Google To Rebrand Blogger & Picasa For Google+ Integration

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google To Rebrand Blogger & Picasa For Google+ Integration

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday July 5, 2011 @07:38AM from the great-googley-moogley dept.

dkd903 writes "Google plans to rebrand its photo-sharing platform Picasa and the blogging platform Blogger and will re-introduce them as Google Photos and Google Blogs. All this forms part of a massive feature addition to Google's new social network, Google+."

162 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Jumping the Gun by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 07:41 · Score: 0

Google has a long track record of products that never took off. Google+ may be no exception. They probably shouldn't overentangle things into it in an attempt to "force" it into popularity.
1. Re:Jumping the Gun by x6060 · 2011-07-05 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  It more sounds like they are just renaming products they own that are fairly successful and merging them for basic functionality that every social networking site has.
2. Re:Jumping the Gun by reeno49 · 2011-07-05 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  I've always thought that fragmentation of their products (possibly due to the large number of products having been purchased from their creators) is part of what has halted or slowed their popularity. While it's still too early to tell if Google+ is going to be the force they hope it'll be, I can only imagine that bringing all of their socially geared products under one roof will simply add to the surge of people joining up.
  Think about all of the people who don't know about Picasa or blogger, now they see this new shiny Google+ with these things integrated? If it were me, I'd probably just be impressed with how well rounded the network is so early (assuming they do it in a while that's impressive). Google has a great brand to geeks and non-geeks alike and I, for one, hope they do well with this.
  
  --
  I should have been a girl, with the way I can dance... my moves are amazing!
3. Re:Jumping the Gun by CastrTroy · 2011-07-05 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't aware that facebook had a blog feature.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
4. Re:Jumping the Gun by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2011-07-05 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Google has a long track record of products that never took off. Google+ may be no exception. They probably shouldn't overentangle things into it in an attempt to "force" it into popularity.
  I'm pretty sure every company has a wall of shame; must I bring up Bob, the Newton, or Clippy? This feels more like a consolidation than the launch of a new product. I'm concerned about how this will affect Google's CLI, I have an extensive number of scripts for backing up my photos to Picasa on-the-fly.
  
  --
  "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
5. Re:Jumping the Gun by DevConcepts · 2011-07-05 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  It's called "Notes", It allows for much longer posts than normal wall status updates.
6. Re:Jumping the Gun by VGPowerlord · 2011-07-05 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't aware that facebook had a blog feature.
  They call it a "status message."
  
  --
  GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
7. Re:Jumping the Gun by theillien · 2011-07-05 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  While not a real blogging feature, they do have the Notes feature that can be used for more in depth updates.
8. Re:Jumping the Gun by x6060 · 2011-07-05 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  I would liken it more to the "Notes" feature which is extremely blog like.
9. Re:Jumping the Gun by CRCulver · 2011-07-05 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Do FB Notes appear on people's news feed if they aren't tagged in it? I thought that Notes were only written for oneself and whoever was tagged, and other users couldn't see them unless they purposely went looking for them. (Yes, I know that an outside RSS feed can be linked to Notes, but I thougth this was a half-assed attempt at making them useful.)
10. Re:Jumping the Gun by bartok · 2011-07-05 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  "Do FB Notes appear on people's news feed if they aren't tagged in it?"
  Yes.
11. Re:Jumping the Gun by _Sprocket_ · 2011-07-05 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on how that integration works out. As long as all the pieces remain modular, there might be no down side to better integrating various products. For example, when I create a gmail account I also have access to docs and calendars. I can safely ignore either if I never want to use those features even if they're one click away. Never touching a Calendar will not expose anything from gmail.
  Note that this is different from when Google released Buzz which exposed information from other services (namely gmail). Hopefully they've learned from that mistake.
12. Re:Jumping the Gun by CRCulver · 2011-07-05 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  They call it a "status message."
  
  That's more comparable to a microblogging feature than a blog.
13. Re:Jumping the Gun by bonch · 2011-07-05 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  This reminds me of how Microsoft rebranded all their stuff "Windows Internet Explorer," "Windows Live Messenger," and so on. It's astounding how much this company has become like Microsoft. Just as Microsoft is dependent on the Windows platform, Google is dependent on their advertising platform, and they must tie as many people too it as they can.
14. Re:Jumping the Gun by AliasMarlowe · 2011-07-05 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Google has a long track record of products that never took off. Google+ may be no exception. They probably shouldn't overentangle things into it in an attempt to "force" it into popularity.
  I'm pretty sure every company has a wall of shame; must I bring up Bob, the Newton, or Clippy? This feels more like a consolidation than the launch of a new product. I'm concerned about how this will affect Google's CLI, I have an extensive number of scripts for backing up my photos to Picasa on-the-fly.
  And then there's Microsoft Access. The original one (serial communications) not the current database application. It used to have a mention on Wikipedia, but now even that is gone. Motto: if you have an application that becomes am utter failure, re-use the name until it becomes attached to a product which is a success. Then its association with failure is buried.
  For those whose memories are short, Microsoft Access was a serial communication program which competed with Hayes Smartcom II and suchlike back in the days of DOS. It flopped, partly because people had alternatives, and in part because most of the alternatives were better (but don't look at the prices, really, don't). Here's a 1986 article on modem sharing and how Microsoft Access would probably do it in the future while other did it already.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
15. Re:Jumping the Gun by AliasMarlowe · 2011-07-05 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Forgot the linky bit for that 1986 article.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I hope they don't take away offline pic management by Hsien-Ko · 2011-07-05 07:41 · Score: 1

I really hate the cloud.
Also by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 07:44 · Score: 0

Also their video site will now be called Goo-tube.
Google+, the social network you cannot join! by jo_ham · 2011-07-05 07:44 · Score: 1

I thought I'd have a look, and went to the page where it asked me to log in with my google account. I did so, only to *then* be told that you can't join up!
I understand they're in beta (hey, what google product isn't in perpetual beta?!), but the point of a social network is to attract and maintain users. Right now, all the buzz going around quickly dissipates from people when they reach the doors of the country club, only to be turned away.
A friend of mine received an invite for it, but she cannot make an account since "they are full up right now".
Google lacking server power and/or bandwidth? Say it ain't so! I suspect they want to play on the "exclusivity" thing to make people want to join up - it worked for gmail (but I suspect a lot of that success was because it was a genuinely better free email service than Hotmail and Yahoo), but did not work so well for Orkut (remember that?).
1. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by sqrt(2) · 2011-07-05 07:48 · Score: 2
  
  You need a friend who already has it to invite you. They are not doing "official" invites right now, but you can still get an invite by having someone add you to a circle and then send you a notification of some content being posted. That's how I got in, a stranger from 4chan added my e-mail address and I got a link in the e-mail to sign up.
  
