Slashdot Mirror
How Steve Jobs Changed Google Plus
Anthony_Cargile writes "Everyone thinks of Google Plus as a social networking website competing with Facebook, but that is no longer the case — even Google recognizes its failure in that regard. But in a meeting with Sergey Brin and Larry Page shortly before his death, Steve Jobs gave key advice as to what direction to take their company with regards to Google Plus, as is evidenced by their controversial new 'umbrella' privacy policy that went in effect this year. Privacy advocates beware, as the problem is almost certainly worse than ever anticipated."
Seriously, he died months ago, we can stop jerking off all over his legacy now...
Privacy advocates beware, as the problem is almost certainly worse than ever anticipated.
Good thing we have alternatives, right?
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Nothing but gossip, and scaremongering.
This is the same man who came up with "MobileMe" and Ping. Remember those massive failures? No? That's because the media ignores them in portraying Apple as a company that never makes a mistake.
I think you mean Privacy Nuts.
If you think that information wasn't already communicated between groups in the company, you are hugely mistaken,
The new privacy policy just made this far more clear.
All the separate agreements equally allowed this.
If there is anything worse than people still bringing up how OH SO WONDERFUL STEVE JOBS is, it is the privacy nut articles.
Give me another Raspberry Pi Beowulf Cluster of viral infections or whatever the hell else.
Oh GOD, I just realized this is both! That's it, time for sleep. I'm done. Gone, out of here.
Apple's online services have never integrated terribly well, and they have a bad habit of renaming things and moving features from one service to another.
Which seems to mimic a certain Redmond based software company's online ventures...
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
There's nothing in the article (yes, I read it). It's just what everyone already knew - Google+ is one more Google service and will continue to exist and act as a data source to better target their advertisements. Big deal. The actual content of the unified privacy policy remains less threatening than most, even if people continue to cower at its mere existence. The contribution that it mentions from Steve Jobs is essentially non-existent, and I've already written more than this thing deserves.
TFA explains it - if you're using YouTube, Google search, gmail, or any other google service, you're using Google+. It's just a big wrapper for the whole experience. No one cares if you aren't posting about drunken weekend escapades because your digital footprints are just as valuable without the meaningless banter that serves as an excuse to use the FaceTubes.
So I read the linked blog post, and I'm trying to figure out what the guy's real point is. The one thing that IS clear is the author's an unabashed Google fanboy and can't grasp the concept that his favorite company might be able to fail at something.
Anyway, I'm stuck deciding between two possibilities:
a) He knows in his heart of hearts that Google+ is a failure, and is trying to pin that on a non-Google person because - hey, you can't libel the dead.
b) He really does believe Google can do no wrong, and is trying to somehow convince non-believers by invoking the perceived infallibility of Jobs.
In any case, it's hard to believe anyone could believe that Brin and Page heard Jobs say "you need to unify your products into a seamless whole" and twisted that into "your problem is you don't have a unified privacy policy".
#DeleteChrome
Media, maybe, but Apple themselves readily admit their own mistakes. They don't flog a horse long after it's dead, unlike some.
This is the same man who came up with "MobileMe" and Ping. Remember those massive failures? No? That's because the media ignores them in portraying Apple as a company that never makes a mistake.
Where do you get off calling MobileMe a massive failure? There's a bunch of different services that existed before MobileMe, and exist under iCloud now. Some services have changed quite a bit, like Gallery to Photo Stream, iDisk is going away, and new services like Match are available for a price, while the synchronization stuff is now free.
Who says Apple doesn't make mistakes and what makes you think the media doesn't give them coverage??
You don't even know what MobileMe is, and I'm starting to think you don't know the difference between a mistake and a failure.
+5 Said something bad about Apple, LOL.
