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!

Google+ Enters Open Beta

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the google-hangouts-replace-real-hangouts dept.

Google 188

First time accepted submitter morgosmaci sends us a Google Blog post about the transitioning of Google+ from a closed "field trial" to an open beta. As part of the update, Google threw in a number of enhancements to the Hangouts feature: an Android client, named hangouts, integration with Google Docs, and a preliminary web service API. And you can finally search for users, posts, and other content.

cancel ×

188 comments

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

Google+ is a success (4, Interesting)

ge7 (2194648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458188)

But probably not in the way they wanted it to be. It was a success in making Facebook to improve their service. Facebook has now taken all the good things Google+ offered - including improving their games platform streams and just last week they added circles (and it goes both ways, Google+ also completely ripped off Facebook's look and feel)

What's even more worrysome for Google, and not just for Google+ but their entire search engine usage and YouTube, is that this week Facebook will announce a huge upgrade [usatoday.com] with among others music and video services inside Facebook. This means less time spent on YouTube listening to music (yes, people actually do that, a lot) and more time spent on Facebook. When you're listening to music on Facebook, your friends also see what you listen to - a feature teens especially love. Google+ is missing these things entirely, among the other ones Facebook has had for ages.

Now that Google opens up the beta it means they've lost the PR effect of being somewhat mysterious social network. And frankly, it's quite dead there. I've said about this before too on slashdot, and then people suggested some random people who to follow (mostly IT geeks). The thing is, I don't want to follow those random people. It's not interesting. I want to follow my friends and relatives, and maybe some pages of my interest (like games, tv shows, bands etc). Which is yet again another aspect that Google+ is missing - pages. And event planning, and countless amount of other features.

They had a good PR idea of keeping it mysterious in the beginning, but I really wouldn't want to be the guy who decided it's a good idea to go compete against Facebook with an unfinished product. They killed all the potential Google+ had.

Re:Google+ is a success (4, Interesting)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458310)

I agree. The big problem is overcoming the inertia of moving to a new service. For many, Facebook has become their family photo albums. Even if Google+ provides a better service, most do not want to start over. They also don't want to deal with moving all of their pictures over. The daily connectivity and communication is something that can quickly be overcome, but the archived photos and videos is the anchor that will keep people on Facebook.

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458748)

Why do you need to move pictures and videos over? In the past it was email saying "here are some vacation pics, have a look", no need for viewers to be on facebook. To you can keep them there since their actual location shouldn't matter much (it doesn't even have to be Facebook or Google+).

Of course if you're smart always keep a backup at home if you care about the picture.

Re:Google+ is a success (2)

davegravy (1019182) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458898)

I don't have the name anymore, but I found a tool that allowed me to easily (automatically) move all my pictures over. I don't believe there's much facebook can do to stop this, provided the tool runs locally on the user's machine.

Re:Google+ is a success (2)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459220)

They can, safely know that 95% of computer users don't know how to find or use tools to make their lives easier, and that 3/4ths of the 5% won't bother to move because they know there aren't many people they care about moving. That being said, I really like G+, the handfull of friends I care about have moved over there, The many I left behind on facebook, I really don't miss. Within the crew of friends I have, there is more sharing, chatting etc... going on that interest me, then there ever was on facebook.

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37459396)

So basically, since moving to G+, your friends that also moved from Facebook became more interesting?

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

dan828 (753380) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458924)

I had mixed results even getting people to try it. Most that I sent invites to just had no idea what it was, and even when explained didn't want to try it out. A few friends got and and where using it quite a lot, but then as they were unable to get most of their friends on, have pretty much stopped using it. Most don't want to "double post", so have moved back to facebook. We get together to hangout on google still, but that's about all.

Re:Google+ is a success (2)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459110)

That reminds me... I haven't checked FaceBook in a few hours!

Re:Google+ is a success (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37459256)

Regarding sharing pictures: most people I know use picasa for sharing family and vacation photos. Now guess who owns picasa and can easily integrate it into its social network?