  --
  If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
2. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by The+MAZZTer · 2011-07-05 07:50 · Score: 2
  
  I suspect they are being exclusive so they don't blow up their servers before they are sure they can handle the load.
3. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by redemtionboy · 2011-07-05 07:50 · Score: 2
  
  I can't believe that people are complaining that they can't join the beta of a social networking site that just launched less than a week ago. Come back to complain when it's been 4 months. They were planning on letting more people in right now, but then someone found a bug that allowed someone to send infinite invites and they got overwhelmed. Give it a little bit and I'm sure it will open up again.
4. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by x6060 · 2011-07-05 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing that they are allowing people to join as they are adding capacity. Also it is REALLY hard to deal with 50 million new users that all sign up, create profiles, upload photos, send messages, search through the other 50 million people so they can add them, create groups, make events and invite 100+ people in a single day if they opened it to everyone all at the same time on a brand new product.
5. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  You gave a stranger from 4chan your email address?
  Balls, son. Balls.
6. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Lifyre · 2011-07-05 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Huh, I thought they had closed that particular loop hole since it has failed for me a couple times now. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.
  
  --
  I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
7. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by jo_ham · 2011-07-05 07:53 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, my friend got one of those invites from someone already "in", but Google told her that it was full when she tried to claim the invite and set up an account.
8. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Marble68 · 2011-07-05 07:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  As a member of G+ - I can understand why they shut off new subscribers.
  Their threading logic was cumbersome and needed work. The "rings" concept is cool - but when you have threads that "fork" - as in one conversation becomes closed to one ring - and another conversation to a different ring - the UI representation was horrible. If the people I interact with weren't limited - I would have turned away from G+ pretty quickly.
  I'm get the feeling invites will open up again, soon. The UI has undergone some minor tweaks, the mobile app got updated, HangOuts is working better now.
  Some of the stuff that's not quite perfected (IMHO) are the "nearby posts" and "incoming posts".
  
  --
  /me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
9. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by sqrt(2) · 2011-07-05 07:56 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You think they're running on a Pentium III server in Sergey's garage? It's Google we are talking about, not Twitter :p
  They already index the whole world, read everyone's e-mail, and watch you from roving surveillance vans. Connecting you with your friends and letting you share pics shouldn't tax them too much.
  
  --
  If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
10. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by jo_ham · 2011-07-05 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  The salient point being "social networking site" that they've been hyping, and advertising... only to not let you in.
  If that was a discovered bug, then why not mention that - the message I got was "we're full at the moment!".
  The entire point of launching it is surely to get users and generate interest, if they truly do want to "topple" facebook. How many people are going to keep checking back after getting turned away during the big launch phase where it's all fresh?
11. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  No, they're being exclusive right now because they massively screwed up the last time they tried to create a social networking capability, Google Buzz. It failed miserably, because the people running it were utterly ignorant about how their customers would react to it. With Buzz, they imposed it on all of their existing GMail customers (among others), whether we wanted it or not, and we had to actively take steps to keep them from sharing our personal information with others... and in some cases, we couldn't even do that. On top of that, their conceptual model had serious flaws, and nobody could understand it. That led to many people not even trusting whether the contents of their GMail messages were private or not, under the system.
  Thus, they are now trotting it out gently, testing the waters and hoping to get things right. This is their last chance to try to enter this arena. Personally, I think they will fail this time, too. Google helps people FIND information; people don't particularly expect (or want) it to be the repository of their own personal information which they choose (or not) to share with others.
  For a variety of reasons, I just don't trust Google's offerings in this area. I love their search, and I love GMail. But I don't want to have my social network service ALSO be my e-mail service, for example. Thus, I am not using Facebook's new e-mail service, even though I am a Facebook user. I WANT to have multiple presences on-line. I'm even leery of websites that require using by FB identity to comment. I'm thinking of making a dummy FB page just for that purpose. The more Google tries to "integrate" all of these different things that I, at least, don't want integrated, the more likely it is to lose me as a customer entirely.
12. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by jo_ham · 2011-07-05 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  That was one of my possible points - if anyone has server power to spare it's Google.
13. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by redemtionboy · 2011-07-05 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, except they didn't launch, they launched a beta. Do you people complain this much when Blizzard runs a closed beta version of WoW and only some people are allowed in? Give it a little bit of time. As I pointed out. It's been a week since they launched the beta.
14. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by sqrt(2) · 2011-07-05 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Just use a throw-away account, something like Hushmail.
  
  --
  If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
15. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  email me your gmail address at jacer@mailinator.com
  I'll check it tonight and send you a Google+ invite.
  This goes for anyone else too.
16. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  You seriously think that mentioning there was a bug found in there service will make grandma wait it out to join instead of just saying, "we're full?" Especially with how much people hate Facebook for it's bugs?
  
