Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Google+ API Is Released

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the expanding-circles dept.

Google 154

An anonymous reader writes "Developers have been waiting since late June for Google to release their API to the public. Well, today is that day. Just a few minute ago Chris Chabot, from Google+ Developer Relations, announced that the Google+ API is now available to the public."

cancel ×

154 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Read only (4, Interesting)

Trillan (597339) | about 3 years ago | (#37412956)

I can't wait to see all the interesting ideas developers have for using this read only API.

Re:Read only (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37413028)

I can't wait to see all the interesting ideas developers have for using this read only API.

since the average ghetto-rat thug nigger who worships a life of crime and depravity wouldn't understand this, that automatically makes the API racist!

that's your cue, Libs! wet your pants, wet your bed, froth at the mouth, ignore all rationality, and scream as loud as you can about how terribly discriminatory this is. that's how you solve all of your problems and by God let's not rock that boat.

we must dumb down everything. that way no one's feelings ever get hurt. ever.

Re:Read only (3, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about 3 years ago | (#37413090)

It is kind of lame. All you can do is read what's on someone's page. This will make screen-scraping easier.

Interestingly, it's all JSON. XML seems to be on the way out for API interfaces.

Re:Read only (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37413128)

Hopefully. XML is awful. Especially for human-readable formatting.
JSON has much better structure and isn't an absolute fustercluck of text like XML ends up becoming.

Even the INI format is better than XML. Yes, I am serious.

All my opinion, of course.

JSON (4, Interesting)

jDeepbeep (913892) | about 3 years ago | (#37413372)

Not to mention, the spec for JSON fits on one side of a business card [lessthandot.com] , readably.

Re:Read only (2)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37415818)

XML is awful. Especially for human-readable formatting.

XML isn't intended for human-readable formatting.

Re:Read only (1)

Trillan (597339) | about 3 years ago | (#37413424)

Coincidentally, at my company we decided on a (gradual) move from XML to JSON yesterday. (We've discussed it a number of times, but this time we finally made the choice.)

Re:Read only (0)

binford2k (142561) | about 3 years ago | (#37413700)

I can't wait to see the next API release. Quit frothing to feel self important.

Yes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37412958)

And nothing was lost.

What? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37412962)

They used a chatbot to launch the API?

Re:What? (1, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37413080)

His avatar is a unicorn, so yeah, I guess so.

Google what ? (0)

ALimoges (870872) | about 3 years ago | (#37412972)

What for?

Too little, too late? (0)

gellenburg (61212) | about 3 years ago | (#37412982)

Until they reverse their stance on real names, sadly I have no f*cks to give.

Re:Too little, too late? (4, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37413030)

If you're not going to use the word "fuck" in plaintext when you're pseudonymized, then why the fuck do you care if you use your real name or not?

Re:Too little, too late? (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37413042)

Okay. I just realized the irony. Let's see if anyone else does.

Re:Too little, too late? (1)

gellenburg (61212) | about 3 years ago | (#37413054)

Okay. I just realized the irony. Let's see if anyone else does.

Took you long enough. :-)

Re:Too little, too late? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37414246)

It was funny because George Ellenburg *wasn't* pseudonymized. And not it's not.

Re:Too little, too late? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37414810)

Just shut up.

Re:Too little, too late? (1)

drewzhrodague (606182) | about 3 years ago | (#37413234)

Keep appealing, and answering the name changer thingy. After a bit of complaining and reporting, they now allow me to use my official pseudonym.

Re:Too little, too late? (1)

gellenburg (61212) | about 3 years ago | (#37413326)

Never used a pseudonym on Google+. My issue was never about *me* being able to use one.

So I did the next best thing - I've deleted my Google Profile and have moved on.

Thought I'd never say this, but Bing's search isn't all that bad! (j/k, j/k)

Re:Too little, too late? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37415086)

Never used a pseudonym on Google+. My issue was never about *me* being able to use one.

So I did the next best thing - I've deleted my Google Profile and have moved on.

Maybe you should do the real best thing - Quit being a whiny bitch and use your real name if you're going to go to a social networking site.