Re:Google+ is a success (3)

Artraze (600366) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458328)

> They had a good PR idea of keeping it mysterious in the beginning

I disagree completely. By allowing us to preview it, we could see the 'evils' of its real name policy, account tie ins (and bans), and so on. If they opened it straight away, everyone probably would have jumped on at once (new thing!) and they might have stood a chance. Instead they gave us time to mull over its fundamental design problems^Wgoals and Facebook time to upgrade, and now it's dead before it even lived.

Re:Google+ is a success (2, Interesting)

MBoffin (259181) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458388)

It was a success in making Facebook to improve their service.

Facebook still hasn't improved my trust in them, though.

Facebook improving their "Lists" feature to act like Google+'s Circles doesn't make me any more inclined to use Lists. The fact is, Facebook lost my trust a long time ago and will never get it back. They have a long, long history of opening up your private information without your consent and then (sometimes) allowing you to opt back in to the more closed model.

Lists are something I do not ever want to be public, but I have no assurance or trust whatsoever that Facebook won't one day decide to make everyone's lists viewable to everyone else. As much as I don't trust Google, I at least trust that they won't screw that up.

Re:Google+ is a success (-1, Flamebait)

ge7 (2194648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458438)

Well, you better hope Google doesn't ban you for not using real time or if they even think you're not using your real name - Google+ ban isn't only to Google+, it's to all the other Google services like Gmail and YouTube too.

Downgrade (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458872)

I was under the impression that if a Google+ ban affected non-Google+ services, a user could downgrade his profile [google.com] to get out of the Google+ ban. According to this article [cnet.com] : "Products like Picasa, Reader, and Buzz will revert to the same state they were in before you upgraded to Google+" after a downgrade.

Re:Google+ is a success (3, Informative)

znrt (2424692) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459104)

Well, you better hope Google doesn't ban you for not using real time or if they even think you're not using your real name - Google+ ban isn't only to Google+, it's to all the other Google services like Gmail and YouTube too.

not true. i'm banned from g+ because of name policy violation and can access gmail and youtube. ban only affects socalled social services like g+, picasa and buzz. besides, I can still access g+ in readonly mode.

the naming policy is completely off. they really can't pretend to know better than me how I want to be named. I find it outright idiotic, so there goes g+ ... good sw, though. a shame.

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459236)

That was a myth that has been disproven numerous times.

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459416)

It wasn't a myth; it very much happened, many times. It was, presumably, a bug, and it sounds like it has been fixed.

Re:Google+ is a success (3, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458420)

Facebook lost 12 million members in May (6 million in the US alone) before Google+ launched. Meanwhile, in a limited beta, Google+ became the fasting growing social networking platform in history.

Facebook is aping some of the features, but they'll never change in some the areas that matter. Facebook believes they own your data. They refuse to allow you to fully delete your account. They move privacy settings all the time and refuse to set sane defaults because they want to expose your data against your will. Facebook won't set sane defaults for apps because they want advertisers to have your data. Clicking on a simple link in Facebook can lead to spamming your while friend's list, and Facebook never intends to change that.

Facebook has been around for over 7 years. It took 4 years to reach 100 million members. Google+ got 14 million in a few weeks in a closed beta. I wouldn't be shocked to see them reach 100 million in a year.

Re:Google+ is a success (2, Informative)

ge7 (2194648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458490)

That initial crowd was mostly just curious users. I wanted to see it too, but after that it hasn't seen pretty much any usage.

What comes to sane defaults, Google+ has exactly the same problems. By default all your data is very open, and because it's tightly integrated into Google, your details go public the very second you just register to Google+, because everything is public by default. When you run some game or app it also asks all the same kind of permissions that Facebook apps do. Google+ apps can also spam your whole friend the very same way that Facebook apps can.

Re:Google+ is a success (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37458620)

When you install the Google+ app on your phone the default is checked to upload EVERY photo you take with that phone in case you might need it later. You have to uncheck that if you only want to upload the photos you want to upload. And yes, your profile is open for the world to google it if you don't opt out, that's going to be a major backlash soon when people find out about that.

Re:Google+ is a success (3, Informative)

tycoex (1832784) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458834)

This is untrue. Yes the default (you can uncheck it) is to upload all your photos to Google+, but they are not shown on your profile until you specifically go onto G+ and show them. Until you do this they are just hosted online for you to view privately.