  The entire point of launching it is surely to get users and generate interest...
  Which is why they haven't launched it yet. That's what betas are for.
17. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by BOUND4DOOM · 2011-07-05 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  I would suspect your right in they are trying to play the exclusivity thing. However, it doesn't work if you are a Google apps account either, you have to create a profile first. However, the Google profiles don't work with Google Apps accounts. So after going round and round trying to sign up, I finally said meh, and went on my merry way. Personally, I am already sick and tired of all the buzz and news and articles on Google+ either let me in or quit interrupting my regular news with vapor ware. I am honestly reminded of Duke Nukem Forever, lot of hype, lot of talk, but sorry only certain select few can see it. I don't mind it being in beta, but public beta would be better.
18. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, they did. The other loopholes (such as tagging people in photos) have been closed, too. If there's any glitch like these left, I'd like to know; the wife is crazy because I have a Google+ account and she doesn't.
19. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Andy+Dodd · 2011-07-05 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, good way to shoot yourself in the foot.
  The value of any social networking site is in how many users it has. If no one you know uses something, why will you use it?
  I don't use Latitude because none of my friends do. I don't use Buzz because no one I'm friends with wound up using it. Same for Wave. Google+ will probably wind up the same.
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
20. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not sure if you get the idea of a social network.
  My bigger issue is that as a Google users for many years, one that uses gmail, calendar and docs everyday, I can't get in. Mean while, a friend that can barely turn a computer on and will check her gmail maybe 3 times a week gets in. Nearly the same thing happened with Wave.
  It's like they totally forget their biggest users. I also agree with the other posters about Google being in trouble once this media dies down. You would think they would want to get everyone in as possible. If you want to beta test it, do it within Google. You only have 24,000 employee after all. This very limited roll out just seems silly.
21. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Lysander7 · 2011-07-05 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, I got my invite (several, actually) by giving out an email on 4chan as well. Though G+ still is saying they're full and can't add me, and I've tried repeatedly the last few days.
22. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  I would say that sqrt(2) was being irrational there.
23. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by redemtionboy · 2011-07-05 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  That or they have profiles of types of users they want to add and you don't fit that profile. Testing isn't purely about getting a bunch of people to use the service. It's about covering a spectrum of users and experiences. My boss at work got a Chrome laptop and I didn't, because he fit the profile of what they were looking for and I didn't. I assume that's how they handled their initial google based invites before the additional user selected invites.
24. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by whoami9801 · 2011-07-05 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Am I the only one that remembers when Facebook was restricted to college students only? For years the only "invite" you could get to Facebook was having a .edu email address. Everyone's griping about Google+ being invite only Facebook did it pretty successfully for years.
25. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by energizer-bunny2 · 2011-07-05 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  It took me 2 tries, 2 hours apart...then I got in. That was last week FWIW.
26. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  I think its because, unlike many of Google's other products, the whole point of G+ is to form a network. This means that a bug with one person's account could potentially affect EVERY other user on G+. Furthermore, they're fighting a well established, tried-and-not-quite-true-but-still-good interface and feature set on Facebook. Google has one, only one, chance to draw people away from Facebook. If, as seems to be the case, their initial launch was glitchy and hard to use, and they let everyone in, G+ would be DOA. As it stands, the few early adopters realize that its a beta, and the rest of us get a little annoyed at having to wait.
  Seems to me everyone is annoyed because they're used to Google treating their beta's like finished products. Its a little weird for Google to suddenly develop some sanity in their release systems and treat a beta like an actual closed testbed rather than simply releasing it into the wild and fixing it afterwards like they do with most of their products.
  I think this is a sign that Google REALLY wants G+ to succeed, and realizes what they need to do to make that happen. All in all, seems like they are approaching this with surprising amounts of realistic prudence and wisdom. Surprising from Google, I know, but it was bound to happen eventually.
27. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  I agree with the other post, fed up etc.. This is just a huge bs focus group exercise.
  I'm so dying to post something to FB and cannot because I don't know if I'll get my G+ invite accepted.
  The problem is not scale, or resources. It's a weak hand in figuring out what UX people are going to "Like". (oops, I mean +1).
  That's going to be a problem there already.. I so "+1" you, doesn't have a ring to it. Oh maybe it does. Get it. "ring" to it... hee hee.
  Anyway.. Yea, Google stop it already.. Open the door and let real users kick the tires, already sheesh.
28. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by getto+man+d · 2011-07-05 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but remember that once Facebook allowed .edu addresses from your institution then any of your friends could join with no hassle. Specifically, I remember when I first joined; a good number of my friends were already members. If any were missing, many soon joined after they heard of the "wonders" of Facebook. So you have to remember that Facebook started with groups where it was natural to have many social connections.
29. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by mekkab · 2011-07-05 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  That sounds like the performance problems of Wave.
  
  --
  In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
30. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Shihar · 2011-07-05 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Relax. It has not been released for like three whole days.
  Google is in a tricky spot. The only way to REALLY figure out how this is going to all work together is to throw some bodies at it. If they screw it up though, they don't want everyone to already be in. Think of the Buzz disaster. They let everyone in at once, made a few missteps, and Buzz was promptly dead. Google learned that they suck at rolling out products like that and are going back to their Gmail roots.
  They need Google+ to not suck before they start letting everyone pile in. From the sounds of it from two friends of mine who did get in, they are well on their way there. They just need to figure out the timing and balance the need to tweak and not piss people off by changing things with their desire to get people in
31. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  You say that but ignore that this was how Facebook overtook MySpace (rolling out successively broader access university by university in a rough order of exclusivity). Granted Google+'s exclusivity is social proximity to Google employees, but that doesn't mean that they should not try to find bugs with a smaller group before opening it up to everyone.
32. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by cuckolds · 2011-07-05 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  I agree...Google has pretty much always done their betas in a limited closed environment...from gmail, google voice, wave, and now Google+. Granted I got an invite early on from a random user so I can't complain.
33. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  Why do so many people want to get into a club that won't have them as a member? By the time they open it up to the masses there will so much pent-up demand that Facebook will become the next MySpace.
34. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by LordLucless · 2011-07-05 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  You know Facebook started out restricted to students at a single college? Then expanded to all US students, then all US residents, then everyone? Facebook had been operating for years before overseas users could register. Restricted, phased membership is nothing new to online services, not even social networks.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
35. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  it's also kinda buggy and doesn't run really fast enough unless you're using chrome
36. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah - what I don't understand is why I'd have to tell them who my friends are. Don't they already know?
37. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by MikeDaSpike · 2011-07-05 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  No they didn't. I just invited someone 3 hours ago.
  
