3 ms·

It's silly to force users to have separate accounts for Google services. I don't understand how this wasn't the case before Google+. I've had my Google account

It's silly to force users to have separate accounts for Google services. I don't understand how this wasn't the case before Google+. I've had my Google account for years and it always worked on all the Google services I've seen. I've never had to use a separate account for anything.

saurik 13y ago
Yeah. The only system with a separate login was ever YouTube, and I think that may have only apploed if your account was ancient anyway.
- kelnos 13y ago
  You could even link your main Google account to your old-style YouTube account, and get the benefit of single sign-on, but still maintain your old YT identity separate from your Google one. So really I don't understand why Google thinks they're doing anyone a favor single-sign-on-wise: nothing has changed here.
- jmillikin 13y ago
  Every Google acquisition with a pre-existing account system kept that system for a period of time (IIRC, typically years) after being acquired. AdSense, Blogger, and FeedBurner are examples.
- brigade 13y ago
  Yep. Creating YouTube-only accounts was discontinued over 5 years ago, and as of 2011 all such accounts must be merged into a Google account.
- bowlofpetunias 13y ago
  > The only system with a separate login was ever YouTube Rewrite history much? Every platform Google ever acquired had it's own login, and Google didn't have a login for a loooong time. But all of that is besides the point. This is not about SSO, this is about an SSO fully integrated with a service geared at destroying anonymity and privacy. I wouldn't mind a single Google login if that was what it was: a login, a username and password. Google+ is so, so much more.
  - saurik 13y ago
    OK, look: the other people who responded about orher systems Google had that had other login systems (hours before you) were both constructive (showing specific examples) and general not jerks about it... They also kept this thread about SSO on topic--jmillikin specifically states "unified login/account system"--nor did they then decide to respond this negative without any real argument. The whole point of this Ask HN was that a bunch of us dislike G+, but the goal was to discuss the reasons why G+ was being pushed internally at Google, and some people from Google were nice enough to actually respond, so let's do away with the random "service geared at destroying anonymity and privacy" rhetoric for a minute. So: I'm sorry. I did mess this one up. I don't think, however, that my mistake was actually important from the perspective of the article. I've been using some of the services people are saying had third party login support now for many many years, and unlike YouTube I do not remember ever seeing any kind of disconnection between account models used on each. Maybe they were just integrated faster, or maybe its because I had a YouTube account that was ancient and had options that others long since did not. But either way: it doesn't seem like SSO is an argument for Google+. Google already had single sign on, and to the extent to which it ever had separate login systems that it maintained for its acquisitions they were all rapidly merged. Maybe even in the case of YouTube (which I still feel was different, give that as recently as a year ago I remember still having the ability to manipulate my underlying YouTube account). Forcing the account to use G+ does make it get forced to use the underlying picture and name from the other account. I can see that as being vaguely interesting. But that goes beyond a "unified login/account system".
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
Either you were very late to the party, or you have a very short memory. Most people didn't have a "Google account". They had a GMail account. If they had Blogger or YouTube accounts, they usually had them before Gmail. It was bad enough when Google started shoving those accounts into one and tacking services on people didn't ask for without politely asking them to sign-up. But now they are forcing people into an entirely new service that has the explicit purpose to expose them and to annihilate their privacy. I wouldn't mind the principle of one single account for all Google services in principle, if a) I can have multiple accounts, b) such an account can be know as "honeybooboo666", and doesn't need my real name or phone number, and c) that account does not to automatically sign me in to services I didn't sign up for and I don't want to use on that account. The latter is especially important so that anything "honeybooboo666" does on YouTube isn't accidentally registered under my other accounts of MyJob@BigCorp and MyRealName@Family That's why people have separate accounts. honeybooboo666, MyJob@BigCorp and bowlofpetunias are very different entities, and trying to "out" them all as "MyRealName who works at BigCorp" is just not on.

saurik 13y ago

Yeah. The only system with a separate login was ever YouTube, and I think that may have only apploed if your account was ancient anyway.

kelnos 13y ago
You could even link your main Google account to your old-style YouTube account, and get the benefit of single sign-on, but still maintain your old YT identity separate from your Google one. So really I don't understand why Google thinks they're doing anyone a favor single-sign-on-wise: nothing has changed here.
jmillikin 13y ago
Every Google acquisition with a pre-existing account system kept that system for a period of time (IIRC, typically years) after being acquired. AdSense, Blogger, and FeedBurner are examples.
brigade 13y ago
Yep. Creating YouTube-only accounts was discontinued over 5 years ago, and as of 2011 all such accounts must be merged into a Google account.
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
> The only system with a separate login was ever YouTube Rewrite history much? Every platform Google ever acquired had it's own login, and Google didn't have a login for a loooong time. But all of that is besides the point. This is not about SSO, this is about an SSO fully integrated with a service geared at destroying anonymity and privacy. I wouldn't mind a single Google login if that was what it was: a login, a username and password. Google+ is so, so much more.
- saurik 13y ago
  OK, look: the other people who responded about orher systems Google had that had other login systems (hours before you) were both constructive (showing specific examples) and general not jerks about it... They also kept this thread about SSO on topic--jmillikin specifically states "unified login/account system"--nor did they then decide to respond this negative without any real argument. The whole point of this Ask HN was that a bunch of us dislike G+, but the goal was to discuss the reasons why G+ was being pushed internally at Google, and some people from Google were nice enough to actually respond, so let's do away with the random "service geared at destroying anonymity and privacy" rhetoric for a minute. So: I'm sorry. I did mess this one up. I don't think, however, that my mistake was actually important from the perspective of the article. I've been using some of the services people are saying had third party login support now for many many years, and unlike YouTube I do not remember ever seeing any kind of disconnection between account models used on each. Maybe they were just integrated faster, or maybe its because I had a YouTube account that was ancient and had options that others long since did not. But either way: it doesn't seem like SSO is an argument for Google+. Google already had single sign on, and to the extent to which it ever had separate login systems that it maintained for its acquisitions they were all rapidly merged. Maybe even in the case of YouTube (which I still feel was different, give that as recently as a year ago I remember still having the ability to manipulate my underlying YouTube account). Forcing the account to use G+ does make it get forced to use the underlying picture and name from the other account. I can see that as being vaguely interesting. But that goes beyond a "unified login/account system".

bowlofpetunias 13y ago

Either you were very late to the party, or you have a very short memory. Most people didn't have a "Google account". They had a GMail account. If they had Blogger or YouTube accounts, they usually had them before Gmail. It was bad enough when Google started shoving those accounts into one and tacking services on people didn't ask for without politely asking them to sign-up. But now they are forcing people into an entirely new service that has the explicit purpose to expose them and to annihilate their privacy. I wouldn't mind the principle of one single account for all Google services in principle, if a) I can have multiple accounts, b) such an account can be know as "honeybooboo666", and doesn't need my real name or phone number, and c) that account does not to automatically sign me in to services I didn't sign up for and I don't want to use on that account. The latter is especially important so that anything "honeybooboo666" does on YouTube isn't accidentally registered under my other accounts of MyJob@BigCorp and MyRealName@Family That's why people have separate accounts. honeybooboo666, MyJob@BigCorp and bowlofpetunias are very different entities, and trying to "out" them all as "MyRealName who works at BigCorp" is just not on.