Re:Google+ is a success (0)

ge7 (2194648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458930)

So what happens when teenagers have taken nude pics of themselves for their boyfriend/girlfriend, like many do? They're uploading those pictures to the internet, and now Google is hosting child porn and whoever happens to watch over their shoulder while they log on to Google+ (or someone hacks in) sees their nude pictures.

Yes, awesome and not even slightly privacy violation feature to have on by default.

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459358)

By that definition the phone also is violating their privacy. If someone happens to be looking over the childs shoulder when he opens his pictures folder, or steals his phone, the same problem happens.

Oh Noes!! Nudity!! (1)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459554)

And?

You get a notice when the photo is uploaded and (unlike facebook) that photo isn't out there for the world to see by default. The facebook apps have similar functionality, but unlike G+ immediately share your nudies with your whole friends list. Hi Mom!!

-GiH

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

gotpoetry (1185519) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459680)

The album is private and the option was Opt-IN for me.

Re:Google+ is a success (0)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459268)

That initial crowd was mostly just curious users. I wanted to see it too, but after that it hasn't seen pretty much any usage.

This. I actually have two accounts set up--stupid Google won't let me merge my accounts--and I *never* use either one of them. When I check Gmail, I see that there's a little G+ icon at the top with a '1' in it, so they may be able to say that I've got sessions open, but I can't think of the last time I actually did anything in G+.

For all the complaints about Buzz being auto-integrated with Gmail, I actually like the idea of a social network just being built on top of my email client. The devil, of course, is in the details, but if I've got to go to yet another page to see messages sent to me, it's pretty much not going to happen.

Re:Google+ is a success (4, Informative)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459340)

Not true, in both categories. Google+ by default lists the main parts of your profile, that is true, but as soon as you upload any content, comments, posts, pictures etc... the first thing it does is ask you who you want to be able to see it with the default being your circles (people you have added). Facebook 6 months ago, if you created an account, and uploaded 3 photos and made a status post without changing any options, all of that would have been public. Games take a list of people on your friends list, which makes sense, a social game should list your friends for the sake of knowing who's high scores to show you. Now if say I added a jerk to my friends who idiotically plays a ton of games and accepts every darn "tell your friends about the retarted cow you stepped on" update. Those go to the games feed. If I don't play games, I never click the games feed and thus I never even see the spam. It never mixes in with the posts and things my friends are sharing, etc... Facebook 6 months ago, if you had 2 friends who clicked every stupid share with friends in their games, your feed got so frickin crowded you couldn't find any of the non game-based posts until you started blocking the games, and then you have to block each and every game to keep up with them. Bottom line G+ isn't perfect, but it is leaps and bounds foward from facebooks defaults.

Re:Google+ is a success (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37458496)

Google + only got 14 million users in a few weeks based on Facebook's previous success IMO. They wouldn't have had such traction if FB didn't exist. I don't think they stand a chance!

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458958)

Well, FB only got millions based upon MySpace's success. They wouldn't have had such traction if MySpace didn't exist. I don't think they stand a chance.

Wait, what, you mean FB is extremely popular now?

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

ge7 (2194648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459000)

MySpace only had teens or musicians on it, and it was really crappy otherwise too. Facebook is on completely different level now, and there's not much you can improve it as a general purpose social network. It's basically like Google is in search engine land now - it's just too big and used to kill off.

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459598)

And Xbox only succeeded because Sony had the playstation. . .

The Playstation only succeeded because . . .

Derivative works are win. There's nothing wrong with taking a mediocre idea, improving on it, and making a profit.

-GiH

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37458550)

but they'll never change in some the areas that matter. Facebook believes they own your data

I know what you're saying, and maybe to you and I the area that you clearly refer to here, privacy, is something that does matter to us.

The problem is that to the vast majority of Facebook's users, privacy is simply not something they care enough about and will happily allow Facebook to take it all away from them so long as they can share pictures and chat with their friends and family.

So, Facebook may well have lost 12 million users, but they've still got many 100's of millions more, and the network effect (and lack of care for privacy) will keep them "locked in" for a long time yet.

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458666)

Google thinks they own your data too. And if you think otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you.

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459226)

The terms of service for Google+ clearly state that you own your data. The FB terms of service claim they own your data.