  What they did, and has been done since they "enabled" invites was to throttle the amount of people that can join. So only a certain amount of people can join in a certain amount of time. So if they say it's "full" then you just have to try later.
  
  Also the e-mails aren't instant anymore. So I would believe if you get an e-mail you would get a guaranteed invite. But I wouldn't count on that.
38. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by jo_ham · 2011-07-05 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but when it was all .edu addresses... crucially that was all your local university friends at once, when it hit a new campus.
  Right now I have a spread of people who are all "doing the new thing" in G+, with the other half unable to participate - the likelihood is that the ones in G+ will drift back towards FB, where everyone is all on the same system, especially if there are showstopper bugs or it takes too long for invites to get going again (a friend has an update and is unable to sign up).
39. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by jo_ham · 2011-07-05 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but like you said - restricted to specific colleges, so all of your local university friends could sign up at the same time and participate together at the same time.
40. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by t2t10 · 2011-07-05 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  They're not in "beta", they're not even in "alpha"; Google+ is a prototype, and experiment. It's has promise, but it also has significant limitations and problems. They want to get the bugs out with a smaller user community before letting it loose on the world.
  Once they're in beta, you will be able to join.
41. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by drinkypoo · 2011-07-05 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  That is exactly the situation I'm in. Pretty annoying.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
42. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by cgenman · 2011-07-05 12:29 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  They already index the whole world, read everyone's e-mail, and watch you from roving surveillance vans. Connecting you with your friends and letting you share pics shouldn't tax them too much.
  "Welcome to Google+. Would you like to connect your account with your friends and family?
  Just kidding. We already know who your friends and family are. By the way, here is a satellite photo of your daughter, whom you forgot at soccer practice."
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
43. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Verteiron · 2011-07-05 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  The Dutch guy? I got in the same way, and have gotten in several people using the method you describe.
  
  --
  End of lesson. You may press the button.
44. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Randle_Revar · 2011-07-05 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  That is how you do it, for sure, but as the other comments here indicate, there is still limited capacity even then. I got a linked by a friend from FB, but it was a few hours before I got in. I think the number being allowed in at a time is just very small, so you just have to hit it at the right moment after they allow a new batch, but before it runs out.
  
  --
  Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
45. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Randle_Revar · 2011-07-05 15:25 · Score: 2
  
  I have a sneaking suspicion that under the covers at least some of the tech is wave-derived. Well, the video hangout at least is almost certainly some form of XMPP MUC with Jingle
  
  --
  Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
46. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by xnpu · 2011-07-05 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  Weird. When I share something on Google+ it asks me permission to e-mail all the non-Google+ member that I added to my circles. These people then all are able to login. (Provided they have a US IP address.)
47. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by caius112 · 2011-07-05 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  It has nothing to do with an American IP address. You can join from any country in the world.
48. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by brunes69 · 2011-07-05 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  I think this staged rollout is a mistake. Social networks are fickle beasts. The problem is, if all of my friends are not able to sign up to Google+ (they can't), then I have little incentive to post things to it, when they are all on Facebook.
  Fast forward to 3 months from now, when it is open to all - but it's too late because everyone who initially was interested has moved on and no one cares anymore.
49. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by slyrat · 2011-07-06 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, my friend got one of those invites from someone already "in", but Google told her that it was full when she tried to claim the invite and set up an account.
  Keep trying to get in. They are letting people in still, just a little at a time. I can also understand why they are doing it since the want to make sure things are good this time, before everyone is jumping in.
50. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Andy+Dodd · 2011-07-06 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  Not a big limitation - when a person is in college, the bulk of their social circle is at the same school.
  There's a huge difference between "invite only + account creation throttling" and "anyone at college campus X can get an account".
  It happens to be effective for a social network to start out in a specific localized group that already is well connected socially - e.g. Facebook started out on a single college campus (Harvard) and achieved significant market penetration within that specific market in a short period of time. Google, meanwhile, is "spread thin", providing invites to only a small subset of various people's social networks.
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
51. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by berberine · 2011-07-06 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Have your friend create her google profile and then she can use her invite to sign up. That's what I had to do before they let me in. I don't know if it works for everyone, but a lot of folks I know did it this way in order for google+ to work.
52. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by FredFredrickson · 2011-07-06 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Hahahaha, well done good anon. I just got coffee up my nose!
  
  --
  Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
53. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  But the point of a social network is to communicate with your friends, but if all your friennds are on Facebook, but only a handful (if any) are on Google+, why bother. This is different from their other services which don't depend on your contacts being able to use it.
  I'd understand Google doing a closed beta with just their employees and maybe a selection of their employees friends/family, but they haven't limited it to that, the limits they have placed are seemingly random and arbitrary.
54. Re:Google+, the social network you cannot join! by Ramin_HAL9001 · 2011-07-15 00:05 · Score: 0
  
  I'll be your friend if you invite me to Google+.
  Actually, I'm serious, I've been longing to try it out.
Re:I hope they don't take away offline pic managem by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2011-07-05 07:44 · Score: 1

I completely agree, until they can at least save the feature set. I use the facial recognition to help sort hundreds of photos at a time. I don't necessarily want to "share" recognition, but I still want it to organize my own photos.