Re:Too little, too late? (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37415834)

Parent just said using his real name wasn't the issue. Did you just read "deleted my Google Profile" and immediately jump into Google fanboi mode?

Re:Too little, too late? (1)

horza (87255) | about 3 years ago | (#37415378)

Same here. I stopped sending out invites, and gave up using G+. With the real names policy only a portion of the people I know will be prepared to switch, not making it worth my while to badger and cajole people into switching from Facebook. G+ is pretty much dead in the water. But people still hate Facebook so there is still room for a new competitor!

Phillip.

Re:Too little, too late? (1)

gellenburg (61212) | about 3 years ago | (#37415604)

I wish Diaspora* would change their fucking name so it'd be more appealing to the masses.

Also wishing I had donated my $100 to Michael Chisari and The Appleseed Project over Diaspora* but I didn't know about Appleseed until after I had donated to Diaspora. ::sigh::

Use it while you can... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37412984)

Until they discontinue it.

Good (1)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | about 3 years ago | (#37412988)

Now maybe there will be something interesting to use Google+ for...

Re:Good (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37413064)

You'd think a few games might help, but considering that one of the prime draws of Facebook games is that they reward social behavior (i.e. getting your friends involved) they also reward fake social behavor exploits (i.e. making up lots of fake accounts to pretend you have more friends and get more points).

Google+ sorta forbids that cloning aspect of social gaming. But maybe a nice port of Tetris or FreeCell would get them some dwell time...

G+ games (3, Interesting)

jDeepbeep (913892) | about 3 years ago | (#37413330)

Games on G+ can also reward you for spamming/recruiting your friends. Angry Birds on G+ for example will keep levels locked until you and your friends have a cumulative total of stars to unlock them, so naturally you want to get more people playing. Another game lets you ask for hearts to continue gameplay and equally you can donate hearts. The difference here though is people in your circles will not see all this game stuff unless they are also in their games stream.

Re:G+ games (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37415724)

No no. You're missing it. Facebook thinks it's about spamming your friends. But Facebook users have made it about building fake friends to game the games.

Which has actually made Facebook more popular, because it's not all about spamming your friends.

I'd estimate half of Facebook's "users" are fake accounts used to stat-up gameplay.

Re:G+ games (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37415840)

Someone I know has over 500 friends that he has friended only to play Castle Age. So it doesn't encourage fake friends, it encourages fake friendships as well.

Tetris clones (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37413338)

Google+ sorta forbids that cloning aspect of social gaming. But maybe a nice port of Tetris or FreeCell would get them some dwell time

Guess who else tries to forbid cloning: The Tetris Company.

Re:Good (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 3 years ago | (#37413474)

So does Facebook

Facebook only allows one account per person.

Re:Good (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | about 3 years ago | (#37414076)

Facebook only allows one account per person.

Yeah, but they don't really do much in order to enforce that. And they are right about that - someone making an account for his dog may be pointless, but it's harmless, too.

Re:Good (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37415756)

My friend (actual friend; I personally have no clones) has accounts for her dead father, her three dogs, several of her birds, and a potholder. At least it looks like a potholder in the picture. And several that are just her, with her own name anagrammed or otherwise manipulated, and photos of her at various ages and in various costumes.

She may have more than 30, total.

And from what I've seen, there's no way she's in the top half of the cloning histogram.

What Facebook has written rules for, and what facebook allows, are two vastly different things.

Re:Good (1)

digitig (1056110) | about 3 years ago | (#37414676)

The big appeal of G+ is that I don't get constantly spammed about games. Lots of G+ games and it loses it's USP.

Re:Good (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37415730)

Your twitter stream is about to come with embedded commercial tweets, too.

Nothing great is ever built in a vacuum, he says (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37413000)

TFA: [[Nothing great is ever built in a vacuum ]]

Dyson would beg to differ.
NASA is also clearing its throat.

Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (3, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37413016)

Google+ didn't bring the gamechange.

It's a ghost town.

