Slashdot Mirror


Google Begins To Merge Google+, Gmail Contacts

An anonymous reader writes "Google today announced new integration between Gmail and Google+ that sees your social connections show up in auto-complete when you're composing an email. Google says the feature is rolling out "over the next couple of days" to everyone that uses Gmail and Google+."

176 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. Great.... by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Spam City, here we come. Why is this opt-out instead of opt-in? Because nobody would want it.

    1. Re:Great.... by RevSpaminator · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I just opted out.

    2. Re:Great.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google+: Google's third failure of a social network that nobody wants but Google is going to push by forcing integration with their popular services such as YouTube and Gmail.

      Sorry Google, but I've had I'm jumping ship. Microsoft looks like a saint in comparison.

    3. Re:Great.... by number17 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I looked at the pictures in the article and you can disable emails coming from Google+. Its under General settings tab in Gmail.

      It doesn't look like I can send emails to Google+ people quite yet.

    4. Re:Great.... by JDG1980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google+: Google's third failure of a social network that nobody wants but Google is going to push by forcing integration with their popular services such as YouTube and Gmail.

      This is the kind of thing that antitrust laws are supposed to stop. Unfortunately, we don't do antitrust enforcement in the U.S. any more, at least not in any meaningful sense.

    5. Re:Great.... by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Spam City, here we come. Why is this opt-out instead of opt-in? Because nobody would want it.

      Yeah that and hardly anyone tends to "opt" when allowed. Why would a company bother to release a feature and make it opt in?

    6. Re:Great.... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google+: Google's third failure of a social network that nobody wants but Google is going to push by forcing integration with their popular services such as YouTube and Gmail.

      This is the kind of thing that antitrust laws are supposed to stop. Unfortunately, we don't do antitrust enforcement in the U.S. any more, at least not in any meaningful sense.

      I don't like Google integrating its other -- more useful or popular -- services like YouTube GMail with Google+, but where's the antitrust angle to that?

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    7. Re:Great.... by queazocotal · · Score: 2

      If G+ was market dominant, the argument could be made that by showing completions only from google services was anticompetitive.

    8. Re:Great.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "bundlin". using your market power in one category to push unpopular products in other categories by bundling, is the antitrust angle.

    9. Re:Great.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is no different when people made a stink over Microsoft bundling IE with Windows.

    10. Re:Great.... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Are they dominant in the markets of google+ or gmail?

    11. Re:Great.... by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is this opt-out instead of opt-in? Because nobody would want it.

      Oh, wait, you're talking about Google. For a second there, I thought you were talking about Slashdot Beta.

    12. Re:Great.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obviously, since Google is the only company providing Google+ and Gmail.

      Your pedantry aside, they are dominant in the areas of email and video sharing which are the places they are forcing Google+ integration.

    13. Re:Great.... by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Spam City, here we come.

      Do you circle a lot of people who will spam you?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:Great.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Spam City, here we come. Why is this opt-out instead of opt-in? Because nobody would want it.

      I'd say you opted-In when you went out and setup a Google+ account and linked it to your Gmail account.

    15. Re:Great.... by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      No, G+ is fine. Better than FB, in fact. I don't trust Google really, anymore than I trust Facebook, and its network effect is much smaller. But those are different matters.

    16. Re:Great.... by Pi1grim · · Score: 1

      But that's the problem. G+ is just fine. Even if it's better than Facebook (look the same to me) then it's not better by a much. Not better enough for others to switch. Why would you switch, if they are pretty much freaking clones.

      And shoving G+ down users throats is causing gag reflex, so sad to see company that used to win users by being the best in the field (GMail, Search, YouTube) is down to such cheap promotion methods.

      I kind of like G+ at first, but when all this nonsence started with killing off GTalk and replacing it with Hangouts (super-tightly tied into G+), then even stock Gallery on Android is biting the dust, being replaced by G+ Photos (Picasa was shot in the head much earlier). I came to pretty much hate G+, because Google does everything so force me there, sacrificing good projects so this DOA project can sustain some kind of existence.

    17. Re:Great.... by Charcharodon · · Score: 2
      It's only anti-trust if you have no other choice. Last time I checked there were nearly endless social media and email choices out there.

      Anti-trust is not synonymous with anti-business that are jerks and stupid heads.

    18. Re:Great.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Same dung, different manure manufacturer.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:Great.... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you circle a lot of people who will spam you?

      That's not that game where everyone... never mind.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    20. Re:Great.... by 2fuf · · Score: 1

      I know a better way of solving this: I have nobody in my circles :-)

    21. Re:Great.... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I agree, but there is a way to avoid it so far. Do not log on to youtube unless you absoultely need to (it's mostly usable without login) and use POP3 to fetch your gmail.

      That way you can avoid all the "do you want to join google+? yes/no, but we're going to make you join it anyway" prompt.

    22. Re:Great.... by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      I didn't switch, I use both. But I like the fact that I can add people do different circles and *easily* manage which people see which updates. So my coworkers can see when I'm heading to the bar (to join me), but not "friends" that I don't care for. Or I can easily share an invitation with family and close friends to a child's birthday party without having to craft the lists by hand each time. On the other hand, I like the groups on Facebook. I like that I can reconnect easily with people from my past there, since it has a large following. But there are things I hate about each as well. I hate that G+ looks like it was branded by Playskool, and I hate that Facebook refuses to acknowledge that I'd like to see most recent instead of most active. Among other things.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    23. Re:Great.... by LF11 · · Score: 1

      > This is the kind of thing that antitrust laws are supposed to stop. Unfortunately, we don't do antitrust enforcement in the U.S. any more, at least not in any meaningful sense.

      That would be because antitrust laws are meant to help end competition for existing monopolies.

    24. Re:Great.... by Jmac217 · · Score: 1

      Default is king.

    25. Re:Great.... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Spam City, here we come.

      Do you circle a lot of people who will spam you?

