5 ms·

So they got to a meeting and said: "Listen guys, if allowing nick names won't jumpstart Google+ then I don't know what will. It's either this or we'll close the

by f055 12y ago

So they got to a meeting and said: "Listen guys, if allowing nick names won't jumpstart Google+ then I don't know what will. It's either this or we'll close the damn thing." 18 months from now, we'll read about the all-along-planned integration of G+ into Gmail, Drive or YouTube :P

frandroid 12y ago
You mean un-integration?
- fleitz 12y ago
  Were you looking for disintegration?
  - f055 12y ago
    Disintegration! into pieces spread around gmail, drive and YT. That's probably what'll happen :)
  - aiiane 12y ago
    EXTERMINATE. EXTERMINATE.
Throwaway823 12y ago
Definitely a mistake, they took a service that wasn't working (G+), integrated, and forced it on users for services that did work. I'm curious to see what happens, because it can't just be rolled back, and I think it's removing more value than it's creating.
Shooti 12y ago
I think it's the reverse: the main purpose of G+ was to integrate all the services together, being a Facebook competitor was just the icing. The integration wasn't a means, it was the end itself. They haven't really lost since they still got what they needed out of it in the end: the majority of accounts have a unified profile across services, even though G+ the site is unused.