4 ms·

People don't like change. People like what they had. People hate that Google is deciding to move forward. Now forcing the changes on their user base so that Goo

by Kequc 13y ago

People don't like change. People like what they had. People hate that Google is deciding to move forward. Now forcing the changes on their user base so that Google doesn't have an unlimited number of different things to maintain.

wpietri 13y ago
I think it's more than a dislike of change. It's not clear to me that Google is moving forward. I might characterize it more as "upward" in the sense that they're solidifying their dominant position. Moving forward is precisely what I fear them losing. Of course, it's easy to move forward when you're new and have nothing to lose. Moving forward is much harder when you're the dominant player, because moving forward puts you at risk.
- Kequc 13y ago
  I feel that I've been waiting for them to do something with youtube for a long time. Making it and Google plus the same thing is probably the right move. Youtube in general needs a lot of renovation. The structure of Google plus suits content aggregation really well, it was designed for it. So I think it's a really good fit and I can't really wait for the transition to be finished. My hesitation used to be something along the lines of I don't want Youtube users on Google plus. But I've come to remember, since it has started. I still have complete control over who shows up in my streams.
  - alandarev 13y ago
    Indeed, why not enforce people use social network if they want to watch a video?
skriticos2 13y ago
I always wondered why this is. I know people hate change and it baffles me (I long for progressive change). I understand that having a basic stable framework is a nice thing to have, but rejecting change outright is somewhat backward IMO. Then again I was always a fan of SciFi thinking about where we'll be in the future, so I'm probably a weird oddball person. I'm probably overlooking something here, like re-learning changing stuff is not preferable for many and tech is only tool and not lifestyle.
onetwofiveten 13y ago
I don't think that's the case. Google is a relatively young company and its entire success grew out of smart people recognising good quality products and embracing change. It happens that Google is now changing in a way that ultimately will hurt (and is hurting) users. The smart connected early adopters that previously loved Google can see what is going on and they don't like it.
- Kequc 13y ago
  I'll respond. I've been an early adopter of most of the products google has made available. They're consistently ahead of the curve with only a few exceptions. Youtube is technologically ahead of the curve, talking about the bandwidth and processing that goes on within that service is mind numbing. But other than what they've managed to accomplish on a technical scale with the service, everything else has been lacking. First and foremost I would say that unifying sign in with the rest of Google's products is a no brainer. But people have even been fighting that on Youtube. Google+ is their identity service, first and foremost so all accounts are being moved there. If you don't want to use the social aspects of it you don't have to. I'd suggest you do because it's really convenient. They are investing a lot of money into context awareness. They already know who you are. What you search for, what you like, what you want to know. They know your name phone number and birth date. Putting this identity service into play just brings all of that up to the surface and gives you some control. If Google wanted to be evil at this point they wouldn't need to give you Google+ to do it.

by Kequc 13y ago

wpietri 13y ago

I think it's more than a dislike of change. It's not clear to me that Google is moving forward. I might characterize it more as "upward" in the sense that they're solidifying their dominant position. Moving forward is precisely what I fear them losing. Of course, it's easy to move forward when you're new and have nothing to lose. Moving forward is much harder when you're the dominant player, because moving forward puts you at risk.

Kequc 13y ago
I feel that I've been waiting for them to do something with youtube for a long time. Making it and Google plus the same thing is probably the right move. Youtube in general needs a lot of renovation. The structure of Google plus suits content aggregation really well, it was designed for it. So I think it's a really good fit and I can't really wait for the transition to be finished. My hesitation used to be something along the lines of I don't want Youtube users on Google plus. But I've come to remember, since it has started. I still have complete control over who shows up in my streams.
- alandarev 13y ago
  Indeed, why not enforce people use social network if they want to watch a video?

skriticos2 13y ago

I always wondered why this is. I know people hate change and it baffles me (I long for progressive change). I understand that having a basic stable framework is a nice thing to have, but rejecting change outright is somewhat backward IMO. Then again I was always a fan of SciFi thinking about where we'll be in the future, so I'm probably a weird oddball person. I'm probably overlooking something here, like re-learning changing stuff is not preferable for many and tech is only tool and not lifestyle.

onetwofiveten 13y ago

I don't think that's the case. Google is a relatively young company and its entire success grew out of smart people recognising good quality products and embracing change. It happens that Google is now changing in a way that ultimately will hurt (and is hurting) users. The smart connected early adopters that previously loved Google can see what is going on and they don't like it.

Kequc 13y ago
I'll respond. I've been an early adopter of most of the products google has made available. They're consistently ahead of the curve with only a few exceptions. Youtube is technologically ahead of the curve, talking about the bandwidth and processing that goes on within that service is mind numbing. But other than what they've managed to accomplish on a technical scale with the service, everything else has been lacking. First and foremost I would say that unifying sign in with the rest of Google's products is a no brainer. But people have even been fighting that on Youtube. Google+ is their identity service, first and foremost so all accounts are being moved there. If you don't want to use the social aspects of it you don't have to. I'd suggest you do because it's really convenient. They are investing a lot of money into context awareness. They already know who you are. What you search for, what you like, what you want to know. They know your name phone number and birth date. Putting this identity service into play just brings all of that up to the surface and gives you some control. If Google wanted to be evil at this point they wouldn't need to give you Google+ to do it.