FB never let you export your data until Google offered that. Even still, you can't remove your profile and truly delete it from Facebook. That is their data and they won't delete it. Google allows you to completely remove your profile if you want.

Facebook's own two and a half year field trial (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458720)

Facebook has been around for over 7 years. It took 4 years to reach 100 million members.

That's because Facebook spent its first two and a half years, from February 2004 through September 2006, in a closed field trial: first college students and then high school students were allowed in. Graduated before February 2004? The only way to get an account was to go back to grad school.

Re:Google+ is a success (1, Informative)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459032)

Meanwhile, in a limited beta, Google+ became the fasting growing social networking platform in history.

It's pretty easy for any Google service to become the fastest growing anything 'in history', because all Google has to do is induce existing Google users to sign up. Their historical problem has been to grow beyond that initial surge.
 

Facebook has been around for over 7 years. It took 4 years to reach 100 million members. Google+ got 14 million in a few weeks in a closed beta.

It may have taken Facebook four years to reach 100 million users, but it currently has 750 million users. 14 million is a bit of evaporation off of a drop in the bottom of the bucket. (And likely most of those 14 million were existing users of Google services, not new users.)
 

I wouldn't be shocked to see them reach 100 million in a year.

I would be. Despite Gmail being around for years now - it still remains a distant third among web mail systems. Despite Google Groups being around for years, it too remains in second place. Picasa, the horrid piece of crippled crap that it is, remains a distant second... Buzz is practically unknown Etc... etc...
 
Practically everywhere Google faces entrenched competition, it comes off badly. If it doesn't have to do with search and/or data aggregation, their services are rarely better enough than their competitors to get people to switch. (That Google tends to roll out a service and then benignly neglect it for years at a stretch doesn't help much.) On top of that, with G+ they are at or near the point where they're going to have to deal with a reverse network effect - I.E. once the novelty wears off, they still don't have the numbers to assure critical mass. And when it comes to social networking, those numbers (of grandmas, and old classmates, and old shipmates) are everything.

Re:Google+ is a success (3, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459210)

Google has never been able to fight off entrenched competition?

Have you ever heard of Android?

Microsoft also shut down their blogging product, because Google dominated that market. Google isn't first in every market, but that doesn't mean that Google fails in every market.

Web mail numbers are always skeptical. How many people create throwaway Hotmail and Yahoo accounts simply because they can? How many spammers create Hotmail and Yahoo accounts?

Google makes it harder to create throwaway and spam accounts, and thusly has fewer Gmail accounts. That doesn't mean the service is failing. I wouldn't be shocked if Gmail had more real users than Hotmail.

Re:Google+ is a success (2)

ge7 (2194648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459238)

Google bought of Blogspot, they didn't make it. If Google wants to succeed in social networks market, they need to buy off Facebook, and that isn't going to happen.

Re:Google+ is a success (4, Funny)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459284)

Facebook can't possibly succeed as a new product, because MySpace is king!

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458538)

Facebook will never have the primary feature that Google+ has. That is, Facebook can never be an alternative to Facebook.

I'm following friends and relatives on Google+. I'm not on Facebook so I'm not following anyone there, and the family I have there want to leave it and I don't have any "omg gotta check Facebook!" style friends.

Alternative to MySpace (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458912)

That is, Facebook can never be an alternative to Facebook.

Nor can Google+ be an alternative to Google+. Truth is, Facebook was already an alternative to MySpace between the fourth quarter of 2006, when Facebook's field trial ended, and the fourth quarter of 2010, when MySpace became my_____.

Re:Google+ is a success (2)

Scottingham (2036128) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458568)

If Google+ had an analog of the Events feature, all my friends would have jumped ship months ago. It's about the only useful thing on Facebook.

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458662)

Not for nothing, but "Circles" is actually a feature from Diaspora that Google stole.

So Facebook just paid it forward.

Re:Google+ is a success (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37458814)

Certainly helped diaspora didn't it?

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

DevConcepts (1194347) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458742)

"Google+ also completely ripped off Facebook's look and feel"

Try again. With all the blah blah blah about G+ &FB and who stole what and yet not one mention of the open source, community driven, social web, Diaspora
http://blog.joindiaspora.com/what-is-diaspora.html [joindiaspora.com]
That is where G+ got its look & feel.