You can see Linus Torvalds and the Google Twins there, but hardly anyone else ever posts. And they don't much either. Linus' last post is 9/6, and Sergey's is 8/28, and Larry's is 8/13...

Google needed more than a convention hall. It needed to emcee the convention. Now we have an API, and maybe some people to P it, nobody to A it.

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37413102)

Just because they don't post to you doesn't mean they don't post. I have hundreds of posts, but each one of them is private so my public profile looks empty. I don't know anyone who makes public posts. That's kind of the entire point, which you appear to have missed.

public posts (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | about 3 years ago | (#37413266)

I don't know anyone who makes public posts. That's kind of the entire point, which you appear to have missed

There are many I've found who use G+ as they use Twitter, IOW all public posts, like a broadcasting station/soapbox. I find what you say to be generally true of most other users though (including myself). I post daily but you wouldn't know it from my profile.

Blogger (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37413360)

There are many I've found who use G+ as they use Twitter, IOW all public posts, like a broadcasting station/soapbox.

And there are many who use Google's other soapbox service [blogger.com] , especially because unlike Google+, Blogger is open to the public.

Re:public posts (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | about 3 years ago | (#37416436)

Errr - how would you know that they're all public?

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (2)

bonch (38532) | about 3 years ago | (#37413124)

The media hype made it seem more important than it really was. Same happened with Wave.

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (1)

Schnapple (262314) | about 3 years ago | (#37414892)

And ChromeOS.

"GOOGLE IS GOING TO TAKE ON MICROSOFT WITH ITS OWN OPERATING SYSTEM!!!"

Yes, mainstream media, Google has figured out a way to make a computer that only has a web browser. Look out Microsoft, your days are numbered. You cannot possibly hope to compete with Google's operating system which does not give the ability to write code for it.

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37415852)

Wasn't ChromeOS Linux based? If so, how did they prevent people from writing code for it?

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (1)

sehlat (180760) | about 3 years ago | (#37413138)

John Scalzi praised it highly, and I was interested, right up until the fine print swam into view.

IMO, the killer was the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned "Real Name" requirement. I have a google account I use for my Reader, Mail, Calendar, and Docs/Notepad the last three of which are also synchronized on my phone for mobile access. There was and is simply NO way in hell I would risk losing those under google's draconian "Right name or die!" policy, and I rather suspect an awful lot of people just walked away from the threat.

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (1)

binford2k (142561) | about 3 years ago | (#37413756)

lol. If by "an awful lot" you mean a handful of self righteous nerds, then I rather suspect you might be right.

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37413906)

I would hardly classify myself as a "self righteous nerd", sir. More of a "I'm damned if I'll go naked on the net where everybody lives next door to both Mother Teresa and Jack the Ripper."

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37414656)

No. Just look at /., most forums, reddit - many people do not want to use their real name on the internet just to pass messages along. A lot of us like anonymity when we want to say something off-the-record in one way or another.

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37413206)

Wtf are you talking about? I have tons of traffic on my g+ account and see tons of interaction.

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (1)

jeffeb3 (1036434) | about 3 years ago | (#37413210)

Ironically, the people I know that like it most hate facebook, and consequently aren't used to using social media (myself included).

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | about 3 years ago | (#37413658)

I'm in that group as well. I hate Facebook, and have disliked every other major social networking site. I do like Google+, and even people think it's a Ghost Town, it's because of where they are looking. I see plenty of activity.

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (1)

pspahn (1175617) | about 3 years ago | (#37413298)

The July 28th blog post on betashop.com tells a bit of a different story. ( link to Google cache, the regular site seems to be off atm. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Kro0IOBNR3IJ:betashop.com/page/2+site:betashop.com+betashop+google+plus&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [googleusercontent.com] - It's toward the bottom below the "Make the logo smaller" t-shirt)

It was (at the time) their single highest traffic day and 5% of that traffic came from Google+. That's nearly 9000 visits in one day to a site that is one of the fastest growing e-commerce sites on the planet.

It's not facebook. It's not twitter. But it has certainly contributed enough to fab's bottom line that I have a difficult time believing they are ready to ditch the +1.