      Sure. I don't post publicly in general, because I know that most people aren't interested in half of what I write. If I'm writing about something FOSS-related it goes to one circle, and if it is family-related it goes to another. I have circles for people I follow, and I have circles that I broadcast to but don't read.

      My threshold for putting somebody in a broadcast-only circle is VERY low. Why would I want to restrict access to my own posts? Again, I don't post publicly most of the time.

      If Google fixed their broken model which is based on the assumption that if I'm interested in Linux then I'm interested in Subsurface then perhaps I'd change my habits...

    26. Re:Great.... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I'm not here to say it's a good thing. I'm here to point out a way to avoid having to mess around with the g+ crap for majority of people.

    27. Re:Great.... by swillden · · Score: 1

      My threshold for putting somebody in a broadcast-only circle is VERY low. Why would I want to restrict access to my own posts? Again, I don't post publicly most of the time.

      Then for your particular mode of using G+, you should probably remove permission for people you've circled to e-mail you.

      I wouldn't be surprised if this particular permission becomes more fine-grained over time, so you can specify it on a per-circle basis. In fact that's the way I think it should go. Another alternative would be to make it easy to create gmail filters by the circle(s) the sender is in, then you could create a filter than just trashes e-mails from any of your "broadcast" circles. Actually, both features would be useful, I think.

      If Google fixed their broken model which is based on the assumption that if I'm interested in Linux then I'm interested in Subsurface

      How is that? It sounds to me like you've circled Linus Torvalds, who talks about what he's interested in. If you instead follow his Linux page you'd get only Linux stuff with no diving content (personally, as a Linux user and a SCUBA diver, I like following both, plus I find Linus to be a generally interesting fellow).

      However, I wouldn't be surprised if as the auto-tagging feature gets more mature they don't eventually make it possible to follow a person, but only show posts with particular tags. Of course, when Linus posts about the Linux version of Subsurface, you'd probably still see that.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    28. Re:Great.... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Oh, I should also mention that my personal take on this feature is "Yay, finally!". I've wanted for some time to be able to send e-mail to a circle, so I can use circles as poor man's mailing lists. Yeah, I can set up a real mailing list easily enough, but for example, I have circles for people in various branches of my extended family, and for groups of former co-workers, and I occasionally need to send an e-mail inviting people to some family gathering or friendly dinner. I don't do it often enough to bother with a mailing list, so I've found myself adding e-mail addresses one-by-one, but jumping over to check my circles to make sure I'm not forgetting anyone. I could also use Google Contacts groups for the same purpose, but why have multiple mechanisms for grouping contacts? I have, and maintain, the G+ circles already.

      Now if I could just add circles to circles...

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    29. Re:Great.... by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      Using market dominance in one area (search, email) to gain an unfair advantage in another area (social) is anticompetitive. If the degree of market dominance and anti-competitive effect are sufficient, anti-trust laws come into play.

      A perfect monopoly is not required for legal intervention, but I doubt there will be an intervention at all because the legal system barely understands IT. The lawyers, economic experts, and judges would have to realize that these are entirely different markets before they could consider an antitrust suit.

      We had electronic banking and medical records for decades before SOX and HIPAA addressed a number of glaringly obvious concerns.
      Social media is maybe 5 years old? Yeah, they'll have it figured out sometime after Facebook or Google+ is dead.

      If memory serves, Netscape vs IE should be the perfect example. Legally, Netscape demonstrated that Microsoft hurt it. Unfortunately, Netscape was crippled and killed in the time it took to prove it.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    30. Re:Great.... by Chalnoth · · Score: 1

      It actually includes better spam controls. Seems like a pretty good system to me.

    31. Re:Great.... by Chalnoth · · Score: 1

      Then this change doesn't impact you. If you don't have a Google+ profile, then obviously nobody can send e-mails to your Google+ profile.

    32. Re:Great.... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      How is that? It sounds to me like you've circled Linus Torvalds, who talks about what he's interested in. If you instead follow his Linux page you'd get only Linux stuff with no diving content (personally, as a Linux user and a SCUBA diver, I like following both, plus I find Linus to be a generally interesting fellow).

      Sure, and for Linus I'll tolerate it. However, if I extend that to every other person who posts anything of interest on Linux I'll be drowning in cat pictures, jokes, and politics.

      Linus should be able to post publicly about whatever he wants to, and I should be able to see 100% of his Linux-oriented posts and maybe 10% of the rest. It isn't that I don't care about him as a person, but, well, frankly if I told you that I cared about everybody whose feeds I browse you'd know I was lying.

    33. Re:Great.... by 2fuf · · Score: 1

      Sure, so I can see their stuf but I never look anyway. At least nobody sees my stuff.

  2. bad bad idea by jaymz666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When will they force everyone using any google service to use G+?

    What about all these people that have problems having G+? This could well be the real beginning of the end

    1. Re:bad bad idea by MacTO · · Score: 5, Informative

      You aren't actually forced to use G+, even if it is enabled on your account. Realistically, Google won't be able to force you to use G+ either since that would break interoperability with other email providers.

      As for the privacy concerns associated with G+, they should exist whether or not these are independent services. It is the same company collecting your data after all.

    2. Re:bad bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have Adblock Plus. What video ads?

    3. Re:bad bad idea by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You aren't actually forced to use G+

      Most Slashdotters aren't actually forced to do much of anything, but that doesn't stop them from bitching about just about everything.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:bad bad idea by spruce · · Score: 1

      So your argument is basically "yes you'll have a forced social account you don't want (which if you follow the rules has to be in your name,) but it's not that bad." Fuck you and Google.

      I've had a gmail account almost as long as it's been out, I love my Nexus 5. I'm not someone who flips out over small issues (IMHO,) - but I'm seriously considering dropping all google services due to forced integration, and several of my friends are in the same boat. If I can't have contacts outside of G+ I'll drop them without another thought. Google is new in the completely pissing off customers market - but with the forced integration of Youtube, G+ nags, etc. they're catching up quickly.