What is Diaspora?
Diaspora is the social network that puts you in control of your information. You decide what you’d like to share, and with whom. You retain full ownership of all your information, including friend lists, messages, photos, and profile details.

Share what you want, with who you want.

Google+, You are a product, We have to have your real name, FB, We own everything you do & say.

Freedom and free speech are available in a new location.

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

ge7 (2194648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458830)

Do you seriously think that Google+ took its look from some project that no one actually uses instead of mimicking Facebook's look which everyone is familiar with?

Besides, Facebook always kind of had circles, it was just buried under. Many people saw a problem with that, and I'm pretty sure Google would had seen it without Diaspora too. It's just common sense.

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

DevConcepts (1194347) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459034)

Argue circle, squares, aspects and interfaces all you want, there is only one that will let you be a cat/dog/fish if you want.

And not cancel your account for it.

Re:Google+ is a success (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37458824)

"music and video services inside Facebook. This means less time spent on YouTube listening to music (yes, people actually do that, a lot) and more time spent on Facebook."

What if I don't have or want a facebook or google accounts? youtube doesn't require any logging in.

Re:Google+ is a success (3, Insightful)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458842)

At least Google+ lets me write half a book as my status update if I want to. Facebook makes me Tweet or write a note that no one looks at.

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458928)

Facebook has become the Microsoft of social networking: rather than innovate anything themselves, they can let other companies do the R&D, then rip off whatever's successful. Win-win for Facebook, at least until no one else is willing to try to compete with them anymore.

Re:Google+ is a success (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458936)

> I want to follow my friends and relatives, and maybe some pages of my interest (like games, tv shows, bands etc).

I like to phone and talk in person to my family and friends. Those who refuse to do that with me unless its through Facebook or some other flavour of the month social site can can eat me. So no, Google will not lose search and youtube usage as there are plenty of us who would rather not be the commodity of some website business.

Re:Google+ is a success (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37459040)

let me get this straight, google copies facebook, so facebook turns into myspace. :/

never invited to Gmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37458238)

I don't use Gmail for the same reason I don't use Google+. Nobody ever invited me to it.

Forever alone.

Re:never invited to Gmail (2, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458354)

Well, if you'd stop posting Goatse links, perhaps people would want to spend more time around you...

For the impatient... (4, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458252)

go to google.com/+ [google.com] and you can sign up through there.

Or you can read the article and eventually find the link.

Re:For the impatient... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37458736)

Who would be dumb enough to do this?

Re:For the impatient... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37458866)

Unless you're a google apps user...

Still no Apps for Domains (5, Informative)

Imagix (695350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458276)

And yet you _still_ cannot join Google+ if you have a paid-for Google Apps for Domains account.

Re:Still no Apps for Domains (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458360)

It's in beta. That means you get all the good while hand-waving away the bad!

Re:Still no Apps for Domains (2)

AngryNick (891056) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458444)

Granted, I have a small brain and limited understanding of the ways of the Google...but WTF? They made us convert our accounts months ago so we could use new products and the first new product out the door isn't available to our now converted accounts. Google Apps has been great for my domain, but this is really annoying and creates administrative headaches.

Re:Still no Apps for Domains (3, Insightful)

EricTheGreen (223110) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458454)

I share Imagix's annoyance. No excuse for this "we're working hard on bringing Google Apps support" bollocks, given that (on the whiteboard, at least), the apps-centric domain user ID is now properly recognized by the great majority of legacy Google services.

Apps were well-established long before Plus development started. Why wasn't the ID management system in Plus implemented with Apps support from the ground up?

Re:Still no Apps for Domains (3, Informative)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458514)

You know, it's annoying that it's not available but my main issue is the lack of communication from Google on this issue. What timeline do we have for this being implemented? "Soon", for the past 6 months we've heard that. What does "soon" mean? Tomorrow? That's soon. Or is it "Google Beta" level soon, where it could be YEARS before they get around to fixing it.

As an administrator of a number of paid for Apps domains, I find their behavior on this issue to lack any kind of competence or professionalism. I am regretting my decision to recommend google web base email and am actively exploring alternatives because of their behavior.