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37413408)

Pretty much this.
Google wanted to make "an identity" service, after all.
The idiots behind it never had a clue. Seriously no clue.

This could have went another way entirely.
Google+ hype. Prepare a whole rewrite of Orkut and Buzz.
RENAME ORKUT, IT IS A TERRIBLE NAME.
Integrate all 3 services pretty seamlessly.
Launch G+, show people that they have the choice of using a full-on social network, just the basic G+ profile and communication stuff, or Buzz, which is quite literally just your G+ wall. (or Orkut wall, they are all the same thing)
This has all 3 types of social networking as one seamless group of services, all sharing the main part that matters, the actual communication.
This COULD have happened, but Google is an absolute mess of unrelated products and teams.
They don't need to do a damn thing about "focusing more" when they canned Labs and a bunch of other useful things, they need to COMMUNICATE MORE.
Seriously, they should hire me, I'd turn that damn company around in 2 months. It is embarrassing how such a company can exist with so little communication between completely related services.

They are never going to topple Crapbook at this rate. They lost all the hype now, that is it, it is done. They sealed their own fate.
Hope they enjoy not working at Google in half a year when it gets canned and they get "the stares" and feel unwelcome.

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (2)

defaria (741527) | about 3 years ago | (#37413434)

It's a ghost town to you perhaps but way not for me. I spend more time on Google+ than I have done on FacePlant... I mean FaceBook.

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (1)

RonVNX (55322) | about 3 years ago | (#37413440)

The public wants an alternative to Facebook. Google+, as especially revealed by their "real names" policy is trying to be Facebook. G+ just is not filling any need of those who are unhappy with Facebook, let alone those who are happy.

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (2)

binford2k (142561) | about 3 years ago | (#37413746)

erm. I see scads more content on g+ than on facebook --OR-- on slashdot. And it's actual useful interesting stuff.

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37414102)

Maybe you're just not following the right/enough people. I have over 40 posts from the last four hours in my stream. Try following some of these people and I guarantee G+ won't feel like a ghost town:

Tom Merritt [google.com] Leo Laporte [google.com]
Cali Lewis [google.com] Danny Sullivan [google.com] Jeff Jarvis [google.com] Louis Gray [google.com] Tim O'Reilly [google.com] Jonathan Strickland [google.com] Natalie Villalobos [google.com] Eileen Rivera [google.com] Kiki Sanford [google.com] Colby Brown [google.com] Dan Patterson [google.com] Felicia Day [google.com] Surprise! [google.com] Harry McCracken [google.com] Trey Ratcliff [google.com] Gina Trapani [google.com] Veronica Belmont [google.com] Ron Garan [google.com] Clever Nickname [google.com]

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (2, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 years ago | (#37414512)

IT LAUNCHED TWO FUCKING MONTHS AGO. You know what my facebook wall looked like two months after launch? Nothing, because I hadn't signed up for it yet. Also, the facebook wall didn't go up until 7 months after launch [facebook.com] . 10 months it had 1 million users. Two months out, google+ has 10 million users.

Anyway, I see facebook making changes in response to the competition. Not fixing all gripes with it of course, but changes are being made to the... er... "game" as it were.

(By the way, let's not start using the term "gamechange." Sounds too much like some douchebag marketing suit talking.)

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37414988)

Facebook wasn't Google. Everyone was on MySapce. Nobody really knew Facebook existed for a couple of years.

Google+ is Facebook++, and Google wallpapered the world with announcing it was open.

Okay, it was open. It was also void of elemental human interaction, and the forced-looking posting on it isn't creating a critical mass.

The API might help. If they can get some dwellers into some applets. Then people will go there to be, not just to see if it's woke up yet.

Add a game, and it might gamechange the cybersphere. But, better still, promise to keep the SEOtards out, and I'll buy land in it.