    5. Re:bad bad idea by peragrin · · Score: 2

      Just don't use google + and everyone in a while check the security settings o that it stays locked down.

      google is just merging all of it's products to one username/password combo. instead of having an account with youLube, Docs, mail, etcs, it is google +.

      It will make adding features easier on the backend. the down side is I don't use social networking, of course since I have an iPhone I can't use google contacts anyways.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re:bad bad idea by jaymz666 · · Score: 1

      There are more than privacy concerns with G+

      G+ requires that you use your real name, your first and last real name
      Will people who don't use their real name on the gmail account be screwed because they've been integrated with the G+ system?

      This is all very anti-user

      I just received the email about the update

      Receiving email from people outside your circles
      If you receive an email from someone outside your circles, it will be filtered into the Social category of the inbox (if enabled) and only after you respond or add them to your circles, can they start another conversation with you.

      So it looks like there is a setting, that can only be modified via web browser on a desktop, so people who only use tablets are kinda SOL, that disables this

    7. Re:bad bad idea by xvan · · Score: 1

      since I have an iPhone I can't use google contacts anyways.

      Never heard of card dav, did you?

    8. Re:bad bad idea by cmorriss · · Score: 2

      Good lord. I understand Slashdot folks generally don't like to read the actual article, but I don't think a single comment on this has come from someone who actually read it.

      It is simply and integration between G+ and gmail. They are NOT merging. IF you use G+, then you'll be able to send emails to people in G+ without having to know their email address. It's a nice convenience. That is all.

      So if you're not using G+ for anything now, nothing at all will change for you in gmail. If you are using it, you will get some nice new feature.

      --
      10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
    9. Re:bad bad idea by jaymz666 · · Score: 1

      If you are using G+, it allows ANYONE on G+ to email you by default

    10. Re:bad bad idea by gsslay · · Score: 1

      I have G+. I forget how much I was "forced" into setting it up from gmail. I don't really want it and I don't need it.

      I resolve the situation by never using it, and having it contain nothing. It therefore does nothing, good or bad, for anyone, other than take up 0.0000000000000000001% of Google's drive space.

    11. Re:bad bad idea by AtomicJake · · Score: 1

      I had G+ (until today, but before this Slashdot article), and just closed my G+ account. I still have and keep my Gmail account. You do not need G+ for Gmail.

  3. Re:All your base belong to us. by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

    whoa.. that makes us old now? I still thought that made us cool.

    --
    Just another second banana
  4. this case may trun out bad for google by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1
    1. Re:this case may trun out bad for google by Cryacin · · Score: 1
      Wow, what a messy story there for our friend Thomas. Apparently he asked the girl to marry him, then she said no and turned around and slapped a restraining order on the guy. Have a look at what I found in google cache on urban dictionary:
      http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VeXEw3P932QJ:www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3Fterm%3DThomas%2520Gagnon+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz

      1. Thomas Gagnon A lying cheating boy who has no selfworth. He makes you fall for him and then rips everything out from under you. Be careful when near him. May occasionally act immature and like a girl. WARNING: He will say he loves you but is just saying that to get into your pants. Avoid at all costs. Thomas Gagnon has small man parts...mark as favorite buy thomas gagnon mugs & shirts cheater lying immature egotistical rude by love,exgirlfriend :) December 15, 2010 add a video

      When it's said google knows all, it really means it.
      Don't know what this guy did, but it seems as though this woman is using a restraining order as a tool for revenge rather than to prevent violence. If this is true, for shame!

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:this case may trun out bad for google by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      I think Google+ would have been fine, except for Sergey's insistence upon people using their real names, instead of being able to keep their nicknames. That made it no fun any more, and that's why I closed my profile down & avoided it from then on.

      Truth is, I don't want people to know I'm actually a Staffordshire Terrier. People can be so prejudiced against dogs on the internet.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    3. Re:this case may trun out bad for google by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You complain? Try to convince them that your last name is really Suckmydick.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:this case may trun out bad for google by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Don't know what this guy did, but it seems as though this woman is using a restraining order as a tool for revenge rather than to prevent violence. If this is true, for shame!
      Wow, such naivete. Yes, Virginia it has been a decades long established practice esp. in divorce cases to use restraining orders as leverage and revenge. The threshold for getting such order has been reduced so low, there is little disincentive to get one for spurious reasons.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
  5. Easy enough to disable by barlevg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Though the obvious response is, "for now."

    1. Re:Easy enough to disable by swillden · · Score: 1

      Though the obvious response is, "for now."

      What motive would Google have for removing this feature?

      If anything I expect it to go the other way. I bet we'll ultimately end up with a global email-from-circles kill switch (what they've provided so far) along with per-circle settings, so you can allow people in some circles to e-mail you and not others. Since most G+ users have separate circles for friends & family vs random people whose posts they like to read, that would make a lot of sense.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Easy enough to disable by barlevg · · Score: 1

      If anything I expect it to go the other way. I bet we'll ultimately end up with a global email-from-circles kill switch (what they've provided so far) along with per-circle settings, so you can allow people in some circles to e-mail you and not others. Since most G+ users have separate circles for friends & family vs random people whose posts they like to read, that would make a lot of sense.

      Actually, IIRC that's already the setting--you can select which circles can send you emails. But to answer the question of why would they remove your option to opt out: I dunno--why did Google force its Youtube users to link their accounts to G+ when they first made it optional? Near as I can figure is that Google really wants G+ to succeed, because they want to directly compete with Facebook. But since no one was actually interested in using G+, they're trying to force you to by saying, "if you don't use it, then you can't use any of our products that you do like." It's bullying, plain and simple, and I say this as a hard-core Google fanboy.

    3. Re:Easy enough to disable by swillden · · Score: 1

      I dunno--why did Google force its Youtube users to link their accounts to G+ when they first made it optional?

      Seems pretty obvious to me: Google only wants to have a single user account system for all of their products. It's about integration.

      Near as I can figure is that Google really wants G+ to succeed, because they want to directly compete with Facebook.