I have to agree. There are less users, but they are overall more useful. I subscribe to the photography and technology groups, so I have a neverending stream of nice photos and interesting gadgets to look at on a slow news day. In fact, I sometimes learn about new gadgets even before they pop up on slashdot. So, G+ is aimed at a different group of people, and that being so does not make it a failure. Facebook pretty much has the market cornered with the Farmville and other online game types, G+ news seems to have more news from creative types. Also, G+ is easy to train, and after weeding out the worst spammers, the rest is all good. -Evert Vorster-
"You're holding it wrong." "Just avoid holding it that way." "Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong."
Those quotes are in response to the disastrous INITIAL RELEASE of MobileMe, you disingenuous cunt.
Can someone explain exactly what changed in Google's user agreement that gives them some new horrible power that they (and pretty much every other online account holder) did not already give themselves? What can Google do now that they couldn't already? I've seen so much concern about Google's new policy but very little to explain why. I briefly looked over the new policy when it came out and did not see anything that unusual. Maybe there's some more information sharing across their services, but I don't think there was much stopping that even before.
So you mean the big fuss is over them being able to do "grep $googleid unified_services_access.log" instead of "grep $googleid *service_access.log"?
I almost certainly read the article, and I almost certainly agree with the summary. You almost certainly read the article too, in which case you almost certainly agree that this almost certainly occurred. This is almost certainly the most accurate story ever posted on /. And almost certainly, this comment will be rated +5 informative.
It is either certain, or it isn't. If it is certain, then there is no doubt evidence to back up that claim. In which case you would simply say "it is certain that... because of..." Unless you are writing an article on probability theory, then we should expect facts. Not rumor dressed up as fact.
You know what we call things reported on web blogs that are almost certain?
Bullshit.
Here are some red-flag phrases the writer of the summary almost certainly read, and almost certainly ignored:
"Nobody would expect..."
"I'm going to reveal..."
"It all started when..."
"...something to the effect of..."
"...easily verified via his Wikipedia page..."
"I'm told by people familiar with the situation..."
"I project that..."
Well, before I totally dismiss the article let us learn about the author. Perhaps he is a well connected business savvy insider who has connections right at the top. Let's see what the bio says:
Chris "...is a business grad student at USC who is very fluent with technology..."
Okay, I can't go on any more. I'm going to be sick. Whatever journalistic integrity I had is being sucked dry by this one. Since when did USC grad students start getting taken so seriously?
Coincidentally I was reading The Big Short the other day and it was about a very similar theme - how human beings seem to want collectively to believe in something no matter that it is obviously bullshit, and that the people who try to point out that the emperor is naked get no thanks - they even seem to get blamed when the system collapses due to its unsustainability. There is not a lot of difference in principle between believing in the medieval idea of Heaven and believing that junk mortgages could be made AAA by clever repackaging, and that nothing bad would happen.
Marx wanted to find out the truth underlying human society. Jobs wanted to find out what would best satisfy the desires for gadgetry of middle and upper middle class Americans. They were both pretty good at what they did (Marx's analysis of capitalism has turned out about 100% correct), but in the case of Marx his followers screwed up. I strongly expect Jobs's successors to do exactly the same.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
C= made a PC too in the 70s
C= made a cheaper home fun computer than Apple
C= made a better color computer than Mac System 6
The C= Amgia could emulate the Macs+OS via ROM module or (copy rom as most did via BBSs). The Rom in ram ran faster. The Emulator patched some OS calls to be asyncronous and ran faster and better that a real mac did. And also ran Amiga apps at the same time as Mac Apps.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
But why cite Wikipedia when there is so much better information on early history of science? The article you cite describes Alhazen as an "early Islamic scientist" whereas he was pre-scientific, as was Francis Bacon (to whom I am very distantly related, so I have some interest in the subject). Descartes described the experimental method but was a long way from following it. You can argue that Aristotle, by proposing the validity of sensory experience as a clue to understanding the world, was the father of experimental method (experience and experiment have a common root) or you can argue that Galileo was (he actually did experiments to test his ideas), but to try and claim that the moment of truth lies somewhere in between ca. 350 BCE and ca 1600 CE is to try and measure accurately using a jelly stick.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."