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (2)

nEoN nOoDlE (27594) | about 3 years ago | (#37416006)

Look, you can't really compare the timelines between Facebook and Google+. Facebook has been around for almost a decade, and when it came out it didn't have many competitors, the whole social networking concept was new and experimental. Now Facebook is the established brand in social networking - pretty much invented the market - and it's going to be incredibly difficult for Google to topple it, even if the numbers show it to be oh so much more successful in the short term than Facebook was when it started.

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 3 years ago | (#37416496)

Facebook grew by word-of-mouth, just like Google's search engine incidentally. Why is it that we believe that a big media blitz can beat that? If Edison had hyped to death his first or second try at a light bulb, we'd be using candles today.

If Google want to build a better social networking site, maybe they should spend less on marketing, throw together lots of alternative sites, and see what sticks on the wall (pun intended). It's not like they can't afford it.

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (2)

brunes69 (86786) | about 3 years ago | (#37414852)

You are following the wrong people. I follow people on G+ that post like 10+ times daily. If anything they post TOO much.

Re:Cool. Just in time for Google to EOL Google+ (1)

Cico71 (603080) | about 3 years ago | (#37415254)

I agree :(

I have only 155 people in my circles but it's already too much. There are too many of them that are simply using it as FB. For example: if I want to post something funny, or simply not technology related, I have a list of people called "Pub" with people inside that I know that don't mind reading all kind of stuff. When I post something technology related, I post it to some circle where I put people I know are following that technology.

However, if we don't all follow similar rules, if people simply post to either to public or all circles, trying to filter by your circles is useless as you simply get all sort of garbage everywhere :) pretty much like in FB where most people didn't even know about lists.

I hoped that with Goggle+ people would start fresh and start using circles in a proper way, also because it seems there are more geeks than in FB. I stopped hoping.

Not a very big API (1)

dfsmith (960400) | about 3 years ago | (#37413052)

It only has "get" person, "list" activities and "get" activity. You can't post or do anything interesting with it yet. Hopefully they'll open it up more soon.

another google project bites the dust (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37413118)

Wish Google would stop all these failed attempts at social and try to innovate somewhere else. IMO most of social is done and over, which is a good thing...it's now integrated into peoples lives and there are plenty of players in the game with no pressing need for another. Only until those companies get too fat and happy should you strike..not while the already popular platforms continue to push the boundaries.

Re:another google project bites the dust (2)

Riceballsan (816702) | about 3 years ago | (#37413618)

Facebook was too fat and happy. I would say more facebook features rolled out in the few months since G+ came out, then in years prior (no randomly re-organizing the interface to annoy your users does not count as a feature). Honestly I think if facebook did like microsoft and went by a hold the course, send out some bad publicity strategy, google would have rapidly overtook them. Googles biggest weakness is every way they inovate the social network side, facebook rapidly copies. Facebooks newer system for groups, now allowing public feeds etc... Everything google does, is quickly copied and mirrored, facebook knows google is not one to play the patent/cheat card, and facebook is going to keep using that to their advantage.

Re:another google project bites the dust (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about 3 years ago | (#37414070)

IMO most of social is done and over, which is a good thing...it's now integrated into peoples lives and there are plenty of players in the game with no pressing need for another.

If ad viewers are sending id+preferences to your competitors instead of to you, then social isn't done. There is always pressing need for another, if you're the "another."

Don't view social networking as just another application. If it were just another application, then all these fucking web companies wouldn't be doing it; it would just be something users run instead of central nodes that they upload to; indeed, it would be something they already had (email+IRC+other stuff), because the older tools actually work better for users, but don't work worth a shit for customers.

Google is right in wanting to get into it. So is Facebook and Microsoft and anyone else. It's a good pie to have a piece of.

Well its a start (1)

tecker (793737) | about 3 years ago | (#37413254)

Read only makes it easy to start with. Maybe now tweetdeck and others can get view capabilities. If I can see things on G+ I am likely to go over and post.

The trick with Write is the authentication. Now google has to figure out how to do an authentication scheme it likes (read "they developed to take over the web") for that to happen.

Re:Well its a start (1)

brunes69 (86786) | about 3 years ago | (#37415032)

Google already has an authentication scheme across all their products.

They implement OpenID and OAuth for all google accounts.