      Nah. Google+ isn't interested in competing with Facebook. Google+ is less of a social network and more of an integration hub for Google products.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  6. Whatever by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's great Google. Keep trying to make google+ a thing. That's great.
    Can't say I'm happy about how that worked out for youtube but keep trying. You never know.
    I don't care that much anyway. I switched my gmail account to be my spam account a while ago and only check it via outlook any so whatever. Good luck though.

    1. Re:Whatever by GNious · · Score: 1

      G+ is a thing - might not be to you, but it is a thing.

    2. Re:Whatever by antdude · · Score: 1

      Ever since Gmail was introduced and searched your e-mails to show ad(vertisement)s, I used Gmails for spams and stuff I care not for. I am glad not to be using Gmails.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  7. Re: Great by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm just waiting for a conclusive youtube history gets linked in to your G+ display. I'm sure that won't be any cause for embarrassment amongst professional circles.

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  8. Re:All your base belong to us. by Cryacin · · Score: 1

    All your A-Frames are belong to us.

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  9. Re:Google, when will it end? by luca.masters · · Score: 2

    I don't know. I use it for commenting on YouTube and will soon be using it for my Google Contacts (Gmail and Voice) as well.

    Yeah, Google+ isn't replacing Facebook. But it's working as a way of consolidating overlapping aspects of their various services. If you don't want to go post to your feed, that's fine.

  10. Google+ is supremely annoying by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 5, Interesting
    We run a small condo, 12 units. A few years ago we created a gmail account for the condo administration to communicate with the residents. We used the condo association's legal name as registered with the government. Recently I had to go through the whole "upgrade the account to google+ and you can't opt out" rigamarole. I sent the registration form to google's anonymous and unreachable (except through the one-way web form) to be told the name doesn't meet Google guidelines because they want people to be able to find us.

    Guess what? It's a condo. It only concerns the 12 people who live here. No one else cares about who cleans our carpets and who's complaining about the squeaking hinges on the door over at #201.

    It's so stupid. I downloaded all the documents in the drive but Google doesn't handle french accents too well in file names, AND it creates a flat zip... We lost the whole tree. Oh well, I'll manually re-create it when I migrate over to Yahoo groups.

    You can say what you want about Yahoo, they don't annoy you at the same level as Google.

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
    1. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      A few years ago we created a gmail account for the condo administration to communicate with the residents....Recently I had to go through the whole "upgrade the account to google+ and you can't opt out" rigamarole.

      I have a gmail account and I don't recall anytime that I was required to upgrade to google+. Sure, I have had the occasional "friendly reminders" that I need to update my contact information or I could permanently lose access to my account if I forget my password, but other than that no troubles. What the hell did you do to piss them off so much?

    2. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 3, Informative
      Who knows? Like I said, Google was forcing me to upgrade to Google+ and it was complaining that the name didn't live up to their exalted standards. They said they wanted other people to be able to contact us. If we were a business, we should create a google+ page. Guess what? As a condo admin, I'm not paid, and I'm not interested in creating a google+ page. Furthermore, a condo board in Quebec is not a business so why should I care?

      The main problem Google seems to have is with the name. It's a long sequence of letters and numbers at gmail.com.

      We don't want other people to find us. We don't want to find other people.

      We are not going to help Google+'s bogus social networking numbers simply because like I said we're boring. Just let us keep our name...

      The pop-up I get is in French but it boils down to that the name "doesn't sound" like a name and we must change it. Even though I sent the document showing that it's the name registered with the government, it's not good enough for Google??

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    3. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by Urkki · · Score: 1

      You should ask yourself, why would Google want your business, when your use case is what it is, and when you have the requirements you have?

      Perhaps you should pay them. Of course with your experience, you're not likely to, but you were not likely to before, either. Lost or badly handled sales opportunity for them, I suppose.

    4. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by Bazouel · · Score: 1

      Your use case better fits Google Apps, which we use for exactly the same purpose as you without a hitch. We registered our domain when GApps was still free, but alas, now it would cost you a bit per user (you can register only one user and use people's private email addresses in a mailing list).

      --
      Intelligence shared is intelligence squared.
    5. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Recently I had to go through the whole "upgrade the account to google+ and you can't opt out" rigamarole.

      Bullshit. The upgrade has always been optional, but it's easy to get tricked into doing it. You got tricked. I'm sorry you didn't read more carefully.

      It will be front page news on Slashdot and Reddit for weeks if they ever try to force you to do it. And if that ever happens, Google will lose at least half of their users in a few weeks. Google knows this. They're not stupid, so they don't require you to switch to Google+.

    6. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You can say what you want about Yahoo, they don't annoy you at the same level as Google.

      Just 'cause they know they can't get away with it. Rest assured, they would, if they just could.

      Lesson to learn from this: Never join the biggest bandwagon. Choose someone who will think twice before giving you the "my way or the highway" attitude.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What the hell did you do to piss them off so much?

      Google probably thinks he is French.

    8. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      I lost you somewhere around the point where you linked a youtube account to administrate a condo.

      --
      bickerdyke
    9. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are full of shit. I just created a Gmail account without a real name to prove it.

      Email: a38749238467332443@gmail.com
      Pass: supersecure

      Feel free to log in and check it out. The name on it is "Not Real". It is required for email headers. Fake birthday too, which is of course required because minors can't agree to TOS.

      They don't force you to create a G+ account just to continue using Gmail. Obviously they are aware that many Gmail accounts are not personal (they have a whole Gmail for business thing going on) and provide email services for other companies (like UK ISP Virgin) who would not take to kindly to having their customers forced to join G+.

      Unless you have provide some evidence that you were forced to sign up to G+ against your will I'm afraid you have been exposed as a fraud or a chump who didn't see the "no thanks" button.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      At no point did I want or attempt to create or agree to a google+ account.

      The bastards gave me one and linked it to my gmail without my permission.