Re:Still no Apps for Domains (1)

bobaferret (513897) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458614)

This drives me crazy. I know a number of people who have written it off just for that reason. They don't want anymore google accounts. I currently have 4, I have co-workers and friends with that many and more. Job, job, moonlighting job, and personal. With all of these organizations switching over it's just building up and I want google+ to manage it. Not to just disallow it.

Re:Still no Apps for Domains (1)

whm (67844) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459228)

Agreed. And what's more, even if I don't mind using a second Google account for Google+, it would require me to *logout* of all the other services I'm actively using with my Google Apps account - my email, my calendar, my RSS feed - just so I can login to the Google+ specific account. I'm not going to logout of all that stuff just to access G+, and I'm not going to run an instance of a separate browser just to access G+.

Re:Still no Apps for Domains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37459254)

I'm on the same boat. The problem is that I managed to create an account, and a few weeks later I got "sorry google profiles is not available for google apps users" after some sort of mandatory upgrade (downgrade), that I postponed until the last minute.

I couldn't even access my reader account. However I recently tried it and it works, however my feeds were GONE! From what I understood they still exist in some sort of gtempaccount, that I haven't got a clue on how to access.

The worse thing about it was that my openid logins were broken as well.

For what it's worth the reminder emails did prompt me for this important upgrade and I checked that little checkbox that I read everything which I didn't (as if anyone reads an EULA for instance).

I'm not a google hater or anything, but it gets more and more difficult to put up with this shit.

Re:Still no Apps for Domains (1)

lgarner (694957) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459590)

Paid-for isn't relevant, Google Apps accounts aren't supported at all. For better or worse, access for Apps accounts always seems to lag behind others.

Re:Still no Apps for Domains (1)

makubesu (1910402) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459752)

are you crazy? If you paid for apps, then your account must be tied to your work. Why would you want to link that to a social networking account?

Tell me when it's out of beta (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458278)

Google products being beta is not news. Tell me when it's out of beta.

Re:Tell me when it's out of beta (1)

deains (1726012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458434)

Expect a call in about three years. If ever, of course.

Re:Tell me when it's out of beta (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37458480)

Google products coming out of beta is not news. Gmail was fully functional long before the beta tag came off.

What a relief... (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458326)

They were never going to build up users in the "closed" field trial when they only allowed each user to only invite a mere 100 other users... It was too tough to get in before.

Re:What a relief... (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458782)

A mere 100? Someone would actually invite 100 separate individuals? You don't need that much connectivity to grow a network.

G Apps? (1)

jason777 (557591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458394)

Wake me up when I can use my Google apps account.

open? (-1, Troll)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458410)

Can we stop calling things "open" which are actually proprietary?

Re:open? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37458446)

No. Next question, please!

Re:open? (0, Offtopic)

Stewie241 (1035724) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458526)

Look behind you. The door over there is not positioned such that the latch is not trapped in the strike plate. Please don't let it hit you on the way out.

Re:open? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37459292)

shut. the. fuck. up.

Re:open? (5, Informative)

trunicated (1272370) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458586)

I think you're starting to get into the "Free as in freedom or free as in beer" territory. This is open as in "available to everyone", not open as in "open source".

Re:open? (5, Funny)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458644)

Yeah, the next time some says, "Can you please open the door", I am going to punch them in the face.

Re:open? (2)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458810)

I'm pretty sure the patent on doors has expired.

Re:open? (2)

tgeek (941867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459302)

I'm pretty sure the patent on doors has expired.

But just wait until I have the knob patented! I'll be having so many papers served on my patent infringers! When the process server comes knockin' at the door they had better open . . . um, maybe I need to think about this some more . . .

Re:open? (1)

discord5 (798235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458798)

Can we stop calling things "open" which are actually proprietary?

Richard? Are you trolling slashdot again? Haven't you got something better ... Nevermind. Carry on.

Re:open? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458816)

"Open" doesn't mean non-proprietary. It just means that it's not restricted or limited to a select view. "Open beta" means anyone can enter. "Open API" means there aren't secret parts or you don't need to a license agreement to use it.