--
I8-D
I 3 Google by psithurism · 2011-07-05 07:47 · Score: 1

Google just sounds so sweet to my ears, much better than some random names that I don't know are associated with my favorite company of all time.
Google what? by Curunir_wolf · 2011-07-05 07:48 · Score: 5, Funny

That's it. I'm completely fed up with hearing about this stupid new whizz-bang service, dammit! Please stop posting and blogging and writing articles about this crap.
until you send me an invite

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
1. Re:Google what? by assertation · 2011-07-05 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, there are loads of articles about Google+, what is going with people using it, 3rd party tools, etc........and it hasn't been released to the general public.
  Google should send thank you notes for the free promotions.
2. Re:Google what? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Stop bitching you just got an invite.
3. Re:Google what? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2011-07-05 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Just like Google Wave and that turned out to be a monstrous success, right?
4. Re:Google what? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  Just like Google Wave and that turned out to be a monstrous success, right?
  No, not just like Google Wave. They have the invite-only system in common, but the difference was that nobody ever gave a shit about google wave, nobody wanted an invite. In fact, when one of your idiot friends would send you an invite, you'd delete the email.
5. Re:Google what? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  Or Gmail which was a tremendous flop, right?
6. Re:Google what? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 11:15 · Score: 0
  
  where's the button to 'plus one' this?
7. Re:Google what? by Curunir_wolf · 2011-07-05 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Hmph - Okay, I have to admit, you got me. I was even digging through my spam and log files and everything. [sigh]
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
8. Re:Google what? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  OK, you heard him guys - back to the regularly scheduled for bitcoin articles!
9. Re:Google what? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 22:15 · Score: 0
  
  The difference is, people GET Google+, and LIKE it.
  Google Wave is something I only got in the context of SMTP RFC documents, and what it could potentially be in future. I doubt most people got that at all.
10. Re:Google what? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-06 21:44 · Score: 0
  
  That's it. I'm completely fed up with hearing about this stupid new whizz-bang service, dammit! Please stop posting and blogging and writing articles about this crap.
  until you send me an invite
  I agree with you very vey mutch.
Finally! by Ngarrang · 2011-07-05 07:55 · Score: 1

With confusing names like Picasa and Blogger, I was at a loss to understand what those products were and who owned them. Thank goodness Google has cleared up this mystery. Now I can go back to sorting my pocket lint by color and size.

--
Bearded Dragon
1. Re:Finally! by Arancaytar · 2011-07-05 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  In addition, any new name Google will pick is bound to be much more self-explanatory and descriptive, like Google+.
2. Re:Finally! by jason.sweet · 2011-07-05 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  They wanted to name it "All your * are belong to google!", but google+ sounded less evil.
3. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  You might be aware of who owned them, but I'm sure there are many who don't, and WRT to Picasa it isn't immediately obvious what it does from the name, the name is quite simliar to Picaso who was a painter so you might reasonably assume it was a paint program if you were smart enough to make the link, it being for Photos is not quite so obvious.
  So, okay, this news isn't terribly exciting, but nothing forced you to click on it and make a comment, it really is just about Google increasing the strength of their brand and might encourage people who are familiar with Google, but don't know they own Picasa and Blogger to use the services.
4. Re:Finally! by Ngarrang · 2011-07-10 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  *whoosh*
  That was the Jet Fighter of Sarcasm flying over someone's head.
  
  --
  Bearded Dragon
Re:I couldn't care less by theillien · 2011-07-05 07:56 · Score: 1

Then why did you bother putting forth the effort to even comment? Attention whoring?
Die marketing department die! by MacTO · 2011-07-05 07:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Blogger and Picasa are good names: concise, searchable, and trademarkable.
But I guess that Google's marketing department wants headlines to reverberate their name in the tech and business media.
I will adjust, but I still think that the decision sucks.
1. Re:Die marketing department die! by jinushaun · 2011-07-05 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, although Google is nowhere near as bad as Microsoft where everything must contain at least four words (the longer the better) and include "Windows" branding in it somehow.
2. Re:Die marketing department die! by xigxag · 2011-07-05 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with umbrella brands is that one weak spoke can bring down the whole brand. If Google Blogs has a problem, it will give all of Google a black eye, not just the Blogger brand. And if "Google" stops being cool, then even if they could somehow spin off the lines into their own brands again, those old labels would've lost their previous cachet. After all, the history of internet branding has taught us that the public is drastically less faithful to digital properties than they are to real world brands where the consistency of the quality can be reinforced by taste or touch.
  I guess I'm wondering what's Google's game plan. Did they learn nothing from the failures of msn.com, lycos, and others? Or even their own failure to make Google Video catch on as a worthy competitor to YouTube?
  
  --
  There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
3. Re:Die marketing department die! by UnanimousCoward · 2011-07-05 08:31 · Score: 2
  
  >I will adjust, but I still think that the decision sucks.
  I agree that the decision sucks. I was hoping that in the spirit of GMail, they were going to rename BlogSpot to GSpot...
  
  --
  Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
4. Re:Die marketing department die! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  You must be that stupid fuck we keep hearing about. I'm hard pressed to find examples that support your bullshit.
5. Re:Die marketing department die! by jo42 · 2011-07-05 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Better than "Evil Money Grubbing Corporation Photos" and "Evil Money Grubbing Corporation Blogs", nyet comrade?
6. Re:Die marketing department die! by Raenex · 2011-07-05 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Blogger and Picasa are good names: concise, searchable, and trademarkable.
  How on earth was "Blogger" ever granted a trademark? It's incredibly generic.
7. Re:Die marketing department die! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 10:39 · Score: 0
  
  Dear Valued Consumer,
  Thank you for graciously agreeing to adjust to our recent rebranding decision for Blogger and Picasa. We had been worried, and in fact thinking of continuing to use concise searchable and trademarkable names for all of our services. Would you mind weighing in?
  Google Photos -> Picasa
  Google Chat -> BirdyNoises
  GMail -> Ritso
  Google Voice -> Shazamuffins
  Google Images -> Micasa.
  We had been worried about people asking "What is a Picasa?" and hoped to answer it with a name that was clearer, and had the google brand attached. But making sure every product we offer lacks the google brand would add an air of mystery, as well as ensuring it was easy for users to search for on our search platform, which otherwise would struggle to help users looking for a photo service find our offering.
  Best,
  Google PR
8. Re:Die marketing department die! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  I'm just hoping the transition of Blogger and Picasa is more seamless than the transition of my content from Google Video to YouTube was. (Whatever they did there was somewhat sloppy at first.) The old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" still applies. The services provided are good as they are.
  That's my only worry. But other than that, I could care less.
9. Re:Die marketing department die! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  You must be that useless fuck who doesn't actually use MS products. 3 straight off the top of my head:
  Windows Phone 7 = Android = iOS N
  Windows Live Photo Gallery 2011 = Picasa = iPhoto
  Windows Live Messenger = GTalk = iChat
  