      And I still can't post comments to youtube videos.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    11. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You claimed they are upset that this account does not have a real name on it, yet do not require one just to have an email account. Where is your evidence?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Let's wait and see until it's your turn for the Google nonsense. When you've been using your account for three years, we'll see. In the meantime, get some help for you paranoid delusions.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    13. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1
      Bonjour,

      Après avoir examiné votre réclamation, nous avons déterminé que votre nom n'est pas conforme avec la Politique sur les noms de Google+.

      Nous souhaitons que les utilisateurs soient capables de se trouver entre eux en utilisant les noms qu'ils utilisent déjà en parlant à leurs amis, à leur famille, et à leurs collègues de travail. Pour la plupart des gens, il s'agit de leur nom légal ou d'une variante de ce nom, mais nous reconnaissons que ce n'est pas toujours le cas et nous permettons d'autres noms communs dans Google+, c'est-à-dire ceux qui représentent un individu avec une identité en ligne établie possédant une base de suivi solide. Si vous ne l'avez pas déjà fait, vous pouvez nous fournir des renseignements supplémentaires concernant votre identité établie en soumettant de nouveau un appel incluant des références d'où vous êtes connu sous ce nom, que ce soit en ligne ou hors ligne.

      Notez bien que si vous tentez de mettre sur pied une page pour affaires, pour un groupe de musique, ou pour une autre organisation, nous vous proposons de le faire sous votre propre nom pour ensuite créer une page Google+. Si vous tentez d'ajouter un autre nom (tel qu'un surnom, un nom de jeune fille, ou un nom écrit avec d'autres types de caractères), veuillez vous enregistrer avec votre nom complet. Vous pouvez ajouter votre autre nom (lequel apparaîtra à côté de votre nom complet) une fois que vous serez inscrit.

      Si ce n'est déjà fait, il vous sera possible de soumettre de nouveau un appel avec des renseignements supplémentaires. Si vous utilisez déjà Google+, votre nom actuel continuera d'être utilisé.

      L'équipe Google+.

      Like I said, they annoyed me to upgrade to Google+ and there was no "non merci" option. Sorry boss. Then they annoyed me with this name horseshit.

      Creating a new gmail account with no transactions in it and then saying "look no problems" is not a good counterexample. Clearly Google targets accounts with a certain volume.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    14. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I've had mine since 2006. Sure, they have tried to get me to use Google+ (mostly via Youtube, recently) but every time I've managed to accidentally create a Google+ profile, I've deleted it.

      My gmail, my apps domain, etc all continues working just fine. The only thing that doesn't (that I honestly don't miss too much) is being able to comment on youtube.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    15. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      I was trying to do a "Hangout" with my mother, as it allows screen-sharing and the ability to take control of the other user's machine -- which has allowed me to move forward with our weekly computer training sessions.

      Likewise google didn't like my name -- real name only... I was able to finally push my registration of Google+ through with the "name" Crash N. Burn :-)

    16. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      After having used Yahoo for going on ten years, I finally gave up when they started silently dropping all my incoming mails for a couple days at a time. I tried to find some more reasonable explanation but couldn't. After about the fifth time this happened in a year, I sighed and headed over to Gmail.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    17. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Yes but what about when Google is getting all bent out of shape because it decides your NAME doesn't sound right? Like I said, it's a bunch of letter and digits. They refuse to understand that it's a legally registered name. Since Americans like the concept of "corporations are people", can't they just accept that name?

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    18. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by antdude · · Score: 1

      Don't stick with Y! forever. It won't last long either. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    19. Re:Google+ is supremely annoying by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      It wasn't optional for me, as they refused to allow me to log into my Gmail account at one point without first giving them permission to change my Google account into a G+ account.

      Now they have some stupid page where they are trying to get me to enter my other Google/Gmail accounts in an attempt to link it directly to my main Gmail/G+ account. No. Just no.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
  11. Re:All your base belong to us. by TWX · · Score: 2

    Old? That meme only happened in the early 2000s and the version of the game that it came from was released in 1991. If you think that makes you old, then you're probably still just a kid.

    Oh yeah? Well, a grue eats your face!

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  12. Given the entire mess with Google and G+... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...I've just moved over to Yandex and given Google the finger.

  13. Re:All your base belong to us. by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

    What, with your bare hands?

      -- XYZZY

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  14. Wrong by tlambert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is no different when people made a stink over Microsoft bundling IE with Windows.

    Wrong

    They do not wield monopolistic power in the marketplace, and they are not leveraging monopolistic power (which they don't have) to obtain a monopoly in another market.

    This is very different from Microsoft, which leveraged it's desktop monopoly in order to try to obtain a browser monopoly, and was convicted of same in a Federal Court.

    1. Re:Wrong by tlambert · · Score: 2

      Operating system: ... etc.

      At the time, Windows had more that 75% of the desktop makretshare, so it counted as "monopolistic power".

      As I said, the same thing and you are a Google marketing shill.

      And you have obviously never read my posts about Google...

      And what are you talking about with sock puppets? I am an AC, how can AC be a sock puppet?

      It's really easy. Except, you know, on YouTube, where AC's are no longer allowed to make comments. And the newspaper sites where they are now requiring accounts. Bet that really pisses you off.

    2. Re:Wrong by jaseuk · · Score: 1

      I never saw a desktop computer offered without Windows prior to the anti-trust legislation. It's still rare now.

      Although I actually think the IE thing was positive. Purchasing Netscape or using an AOL disk with custom browser was hurting the widespread use of the internet.

      Jason.

    3. Re:Wrong by tlambert · · Score: 5, Informative

      Desktop operating systems: BeOS, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD MacOS.

      By your reasoning Microsoft never had a monopoly to leverage either. Take your double standard and cram it. "Monopoly" in the context of anti-trust and anti-competition laws means "dominant market position",

      Microsoft had a >85% share of the desktop market, and this is a point Federal Investigators made at the time they were considering bringing charges against Microsoft. None of those competing operating systems, taken together, had anywhere near enough market share to disrupt Microsoft effectively targeting Netscape and nearly putting them out of business. The E.U. agreed with this assessment, and brought similar charges to those brought by the DOJ in the U.S..

