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.
Privacy advocates beware, as the problem is almost certainly worse than ever anticipated.
Wouldn't that require people to actually use Google Plus, in order for it to be a problem?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Slow news day much? This article is devoid of news, consists solely of "Duh!" opinions rendered in awkward sophomoric prose, and is all too typical of the low standards of fourth-tier tech sites. "The leader in technology news and commentary"? Maybe at your particular high school.
Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
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.
Didn't Google call Google+ an identity service? You can't expect privacy from an Identity Service. That would be like expecting Facebook to stop violating your privacy; they can't stop, violating your privacy IS their business model.
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.
They were so non-traditionally successful that they were too good for ordinary people. Think different.
Take a look at the article on Acxiom in today's New York Times. They do track most Americans. You are worth the effort (which is automated in any case) if you have any money to spend.
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
Quite suggestive that Page and Brin are into something, too;). However, it could also be an in-joke about enlightenment. After all, in the sixties, LSD was the shorter path to achieving oneness with the universe (the long way was to go on a pilgrimage to India). Now iimagine Jobs advising his young apprentices (disciples?) to unite their different services into the One web portal.
I stab myself in a different part of the leg every night to thwart gait-detection.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I just spent 5 precious minutes mopping soda up off of my desk thanks to you.
Media, maybe, but Apple themselves readily admit their own mistakes. They don't flog a horse long after it's dead, unlike some.
Page and Brin, struck with this epiphany, thought to themselves: "My God, how come we and our 30,000 highly-qualified employees never thought of this before!? This man is truly a genius!"
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.
Where do you get off calling MobileMe a massive failure?
Well, Steve Jobs called MobileMe and the MobileMe team a massive failure himself.
"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?" Having received a satisfactory answer, he continues, "So why the f*** doesn't it do that?"
Steve Jobs summoned the entire MobileMe team for a meeting at the company's on-campus Town Hall, accusing everyone of "tarnishing Apple's reputation." He told the members of the team they "should hate each other for having let each other down", and went on to name new executives on the spot to run the MobileMe team.
Source
FTFS "Everyone thinks of Google Plus as a social networking" ... - I rarely think about Google Plus and I suspect 98% of the planet don't give a damn.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
"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."
They just built (bought, LOL) all these "services" over the years, and did Android, but it took Steve Fucking Jobs (RIP) to TELL them they had something that could be unified? Seriously?
Love the way Jobs was quoted: "He told them something to the effect of...'[purported quote]' ".
Sure, I imagine G's goal all along was an ID service: GOOG doesn't like the anonymity of information/posts on the internet because their main brand (Search) is serving up these pages and they want the pages to be more reliable; they want accountability on the web. (I completely disagree with the concept, but that's not the point). Apple wants a good web experience, too, but only on their hardware. No way (imo) Jobs would have said shit to Page about a homegrown social network without mentioning hardware, and he surely wouldn't have lauded Androids as the hardware (not closed enough). The companys' mindsets are way too different for these types of collaborations. (Actually, they hate each other.)
Exactly! I simply don't understand why Larry Page is obsessed with trying to make Google into Apple. The reason why Google is successful is that they are NOT like Apple. The world already has an Apple. It doesn't need another. Stick with what got you here in the first place instead of trying to be something you aren't.
...readily admit their own mistakes.
Here's another glass of Kool-Aid, kid. You're doing great.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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.
.... `ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste'
The distortions were already creeping in during his lifetime. But, to be fair, his writing had certain ambiguities and tensions that lends itself to being misunderstood.
Jesus is an entirely different story. Briefly put, there just isn't enough evidence to make any sort of objective judgment. To say that Jesus would have rejected (or accepted) modern Christianity is to make a judgment founded upon ideological principles.
The case of Aristotle is pretty interesting. In some ways, Aristotle was very empirically minded. In other ways, not so much. But what happened in the medieval era was the flip side of Feyerabend's observation that any science without a metaphysics becomes a rigid metaphysics on its own. Aristotlean metaphysics ceased to be metaphysics and was adopted as a science.
In any case, Jobs is nowhere close to the league in which you'll find Aristotle, Marx, and Jesus. Fifty years from now might get a couple of paragraphs in some text books. But in the end, his innovation wasn't anywhere near as world changing as any of the others under discussion.
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."
No, it isn't. It is based on a comparison of what is said in the New Testament versus what is propagated by several mainstream churches. Anybody who has had a theological education (guilty) and has then not had to earn a living by espousing one version or another of Christianity is free to see this and say it. To claim that this is an "ideological" issue involves a great deal of tortuous argument that apparently straightforward statements in the NT actually mean something quite different, plus a willingness to give the writings of Saul of Tarsus primacy over the Gospels.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."