  So how does the air taste with your head jammed so far up your ass?
10. Re:Die marketing department die! by wondafucka · 2011-07-05 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Blogger and Picasa are good names: concise, searchable, and trademarkable.
  But I guess that Google's marketing department wants headlines to reverberate their name in the tech and business media.
  I will adjust, but I still think that the decision sucks.
  The marketing department can save your job. Be nice to them. Bear in mind, they do two things. 1) Promote existing products 2) Figure out what the available market is for a given product. As far as #2 goes, there is an incredible market segment to take away from competitors.
  Picasa has a wide user base, but it is still unknown to large swaths of the web. You and I know that Google owns blogger, but do most people? Rebranding is important to create a unified product portfolio. Especially, if they can get more users / eyeballs onto Picasa and off of competing photo sharing sites (*cough* Facebook)
  
  --
  postmodernsideshow.com
11. Re:Die marketing department die! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  Although I respect your point, I disagree.
  Good names are the three things you mention, but also positively perceived.
  I can't say I have negative associations with Blogger and Picasa, but I do associate them with a sort of "second rate" status. I'm not saying this is justified or not, just that it's the association I have.
  If Google knew this held for large portions of the population, they might want to rebrand it.
  Sometimes marketing is crap; sometimes it's worthwhile.
  It's also important to remember that if they're trying to integrate it with Google+, having separate names might cause a problem, as they'd be perceived as outside the Google+ family of services.
12. Re:Die marketing department die! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 16:03 · Score: 0
  
  I can barely remember Blogger and sometimes cannot remember Picasa (I use both infrequently), so I think the name change is a good plan. In addition, I was trying to remember Picasa this morning and couldn't until I saw this article, so I would like to thank Google's marketing department for helping me out!
  Thanks Google!
13. Re:Die marketing department die! by Ash-Fox · 2011-07-05 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot to add "Microsoft" in front of all those software titles.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
14. Re:Die marketing department die! by Threni · 2011-07-06 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  > If Google Blogs has a problem, it will give all of Google a black eye, not just the Blogger
  > brand
  No it won't. People who don't use Google Blogs (ie most of the planet) won't even notice, never mind care.
15. Re:Die marketing department die! by PriyanPhoenix · 2011-07-06 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's borderline: "Blogger" a generic term for people who blog, but not generic as a platform for blogging. Provided the usage is unusual, you can trademark some otherwise generic terms. Such a trademark wouldn't prevent anyone from continuing to use the word to describe people who blog.
  
  --
  "Yes, Virginia, there is a Great Cthulhu..."
16. Re:Die marketing department die! by Tolkien · 2011-07-06 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  and "Microsoft Games for Windows Live"
  
  --
  how is babby formed?
17. Re:Die marketing department die! by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · 2011-07-06 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  The marketing department can save your job. Be nice to them.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo -- Bill Hicks on marketing
  
  --
  "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
18. Re:Die marketing department die! by cavebison · 2011-07-06 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Blogger and Picasa are good names: concise, searchable, and trademarkable.
  True. But a worse thing is the new oppressive black armband of a menu they're introducing. Google was always light blueness and easy on the eye.
  I actually went to the extreme of installing UAControl for Firefox, setting it up to tell Google I'm still running Firefox v2. The upshot of that is I get standard old Google interface, and as a bonus the standard old image search not the new fangly one. Winning!
Google is showing confidence! by thule · 2011-07-05 07:59 · Score: 1

I am sure there will be Facebook fans for sometime to come. I am sure that G+ won't take out Facebook. Facebook could implement the same controls that G+ has. G+ doesn't have Farmville, I'm sure that will hurt it by some people's standards. I don't worry about the integration with the rest of Google. It just tells me that Google is really very confident in their G+ product. The integration just makes sense. It is pretty obvious where they will integrate it further (e.g. Google Reader). G+ is a huge play for Google. It just feels better than anything they've done in the space so far.
Start your own circle
1. Re:Google is showing confidence! by williamhb · 2011-07-05 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  I am sure there will be Facebook fans for sometime to come. I am sure that G+ won't take out Facebook. Facebook could implement the same controls that G+ has. G+ doesn't have Farmville, I'm sure that will hurt it by some people's standards. I don't worry about the integration with the rest of Google. It just tells me that Google is really very confident in their G+ product. The integration just makes sense. It is pretty obvious where they will integrate it further (e.g. Google Reader). G+ is a huge play for Google. It just feels better than anything they've done in the space so far.
  I think Google just reckon they have to bet the farm on Google+. Google's current business relies on indexing content that's out on the Web, and that people find what they consume via search. Only more and more content is getting locked up where they can't get to it, and search is no longer the only game in town. A combination of app-ization and users moving from search to "social discovery". Time was the Google search box was the main way to hear about products. Now it's not. Time was, the Google search box was the only app store of significance (where you'd find your downloadable apps). Now it's not. Google's lunch is being eaten, and they need to act swiftly because in tech companies can go from hero to zero astonishingly quickly.
Re:I hope they don't take away offline pic managem by Hankinator · 2011-07-05 08:02 · Score: 2

With Google+ you can actually save all of your photos to your hard disk. It downloads them as a zip. :)
Re:I couldn't care less by Finallyjoined!!! · 2011-07-05 08:03 · Score: 0

Nope, just trying, in my own little way, to indicate the difference between could & couldn't.
Take it or leave it you "attention whoring" (what the fuck would that be?) twat.