      This is a matter of historical fact and court record.

      Google has a dominant market position in search, webmail and web video, Microsoft has/had a dominant position in desktop operating systems.

      Apparently you don't understand what wielding monopolistic power means either, but lever let details stop you from getting your frothing at the mouth on.

      Say we grant your premise for the sake of argument. What services is Google forcing you to use, in place of what other services, by leveraging their dominant position? The only thing they are doing is using G+ as the primary placeholder for their combined credentials store, and even then, unless you are creating a new YouTube account, you can choose not to attach your existing YouTube account to the G+ credential.

      The only thing that they are doing, which I think is kind of piss-poor on their part, but has nothing to do with the use of monopolistic power in any way, is preventing you creating *new* separate accounts for their various services, the same way you are unable to create separate accounts for Word or Excel on the Office365 site.

      From a services management perspective, maintaining multiple back end account databases is a PITA, so I can understand why they are doing this, although I really hate that they are doing the whole Facebook-like thing and insisting on "Real Identities or well known pseudonyms", and denying account creation outside those categories. I think anonymity is important, but you aren't going to resolve that particular issue by having separate accounts, since giving that up is pretty much part of their TOS agreement, just as it's becoming part of everyone else's.

    4. Re:Wrong by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Learn to read. It was a comparison to show just how ridiculous the Google shill's claims are. Of course MS had a monopoly, as do Google now.

      You still haven't stated what non-Google services are being displaced by what Google service due to the account unification using G+ authentication as a back end, as opposed to an account unification under GMail or YouTube or Google Docs as the back end instead.

      I really do not see G+ or Google Docs getting a lot of traction as a result of your sign-on working across different Google properties. Facebook is still the #1 social network, and Office is still the #1 productivity suite, and the G+ based authentication, instead of having separate account databases that take them more employees to manage and maintain, isn't going to change that.

      The only thing I see people getting really pissy about is the inability to comment on YouTube videos, including replying to comments directed at their own videos, without tying the Youtube account used to comment to a real identity, rather than an alias. It's kind of a PITA, but if it matters to you, disable comments and post the YouTube link to Facebook, Twitter, or wherever. Note that FB and Twitter both have "real identity" policies, and had them before Google had one, and none of the three are terrifically religious about enforcing them.

    5. Re:Wrong by swillden · · Score: 2

      I really hate that they are doing the whole Facebook-like thing and insisting on "Real Identities or well known pseudonyms", and denying account creation outside those categories.

      You can work around that by creating a "page", which is essentially a pseudonymous sub-account, and using that instead. Pages can have any sort of name you like, and can be used as an identity for posting, commenting, etc.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  15. I only want to use GMail. Don't want Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just give me GMail.

    Why is it so hard for Google to give me something I want and not something that I don't want?

    Or is this part of Google's plans to increase their Google+ numbers by forcing everyone with GMail to become part of Google+?

    Give it a break Google.

    You were cool.

    But now you're becoming annoying.

    1. Re:I only want to use GMail. Don't want Google+ by game+kid · · Score: 1
      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    2. Re:I only want to use GMail. Don't want Google+ by PDoc · · Score: 1

      So ask for your money back. Oh, that right...

      --
      Give a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)
    3. Re:I only want to use GMail. Don't want Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would, but I doubt Google would or could remove all of the personal data they have harvested and sold.

    4. Re:I only want to use GMail. Don't want Google+ by AtomicJake · · Score: 1

      Just give me GMail.

      No problem: Just do not sign up for G+. Or delete your G+ account; your Gmail account is not affected.

    5. Re:I only want to use GMail. Don't want Google+ by deckert_za · · Score: 1
      Why is it so hard for Google to give me something I want and not something that I don't want?

      .

      The best thing you can do is ask for your money back .. oh wait ...

      --deckert

    6. Re:I only want to use GMail. Don't want Google+ by aiadot · · Score: 1

      Why is it so hard for Google to give me something I want and not something that I don't want?

      Because Google is a for profit business? "Giving" only happens if they can make money out of it.

  16. G+ is not market dominant... by tlambert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If G+ was market dominant, the argument could be made that by showing completions only from google services was anticompetitive.

    G+ is not market dominant... even among Google employees.

    1. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by aliquis · · Score: 5, Funny

      What Google needs to bring to the market is Google porn.

      That would be an instant success!

    2. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 4, Informative

      They already have - but they just called it Google.

    3. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like a search engine that produces porn pics, no matter what search term you enter.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's the point. G+ isn't market dominant, but GMail, Google Search and Youtube are.
      IE was not market dominant, but Windows was.

    5. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by tlambert · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's the point. G+ isn't market dominant, but GMail, Google Search and Youtube are.
      IE was not market dominant, but Windows was.

      I'll give you Google Search, but you don't have to sign into G+ to use it.

      YouTube doesn't seem market dominant, but as long as you aren't commenting, you can use your previously created YouTube account to post videos and they've *claimed* there's no intention to change that, so it's irrelevant (this is a "wait and see" for me).

      GMail doesn't seem market dominant, but I'd be willing to look at numbers if you have them relative to Yahoo! Mail and Hotmail/Outlook.com, and if you can show 75% market share or above, I'll grant you that, though I think that the market for free stuff is more or less infinite.

      I kind of don't see how this is any different from the Yahoo single sign-on or the Microsoft single sign-on that goes across all their properties, other than people don't like having their anonymity stripped away. Neither do I, but then I avoid it by not using merged single sign-on services from any of the three companies in question.

    6. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They used to. Image search was quite nice for a quick and high quality porn fix. Then Google decided to replace "Save Search" with some fucked up "we'll detect if you want to see porn" setting which tends to find lower quality porn then before.

      Google is getting worse every year.

    7. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid that is a misconception :-( "Filter explicit results" is negative-filter, not a positive-filter. There is still a missing option.

    8. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem I have with the changes made to image search are with things that Google deems to be porn but aren't, like erotic art. Before it was easy to search for, but now if I search for "erotic art",I don't get many good results unless I add "nude" or "porn" to the query, which then means I have to sift through tons of porn in order to find what I'm looking for.

