 13y ago

jessaustin 13y ago

Who wants this? Are Google so hopeless in strategy that they have to borrow from Facebook?

lawdawg 13y ago
Do you have a better solution for unifying identity across Google accounts? If your opinion is that separate products should have separate accounts and credentials then we will just have to agree to disagree. I can understand why that would be someone's preference, but I can't understand why someone would bash a company that has the desire to utilize a single profile/account for all of their products.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Many services do not require an "identity", and in fact are of less value when associated with an identity, or when using them while not so associated is more difficult. "Credentials" do not contribute to the act of reading a map. ("Location" might, but not in all circumstances, so that shouldn't be required either.) I probably misunderstand you, but are you saying that a user should not let her own preferences guide her choices? If she is allowed that small concession, should she not share her preferences with others on HN? I'm not bashing Google, but I am bashing this "desire" that you've articulated more explicitly than most. This user doesn't want to use that sort of suite of services. That's one reason I'm not on Facebook. If there are important strategic reasons to ape Facebook in this fashion, I don't see them. If the reason is more a perception that they have to do something, that's sad.

rm999 13y ago

I clicked a hackernews link yesterday and forgot about the tab for an hour. When I finally got to it I was somewhat shocked to see it was a google+ page that automatically signed me into hangouts, where several tried to chat with me. About half my google plus home screen area is devoted to chat or attempts at convincing me to upload a profile picture or attempts at convincing me to find more friends. I'm sure if I was a regular user of google+ I'd turn off many of its social features, but by default it's at least as social as facebook. I agree ultimately its "lowest common denominator" purpose is a unifying platform for google, but as a heavy google user who isn't looking for another social network (which describes a lot of people out there) google+ is way too social. It's simply something I want to avoid, yet I feel like I'm forced to interact with it too much.

spankalee 13y ago

Disclaimer: I work for the big G Exactly. Google needs a way to identify and canonicalize people and organizations. I think they've tried various automated and smart techniques to limited success, and it's much easier to say that if you create a profile so that you tell us what your identity is and what your websites are, then we can attribute your work in searches much better. You don't ever have to use G+ the web site after that. I think that there's a basic misunderstanding of what G+ is, even inside Google, and it's our fault for not making it more clear. Maybe things needed different names. Google+ is really three main things: At it's core G+ is an identity service. It knows who you are because you have a profile. Authorship requires this I guess. Then it's a sharing service. Google needed a way to enable sharing in all it's products. Finally, it's a web site with a social stream. It's possible they should have stuck with "Google Profile" for the first part, and then the author might not be so upset that Google needs some information to attribute correctly. Also, it'd be ideal if there were standards for these things. Google definitely used to go more that route, like Open Social, but those attempts failed against proprietary systems like Facebook. I think things are just moving to fast right now for the slow process of standardization to be competitive. I hope that when certain _features_ of identity, sharing, messaging, etc. standardize again, then new protocols can be standardized around those features. New XMPP extensions, or an entirely new protocol, to support the features of Hangouts would be great for example. A system for securely asserting identity and profile information (not log-ins) in the way that people use Twitter, Facebook and G+ would be wonderful too.

Sven7 13y ago
Feature request: Open up google search (API access). Create a marketplace around that index, that no one else on the planet has any hope of duplicating.
- ori_b 13y ago
  https://developers.google.com/custom-search/v1/overview https://developers.google.com/custom-search/v1/overview
  - 13y ago