Re:Well its a start (1)

Tacvek (948259) | about 3 years ago | (#37415036)

Google APIs generally use Authsub (A google invented protocol), or the combination of OpenId and OpenAuth, possibly using the Hybrid Protocol [googlecode.com] ,

I'd be excited about this... (2)

grasshoppa (657393) | about 3 years ago | (#37413280)

...if they ever got around to fixing google apps so it worked with google+. Instead, all we ( us google apps users ) get are false promises...when we get anything at all.

Can anyone recommend a decent competitor to Google Apps?

Re:I'd be excited about this... (1)

darkmeridian (119044) | about 3 years ago | (#37413758)

Don't throw a rotten tomato at me, but Office 365 is pretty good, especially its SharePoint feature.

Re:I'd be excited about this... (1)

edmicman (830206) | about 3 years ago | (#37413764)

This. I could probably convince a number of friends and family to check it out but they don't want to sign up for a gmail.com specific account when they already have Google Apps accounts. If they added profiles to Google Apps accounts (or whatever is holding this back) and API features so I can cross-post (a la the Twitter app on Facebook) then I'd be set. The mobile app for G+ is light years better than Facebook's, and I especially like the "nearby" stream and the instant upload features. But as it is now, G+ is mainly yet another social network I jump skim through in the morning to see if there's anything interesting but rarely participate because no one I know personally is on there.

Re:I'd be excited about this... (1)

Zoomie1982 (1158443) | about 3 years ago | (#37414178)

Agreed. We've promised profiles for Buzz, Latitude, and G+ for quite a long time...and still no word. I'm not moving my family (who are all on Apps) from Facebook until they fix this.

Re:I'd be excited about this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37414250)

...if they ever got around to fixing google apps so it worked with google+. Instead, all we ( us google apps users ) get are false promises...when we get anything at all.

Can anyone recommend a decent competitor to Google Apps?

Zoho. Does everything GApps does and more, in some cases better, integrates with/authenticates with GApps and regular Google accounts as well as Facebook and Yahoo accounts.

- Oshyan

Re:I'd be excited about this... (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 years ago | (#37414668)

You're thinking about bolting from google apps because their google+ is taking a while longer than they promised? I assume there's a reason that signing up for a regular gmail account and using google plus in the meantime isn't acceptable?

Re:I'd be excited about this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37415718)

Try http://abicollab.net

For a Collaborative Word Processor

(Disclaimer, I part-own the site :-)

gWorld... (1)

Psarchasm (6377) | about 3 years ago | (#37413296)

The piecemeal "lab" releases that were functional but only 75-85% complete were okay 10 years ago. Anymore, they just give the appearance of not really giving a crap. Overlay that with an Apple-esque approach to usability and terms of use and it just becomes gWorld over and over again.

quotas (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37413350)

The first thing that struck me is that quota limits are placed on all applications
      "Applications are limited to a courtesy usage quota"
this will suck for anyone who wants to create an application intended for many users.

API Key???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37413384)

When is anyone going to write a python script that scrapes and provides the same functionality. What is it with everyone about API Keys? Why would anyone access the web with an API key and announce "who am i"?

Re:API Key???? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37413490)

An API key is how a web service shuts down an application that has malfunctioned. How would you recommend shutting down a malfunctioning application without shutting down other applications running behind the same NAT that are not malfunctioning?

Re:API Key???? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 3 years ago | (#37415170)

But parent has a point. For most APIs a key makes sense, because they're the only way an application can access certain actions, but for a read only API like this where all the data can be scraped anyway, blocking an application doesn't buy you much.

Re:API Key???? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37415582)

but for a read only API like this where all the data can be scraped anyway

Spider to the point where an API key would break, and Google will start serving CAPTCHAs.

5 second proofread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37413406)

"A few minute ago"... no day mentioned but "today is that day"... way to go guys.

Google+ still exists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37413456)

Ha!