      It's ridiculous. Bing is actually a better search engine now, thanks to Google crippling themselves.

    9. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by macson_g · · Score: 2

      I'll give you Google Search, but you don't have to sign into G+ to use it

      ...yet

    10. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like a search engine that produces porn pics, no matter what search term you enter.

      The "Rule 34" Option.

    11. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by Custard+Horse · · Score: 1

      What Google needs to bring to the market is Google porn.

      That would be an instant success!

      But then they would have to redefine the term 'Googlewhack'...

    12. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like a search engine that produces porn pics, no matter what search term you enter.

      We already have that. It's called "Bing".

      Ever wonder where the "Bing" name came from? Remember Wayne's World? Rhymes with "schwing!"

    13. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Informative

      YouTube doesn't seem market dominant

      What planet do you live on? What other large sites out there allow users to post videos? YouTube is easily, by far, the largest site of its type.

      GMail doesn't seem market dominant, but I'd be willing to look at numbers if you have them relative to Yahoo! Mail and Hotmail/Outlook.com

      Here again you seem to be out of touch with reality, but maybe not so much as with the YouTube comment above. Hotmail has been going down for ages, ever since the MS takeover and conversion to "Live", though maybe they're doing a little better now with outlook.com but I kinda doubt it, and Yahoo's been going down the toilet for years now too. I don't have any hard data, but I definitely see far more people with Gmail addresses than the other two.

    14. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 2

      Image search, with safesearch turned off. Is pretty much "Google porn."

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    15. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 2

      I almost forgot about google trying to detect when you wanted porn (Hint: always)
      Just add "xxx" to every search, and the free porn avalanche begins again.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    16. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      YouTube doesn't seem market dominant

      Are you serious? I can't even remember the name of any other similar service (though I do know that a few others exist).

      as long as you aren't commenting, you can use your previously created YouTube account to post videos and they've *claimed* there's no intention to change that, so it's irrelevant (this is a "wait and see" for me).

      Well, first of all, commenting is kinda a major part of what YouTube is.

      Also, didn't they basically just made all YouTube accounts G+ accounts? I know that it's what happened to mine. You can still keep it separate, yes (though they will keep spamming you again and again asking whether you want to merge them), but it's all G+-based now.

    17. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Here again you seem to be out of touch with reality, but maybe not so much as with the YouTube comment above. Hotmail has been going down for ages, ever since the MS takeover and conversion to "Live", though maybe they're doing a little better now with outlook.com but I kinda doubt it, and Yahoo's been going down the toilet for years now too. I don't have any hard data, but I definitely see far more people with Gmail addresses than the other two.

      It depends on whether you look at the global picture or just US. Globally, GMail is #1 by number of users, though they've only been there for a year now - and Yahoo and Hotmail/Outlook are both very close, so it's an almost even three-way split. In US, Yahoo is the most popular by far, with Hotmail second and GMail third.

      Your personal observations are likely skewed by your background - GMail is generally more popular among techies, and that bleeds out to their acquaintances when they are asked to "set up email for me".

    18. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Monoogle?
      Mastoogle?

    19. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      With Googles deep data mining it could have interesting results though.

      "I checked for some porn on your computer and it only turned up guys!?" .. or worse.

    20. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by atomicxblue · · Score: 1

      When I was there, the order came down for everyone to switch over to G+ immediately. Pfft.. We even balked at it, if that tells you anything.

    21. Re:G+ is not market dominant... by Pivoted · · Score: 1

      or, BING = Bing Is Not Google

  17. Re:Google is fucking Skynet by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

    An interesting enough point, I agree, but I don't see the need for profanity.

  18. Re:I'm about to give up on Gmail... by xeno · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This.

    I have my own domain and a small rack in the basement, with mail I haven't used much in a while.. but this G+ stupidity might just roust me out of my slumber. I've stayed with Gmail out of inertia mostly; the handy features just barely outweigh the irritation. But it's really, really close. The Gmail interface changes from a year ago still suck. Badly. Google+ is an irritating solution to a problem I don't have, and becoming terribly intrusive. Youtube integration is actively conterproductive, a constant intrusion of personal browsing into potential business activity. When I log into gmail and open up a youtube tab, it constatntly pops up a link to some warplane videos I watched a year ago. So... I can't browse youtube because if I use gmail to communicate with clients for moonlighting gigs, because those who use g+ might see that and think I'm a nut? No thanks.)

    Gmail is a handy web interface to email functions I had thru IMAP a decade ago, nothing more. I could easily switch back. Better yet, I could update the whole mess and run it in a couple of VMs at AWS for pennies a day.

    I hesitate because Google docs is handy for helping my kids on their school reports, annotating, correcting, making suggestions as they work on it.. but really it's a nice-to-have. I would miss it, but if the price for docs is forced use of Google+, it's not worth the hassle.

    --
    I think not...(*poof*)
  19. Re: Great by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    And I would have used any google ID for "professional" purposes???

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  20. *ALL* of my gmail accounts? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    Wow, all of my gmail accounts are going to be linked to my (non-existent) g+ account? This could be fun.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:*ALL* of my gmail accounts? by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Tthey already created a g+ account for your gmail account. It just hasnt been linked yet.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  21. Re: Great by Antonovich · · Score: 3, Informative

    Use different accounts. I have several Google accounts for different purposes. All are connected to chrome where I want them to be. Nothing professional ever gets on my personal accounts, where I look at political stuff and the like that my colleagues have no business knowing. I only use my personal accounts outside work hours, or on my phone. In any case, colleagues only see what I want them to see. It takes a while to get used to (forgetting to do work-related searches in the work browser) but when you do it's really, really handy. Problem solved? Sure, they could get at my accounts if the boss really wanted to but the boss could also install a key-logger and I'm not that paranoid...

  22. Re:What's with all the consolodation? by chromas · · Score: 1

    It's their misguided attempt to jump start The Singularity®.