--
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Google Boring by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 08:04 · Score: 0

Yes, and the bathrooms at the "Google Plex" are called the "Google Bathrooms".
The toilet stalls are called the "Google Toilets".
All staff are being renamed:
"Google Developer", "Google Manager", "Google CEO", etc...
I can hear it now at the Google Coffepot:
"Hey Google, did you catch the game last night?"
"Who me?"
"No not you Google Developer, I was talking to Google Marketing"
Google are begining to sound like the smurfs... Google this, google that... google google google.
Synapse from Antitrust by Noughmad · 2011-07-05 08:09 · Score: 1

I know people don't like this movie, and I agree the story has nothing to with the title or Microsoft, but this Google+ basically Synapse. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jN8LC1aDpk.

--
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Re:I hope they don't take away offline pic managem by Macrat · 2011-07-05 08:12 · Score: 1

I completely agree, until they can at least save the feature set. I use the facial recognition to help sort hundreds of photos at a time. I don't necessarily want to "share" recognition, but I still want it to organize my own photos.
Then you should just use iPhoto instead of uploading to a web site.
Integration is a good thing... by jamesgamble · 2011-07-05 08:14 · Score: 1

I think that the majority of tech savvy users won't see the point in integrating Picasa and Blogger into the Google+ platform because we're already use to using these services and know how to navigate around them. But for people like my grandmother who think Google is just the search page and GMail, this could help to bring them to a place where they feel more comfortable using other Google services. If Blogger and Picasa look more like something that my grandmother uses every day, she's going to be more likely to explore the service to see what it can do. I think Google is on the right track here. Having a common user interface among all of their products and services can only help to make it easier for users to start using new services that they never tried in the past.
It doesn't matter... by EvilStein · 2011-07-05 08:24 · Score: 1

If it's from Google, it could grind newborn infants and puppies into a slurry and tech bloggers would shower it with love and geek adoration.
1. Re:It doesn't matter... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  iPhone components? That's crazy! Apple would never stand for it.
2. Re:It doesn't matter... by cgenman · 2011-07-05 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  If it's from Google, it could grind newborn infants and puppies into a slurry and tech bloggers would shower it with love and geek adoration.
  It recycles!
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
Re:I hope they don't take away offline pic managem by kevinmenzel · 2011-07-05 08:26 · Score: 1

With facebook, you can do that too! https://www.facebook.com/download/
Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 08:30 · Score: 0

This is what I call ground breaking news.
Okay... by Tolkien · 2011-07-05 08:34 · Score: 1

So like the potentially confusing Google Chat, Google Talk and Google Voice, there's now Google Images and Google Photo? Bravo Google! *slow clap*

--
how is babby formed?
1. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 12:58 · Score: 0
  
  So like the potentially confusing Google Chat, Google Talk and Google Voice, there's now Google Images and Google Photo? Bravo Google! *slow clap*
  You messed it up! Google Images is old. It's Google Blogs that's new. So you should've said:
  
  So like the potentially confusing Google Chat, Google Talk, Google Voice and Google Images, there's now Google Blogs and Google Photo? Bravo Google! *slow clap*
Re:I hope they don't take away offline pic managem by Cinder6 · 2011-07-05 08:36 · Score: 1

I would like to use iPhoto, but the big feature it's missing for me is auto-discovery of pictures.

--
If you can't convince them, convict them.
Re:I hope they don't take away offline pic managem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 08:53 · Score: 0

Yes... it creates a zip... over the course of a day and tosses in every post, link and other bit of data you ever put on Facebook and puts them all in one big zip file that is about as useful as one would think a large, undifferentiated and unorganized zip file that one has to wait too long for might be.
bvukich, koalacuhe, stevetop159 by AliasMarlowe · 2011-07-05 09:08 · Score: 1

email me your gmail address at jacer@mailinator.com
I'll check it tonight and send you a Google+ invite.
This goes for anyone else too.
Is this for real, or are you just trolling to see who will publish their email addresses in a public place? So far, there are only three, perhaps partly because slashdot is mostly frequented by paranoid cynics, or friendless sociopaths.
Alternatively, did bvukich or koalacuhe or stevetop159 actually receive a real google+ invite? Or are you now just waiting for the spamflood to start?

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
1. Re:bvukich, koalacuhe, stevetop159 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 10:39 · Score: 0
  
  I'm koalacuhe, nothing yet but then the messages have been deleted and I wouldn't know whether the person who deleted the messages was the one who asked for them *shrug*. With respect to giving out gmail accounts - I'm not sure you fully appreciate how little time and effort they take to create.
Private network by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 09:10 · Score: 0

>All this forms part of a massive feature addition
>to Google's new social network, Google+."
Not that anybody can JOIN this wonderful new network ...
lack of good marketing by BigGerman · 2011-07-05 09:13 · Score: 2

They should use something more evolutionary and more suitable for giant company, like: Google Plus Picasa Photo Service
1. Re:lack of good marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  I always thought that "blogger" and "blogspot" sounded like vomit words.
2. Re:lack of good marketing by YojimboJango · 2011-07-05 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  I know right! And Blogger should be named Google Team Enterprise Self Foundation Publishing Ultimate Pro!
Re:Google+ promotional video by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 09:14 · Score: 0

I always love it when mods neg my rickrolls. It's confirmation that I got at least one person.
But, it's also a search engine. by formfeed · 2011-07-05 09:15 · Score: 1

You forgot, that you can still use Google as a search engine!
In the future you will be able do that with Google google
Call me back when Picasa is a native application by kriston · 2011-07-05 09:17 · Score: 1

Call me back when Picasa is a native application. I don't now nor will ever use Wine.