I tried , i really did... (5, Insightful)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | about 3 years ago | (#37413558)

I was hoping that Google+ would be the next best thing, and pop the bubble that is FaceBook. but its not going to happen, most people that would have wanted to move, tried G+, and left sin no one was there and the people who haven't heard about G+ don't care enough to switch. So unless the new API can cook my dinner and wash my clothes and give me a hand job, there is no reason to switch since all the people i care to talk to (and allot of people I don't) are on the FB, ill just stay until it becomes myspace.

Re:I tried , i really did... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37414352)

So unless the new API can cook my dinner and wash my clothes and give me a hand job, there is no reason to switch since all the people i care to talk to (and allot of people I don't) are on the FB, ill just stay until it becomes myspace.

You know someone was going to say it, so I'll get it out of the way: "you want an API to do your wife's duties?" /ducks

Re:I tried , i really did... (0)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37415890)

Just marry the API then.....

Re:I tried , i really did... (2, Insightful)

jdgeorge (18767) | about 3 years ago | (#37414394)

Mmmm... Yes. Facebook is definitely the service for you're looking for. <Jedi hand wave> There is no Google+.

Re:I tried , i really did... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37415802)

Based on the GP's post, I just thought of three new uses for the Jedi hand wave.

What I really want to know is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37414108)

...is this an anonymous reader's first news submission?

Chris Chatbot (1, Informative)

Fned (43219) | about 3 years ago | (#37414700)

It always takes me three tries to read his name right.

Google+ failed because... (1)

randomsearch (1207102) | about 3 years ago | (#37415030)

Nearly everyone I know that uses Facebook hates using Facebook. So the market was ready for invasion. Hell, people are leaving Facebook in significant numbers and that's with no alternative site to go to!!! Even normal people (you know what I mean) hate Facebook!

Our efforts to promote it didn't work; Google+ has failed.

The reason? Well, there are two:

1. Google+ is a really, really, really, *really* terrible brand-name. Idiots. How does 'Google+' say 'Social Network'? In any way? For the love of God.

2. The interface is complete and utter garbage. I suspect this may have been the biggest problem.

Dear Google, you are very good at some things, but you are hopeless when it comes to interface design. Please hire some people who know what they're doing. Surely you have enough money for that? I hear Apple have a few good designers you could approach.

And now I have to live with Facebook until Microsoft launch something. Good grief.

Can't we just get together on Slashdot and code a Facebook replacement? I estimate it'll take a team of 10 people about 5 hours to surpass Facebook's design... we'll have a head start on Google if we just choose a name that is entirely composed of letters.

RS

Re:Google+ failed because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37415594)

My opinion on why it failed is they tried to create a sense of false scarcity with their whole "invitation-only" thing. That was the biggest joke... it worked for Facebook back in the day when they were only accessible to higher ed, but now it just reeks of a company's desperation to come off as elite when you know they'd kill to have a fraction of Facebook's user base.

And when the invitations people sent me bounced because G+ had turned off invitations? They lost their only shot they had with me. I don't need my social networking site playing coy with me.

Re:Google+ failed because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37415808)

Can't we just get together on Slashdot and code a Facebook replacement?

You'll just end up arguing, not coding.

Re:Google+ failed because... (0)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37415898)

Microsoft's version would crash half the time....

Still haa draconian naming rules. (0)

AbRASiON (589899) | about 3 years ago | (#37415088)

I don't want to use my full name, I don't want my other google services linked to each other. Don't get me wrong, I know they are linked but only Google knows that, other people don't. I (believe?) once you use google plus your display name gets changed on several other services.

Very silly rule, some of us like to seperate our online personas.

Only half of an API (1, Redundant)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 3 years ago | (#37415422)

When I first heard about this, I was excited. I can post to Twitter and Facebook (if I used the latter) using Seesmic Desktop, but can't post to Google+ unless I go to their website. This is because Seesmic (and other 3rd party clients) didn't have an API to access the site. Unfortunately, when I looked at the API, it's read-only. So Seesmic could show you comments on your stream, but to post an update or comment, you'd still have to go to their site. Perhaps the read-and-write API will come soon, but until it is read-and-write it'll only be half of an API to me.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?