Re:open? (1)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459446)

I always preferred "private beta" and "public beta" vs. "closed beta" and "open beta", but both are correct. I agree that nobody should be confusing this with closed- vs. open-source in this context.

Re:open? (2)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459276)

Can we stop calling things "open" which are actually proprietary?

I agree! I mean just the other day I passed a breakfast diner that had the GALL to be claiming they were open with a red and blue ELECTRIC NEON SIGN right there in the window!! This term has just become meaningless and shameful pandering, I mean how the fuck do you open source a steak and eggs breakfast anyways?!

Re:open? (2)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459742)

I mean how the fuck do you open source a steak and eggs breakfast anyways?!

Give the recipe with the meal

No alias, other stuff (1)

hey (83763) | more than 2 years ago | (#37458802)

I hate the no alias rule. And its tied to your Google Account which many people use for some serious stuff (eg checkout, gmail) so getting banned it a big deal.
And I don't like that its owned by Google. We really-really need some decentralized social networking thing. As far as I know diaspora and OneSocialWeb are dead or sick. Maybe some rich tech guy can get it kick started.

Re:No alias, other stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37458984)

It's tied to your Google Profiles Account which is used for crap like Buzz and Reader. You can get banned from G+ and not lose Gmail.

Re:No alias, other stuff (1)

lee1 (219161) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459028)

We really-really need some decentralized social networking thing.

My social networking thing is completely decentralized. It consists of my own domains and websites and email. I am in complete control and it works exactly the way I make it work. Why do I need to use some company's product?

Re:No alias, other stuff (1)

hey (83763) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459422)

I don't think your social network supports these things:
- Making an event (eg birthday party) and inviting your friends and getting their RSVPs (without you manually collating).
- Doing tweet-like comment. eg hey I saw something interesting today. Doesn't merit mailing all your friends.
- Sharing photos without mailing megabytes to each friend.
- A comment thread for each photo, etc

Re:No alias, other stuff (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459454)

Bottom line, a social network to even have a chance of getting off the ground right now, needs a flipping huge financial backing in the billions. Or for the existing one to become so unusable it is abhorant that even in the absense of competition, few would want to use it. Getting people over to a social network involves not just converting a few thousand and then slowly growing it, but converting a good 25% chunk, at the same time. Because unless others are using it, nobody will stick around long, if nobody sticks around long then there's never many other people using it to take note of. Know of any billionares that have interest in investing in a large project with little to no profit in return?

Re:No alias, other stuff (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459538)

Well, that doesn't sound good for a FB competitor, but this gave me hope:

"Or for the existing one to become so unusable it is abhorant that even in the absense of competition, few would want to use it."

FB has been heading in that direction, though G+ might get them to turn themselves around.

Re:No alias, other stuff (1)

gclef (96311) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459694)

It's tied to *a* google account. It doesn't have to be tied to your pre-existing Gmail account, though. When they ask for your gmail account, lie, and make another.

The question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37458884)

who cares ?

Google+ took way to long to launch and has failed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37459170)

Like all Google Social Networking Betas. They come out like a year prior to release and are closed beta's everyone knows about and are invite only lacking a ton of features and die before they even really get started. They kill themselves off and if they really want to compete need something complete and ready to launch with a "BANG"!!!

Re:Google+ took way to long to launch and has fail (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459552)

well IMO they still have a reasonable shot, it depends on the bang that comes from actually advertising it now. Seeing the link on googles main page, may simultaniously draw the people who haven't tried it in, and have the people who tried it but left due to a shortage of people back at the same time. That may be the simultanious gathering required to generate the rolling momentum needed. I still fail to see how everyone reffers back to all the old google social network attempts. Wave was never designed as a social network, it was designed as a colaberation tool, It was more in line with google docs then an attempt to compete with facebook. It was something good for getting a bunch of people to work together for 1 goal, it wasn't a place to chat and hang out, it wasn't intended to make new friends, it was never a social network at all. Buzz was an attempt at a social network, and it flopped badly instantly because of the attempt to roll it out to everyone simultaniously, while simultaniously not thinking about the privacy issue caused when you simultaniously instantly add everyones top 10 most e-mailed people to their friends list, and show friends lists publicly. Most importantly the ones who were hurt the most by such a mistake, were members of the press, and politicians. You instantly tick off the press, and good luck getting good publicity to cary on your product.