--
Kriston
Google, now jack of all trades, master of none. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 09:21 · Score: 0

I got an invite the other day and decided to check it out and see what all the fuss is about.
Goto Google+ , enter my email (a google apps account) only to be told I needed a Google Profile (whatever that is) before I could join.
So goto the Google Profiles page, enter my email again, only to be told 'Sorry, Profiles isn't available to Google Apps users'.
I could have sworn that back in March this year Google announced Profiles were coming to Apps accounts in few weeks time.
I just get the feeling with all this rebranding, new services being announced, other services shut down etc that Google are beginning to act like Microsoft did in the late 90's , instead of doing one thing really well (like how google search USED to be) they're now doing a multitude of things in a half-arsed way, with no real clear direction.
Plus should have been open to all right from the start, not this 'limited invite' crap. What the hell is the point of a social network when none of your friends/colleagues can sign up for it ? What impetus is there for people to try it out it they're still stuck on Facebook?
Fine, it's beta. In that case why the fucking big fanfare about it? You do that to garner peoples attention to your product. By the time it's out of beta and open for the unclean masses, many of them will have forgotten all about it and moved onto the next 'next big thing'
Re:Call me back when Picasa is a native applicatio by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 09:28 · Score: 0

I'm running it as a native application right now. I don't now, nor will ever use Wine either.
Re:I hope they don't take away offline pic managem by syousef · 2011-07-05 09:30 · Score: 1

I really hate the cloud.
I also hate the cloud, but they have already FUCKED Picasa. It always had a few quirks but it is now so buggy that I don't trust it. After months of correcting face data, after my latest upgrade it just started becoming corrupt every few restarts. The first time I lost probably 40 man hours of work. Fuck Google. Fuck Picasa. Fuck the "Cloud".

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Re:Call me back when Picasa is a native applicatio by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 09:59 · Score: 0

ring ... ring ...
It's native (Windows) now ... If only you didn't use Whine.
Re:Google+ promotional video by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 10:31 · Score: 0

Seriously man... Rickrolls? You are quite literally years behind the times. This shit hasn't been funny for at least 2 years.
Killing the Stand-Alones? by Bing+Tsher+E · 2011-07-05 10:51 · Score: 2

Does this mean that Google will be trying to leverage Picassa and Blogger to coerce people into joining their Network in order to use them? That's what I read in the word 'rebranding' and it doesn't sound good.
Re:Call me back when Picasa is a native applicatio by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 10:51 · Score: 0

Call me back when Picasa is a native application. I don't now nor will ever use Wine.
Actually, Picasa for Linux is in beta 3 version; works fine for me.
Re:I hope they don't take away offline pic managem by kevinmenzel · 2011-07-05 10:52 · Score: 1

Yes it's not as convenient. The point is, it's possible. And frankly, it's pretty easy to grab only the images out of something, or only the movies, or whatever. It's not like these filetypes aren't clearly identified by their extensions.
Re:Google+ promotional video by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 11:07 · Score: 0

Nah, like knock-knock jokes, they never get old.
Hmm.... time to download Picassa by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 11:29 · Score: 0

Before you *can't* get it as a standalone program.
Re:Call me back when Picasa is a native applicatio by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 12:19 · Score: 0

Call me back when Picasa is a native application. I don't now nor will ever use Wine.
Why not just quit wine-ing and use googlecl.
GoogleApps domains compatibility by Megaport · 2011-07-05 13:36 · Score: 2

I hope they don't roll up picasa and blogger until *after* they've fixed Google+ integration with GoogleApps hosted domains.
Google have acknowledged that Google+ can't be used with email addresses hosted in GoogleApp domains but there is no word on when or if this will be fixed. Moving other products into Google+ will just reduce the number of google services that I can access, and I'm a paying google customer!
--M

--
# grep slashdot access.log | grep html | sort | uniq | wc -l 2604
1. Re:GoogleApps domains compatibility by Nursie · 2011-07-05 18:09 · Score: 1
  
  Irritating isn't it?
  I used my Google Apps for Domains email address to sign up for a normal Google account a little while back. This seemed weird but made most stuff work. Then a few months back I was made to merge the accounts, which took hours.
  Now this!
  My inbox is filling up with people's Google+ status updates, and there's nothing I can do with it. Irritating.
Re:I hope they don't take away offline pic managem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 14:33 · Score: 0

umm, does it also recognize cunt, ass, and tits?
Re:Call me back when Picasa is a native applicatio by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 14:56 · Score: 0

While we're on the subject, Sketchup needs a native Linux version too. But the guy in charge of that project is not interested. Use Wine he says. Thanks for nothing.
Hope this gets Picasa more dev love by Ymerej · 2011-07-05 16:07 · Score: 1

If this gets Picasa some more maintenance, that would be great. I use it and there are some very annoying bugs that Google doesn't seem to have the motivation (read: enough eyeballs) to care about fixing.
Still waiting... by ADRA · 2011-07-05 16:39 · Score: 1

for my invite.. snooze. My coworker has friends in Google and he got his, but even he can't invite me to try it out. Any service that people can't use is useless.. tyvm.

--
Bye!
1. Re:Still waiting... by Ash-Fox · 2011-07-05 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  Any service that people can't use is useless.. tyvm.
  I'm using Google+ just fine. I quite like it.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:Call me back when Picasa is a native applicatio by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 17:01 · Score: 0

Call me back when Picasa is a native application. I don't now nor will ever use Wine.
Picasa is two things, a web service and an application. There are plenty of NATIVE Linux apps that can use Picasa the web service.
Hopefully it is more than just rebranding by olegalexandrov · 2011-07-05 18:55 · Score: 1

Hopefully they won't just rebrand their services, but make them work better with each other. I think it is still not possible to attach pictures from Picasa and documents from Google docs when sending mail from gmail. There are other places where Google's services don't talk to each other very well.
1. Re:Hopefully it is more than just rebranding by m4ktub · 2011-07-05 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  I also thing that's the only thing refreshing with GG+. The profile page, for instance, was floating around for months and now I know how to get there and its purpose. Contacts are still not tightly integrated but could be with that "circle" stuff. Anyway, I also agree that using the same concepts everywhere is definitely a win.
Re:Call me back when Picasa is a native applicatio by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 19:47 · Score: 0

Call me back when Picasa is a native application. I don't now nor will ever use Wine.
Picasa is a cloud-based photo storage and sharing service which you access using an html interface. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get supplied as a native application, but just FYI all you need is a web browser. Which you probably already have.
Re:Call me back when Picasa is a native applicatio by Ash-Fox · 2011-07-05 23:45 · Score: 1

He's referring to this which provides native x86 binaries, but is crying over the fact it uses it's own build of Wine on Linux, as if that's something wrong?

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.