I read that as "Google Placenta's open beta" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37459208)

... I don't know what that is, but I do not wish to take part.

YES! (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459466)

Google Hangouts work on my Samsung GT-I9100 cell phone! Really! I'll bet AT&T is going to hate this.

Wave (1)

jd142 (129673) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459526)

I know, let's all discuss this on Google Wave! After all, Wave has massive potential for business users, http://mashable.com/2009/12/18/google-wave-business/. With 19 Educational uses, http://www.soyouwanttoteach.com/the-power-of-potential-19-educational-uses-for-google-wave/.

Unfortunately, I can't find the uptake numbers for Wave. Of course, just because one product flops doesn't mean the next must too. It's just that one of the reasons Wave probably failed was that it didn't offer people anything they weren't already getting somewhere else and they were too entrenched to change. People who needed real time collaboration already had mature products available to them, Elluminate, Contribute (or whatever it was in 2009), Live Meeting, or even GoTo Meeting. For people who didn't need the collaboration, Wave was an answer to a question no one asked. Even in 2009, Facebook was "good enough" for people.

So what about Google+? Does the minor difference in features warrant changing off facebook? Probably not. Does it offer anything outstandingly new or innovative? Probably not. Are people even more entrenched in their facebook lives now than in 2009? Probably. Add to that the real name policy and the inability to work with non-european names and there's even less reason to move.

Way back at the dawn of time, when Google was just opening its eyes, it was competing with some really big search engines. Remember how big Yahoo used to be? Or AskJeeves? Google didn't bring anything new to the table, but they were able to compete by being better. And switching search engines is much easier than switching social networks. When they competed on the email front, they did it by giving people a ton of storage. When Hotmail was offering storage in the megabytes, Google was offering it in the gigabytes and even Hotmail had to play catchup. People hate to delete emails, and Google let them keep everything for ever and never clean.

The other two big products, maps/earth and image search, weren't really competing against an entrenched alternative. There was mapquest, but even it was new.

So my armchair quarterback position is that G+ will peak very soon then slowly decline until in another year or two we'll be talking about G+'s failure. Which will be right around the time Google announces G++.

Rumours of G+ Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated (2)

ezh (707373) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459642)

You guys seriously did not expect Google to have an insta-win over Facebook, did you?

The success of G+ is going to take time, but it will happen. Think about it: you already have an account, one day you'll find someone or something worth following on G+. You'll comment, your friends are going to notice. And believe me, they WILL notice, since there is a G+ cross-integration over the whole array of Google products (Search, YouTube, Docs, Gmail, etc): this black top bar with this red square and number in it will keep haunting you. You'll get hooked in. You'll start checking it out. Eventually momentum will turn. Google cannot and will not give up on G+ now - they have put everything on it. G+ is no Wave, it is no Buzz. The G-train will keep pushing. Until it hits your G-spot (sorry for the innuendo :-)

Google keeps on adding awesome features at the great speed. Facebook will have a hard time to follow due to its size if Google keeps pushing like that. Now that G+ API have been published, the evolution is going to start even faster with input of 3rd parties.

And what can you expect from Facebook in the nearest future? Even more integration with Skype and Bing. Have you really been enjoy these two products lately? Really? FB will keep pushing you to open even more of your private data by default to make advertisers happy. You like that future? Really?

Don't worry, the inert mass that are typical Facebook users will take their time. They will even keep using FB for the next few years, but the tide will slowly turn in G+ favour due to its convenience, simplicity, and speed. One day, while searching for Facebook in Google for 1000th time, average Joes will discover this red square on top, and click it. And chain reaction will start.

Now, don't get me wrong, Facebook will still keep growing and have a very successful IPO at the end of 2012, but after that - the game is on.

I'll leave you with this thought - the fall of a former giant called MySpace also took some time...

Too late, I've lost interest (2)

Oidhche (1244906) | more than 2 years ago | (#37459736)

I was pretty excited by Google+, but the whole "real name" fiasco turned me off completely. Not that I really care that much about using a pseudonym vs my real name, but I think that it just isn't Google's damn business what somebody wants to call themselves.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>