  23. Re:I'm about to give up on Gmail... by mybeat · · Score: 1
    That's what I did 2 years ago after I've decided that google will shit on us with all it's changes and what not, and look I was right.

    I still keep my gmail account for my android phone, which is also used as *send_spam_here* mailbox, my primary is being handled by zoho, which is OK.

  24. Re:Stop touching my stuff! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    And just so you CANNOT do just that, they weave them together so you can't escape them.

    Remember: You're the product. Not the customer.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  25. Re:Google is fucking Skynet by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    The end of privacy is coming, but it's no reason to be a potty mouth...

    Gee, people, priorities for fuck's sake, dammit.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  26. Re:Google is ****ing Skynet by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Unlikely. Since they're both just out to screw US.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  27. Anyone up for making.... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    .....mud pies?

    Google seems to be up for it.

  28. Re:Google Is Fucked In The Head by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    I have NOTHING to do with Google OR GMail. I know friends who have GMail accounts, but that does not imply that they use it for social purposes and linking someone's GMail contacts violates any contact who has FUCKING NOTHING TO do with g00gLE. I will sue this spying fucking company

    I can assure you that if you don't use gmail of G+ you will not be affected. People who use G+ will be able to email your friend even if they don't know the friend's email address (unless said friend opts out). Also your friend will see people in G+ circles in their mail contacts. Your email address won't be affected.

  29. why don't google by obreiro · · Score: 2

    why the hell google don't understand that nobody wants G+ ??????????

    1. Re:why don't google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google does understand that nobody wants g+. Otherwise, they'd not try to force it upon you.

  30. Re: Great by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

    Yes. But usually under the guise of a GoogleApps account.

    --
    bickerdyke
  31. Re: Great by StripedCow · · Score: 4, Funny

    on my personal accounts, where I look at political stuff and the like

    I see what you did there.

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  32. Re: Great by Monoman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mistakenly use the wrong account ONE time and you probably won't be able to undo the mess it will cause. I didn't like it when my "smart" phone linked my contacts and social apps and I don't like the idea of G+,FB, etc doing things auto-magically for me either.

    This crap is just chasing me away from Gmail and G+.

    --
    Keep the Classic Slashdot.
  33. Re: Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nobody was talking about the videos

  34. Re: Great by AvitarX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's plenty of things on YouTube that I would be embarassed for the world to know I saw I'm sure. Tame or not.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  35. Re:Google, when will it end? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    But it's working as a way of consolidating overlapping aspects of their various services.

    Overlapping aspects?

    They overlap because they, through "integration", made them overlap. They did not overlap until then.

    Consolidation? Sure. Overlapping? Only in the sense of a snake choosing to eat its own tail...

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  36. No, you WERE forced to use it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    IE listened and could respond to requests over the network whether you used it or not.
    IE was used to render Help pages and could infect your system if the Help file was malicious, and you could not change that.
    IE was used by MS systems to render HTML whether you wanted to use IE for browsing or not.

    You were not forced to use it, your computer used it for its own purposes whether you wanted it to be used by your computer or not.

  37. Whatever Happend to "Do No Evil" Google? by JBrow · · Score: 2

    Ref: #6: You can make money without doing evil.
    http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/

    YRS

    --
    --- You are in a little twisty maze of comments, all different.
    1. Re:Whatever Happend to "Do No Evil" Google? by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Combining all my contacts' email addresses is a stretch to call "evil". For the vast majority of people it would be a handy feature

  38. Re: Great by backdoc · · Score: 1

    That is why I chose not to buy an android phone this Christmas when I upgraded my phone. I really wanted a bigger screen and less headache than I associate with the iPhone. But, at the last moment, I decided I didn't want to provide my phone number to Google.

    True. They probably have my phone number already. But, I didn't want to hand it to them.

  39. Re: Great by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    There aren't really any great options when it comes to phones. You can get an Android phone, which is inexpensive but has Google's tentacles in it, or you can get an iPhone which is expensive as hell and forces you to stay confined to Apple's walled garden and their One True Way of doing everything and fuels a company which now seems have taken the crown of most evil corporation (in the tech sector) away from MS, or you can get a Windows Phone which is ugly, forces you to do everything in MS's One True Way of doing everything, and fuels what is now the second most evil corporation in the tech sector.

    AFAICT, the best option is probably going to be getting an Android phone, and then reflashing it with one of those alternative firmwares like CyanogenMod which doesn't have everything linked to Google.

  40. Re:Google, when will it end? by luca.masters · · Score: 1

    You don't think my Google Voice contacts and my GMail contacts were naturally overlapping features?

  41. Re:Google, when will it end? by luca.masters · · Score: 1

    "They've changed their website. I've been raped!"

    You must be popular on Facebook.

  42. Never got a notification from the Big G by Trashcan+Romeo · · Score: 1

    But the setting preference was there already. I apologize to the company for opting out before anyone had a chance to spam me.

  43. Re: Great by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

    Even worse is the al gore porn. "Your orgasm meets or exceeds previous orgasms that have been induced as a side effect of sexual relations with me."

    And you don't want to see the racist al gore porn. "It gives me great pleasure when you carefully insert your uncircumcised 20 centimeter african-american penis into my rectum and stimulate my prostate and large bowel."

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  44. Re:I'm about to give up on Gmail... by runeghost · · Score: 1

    I left google for my own little email server as part of a New Year's resolution. This makes me confident I made the right decision.

  45. Re:Google, when will it end? by geminidomino · · Score: 2

    Uh... no? At least, I don't see any real overlap in mine. Email address book is for people I want to email, and phone contacts are for people I want to call. The union of those two sets is in the single-digits.

  46. Re:Google, when will it end? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    You don't think my Google Voice contacts and my GMail contacts were naturally overlapping features?

    I email lots of people that I never want to have an audio chat with, and there are people I want to have verbal chats with that I never want to be exchanging emails with.

    Period. End of the fucking story. You are wrong.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  47. Re: Great by Technician · · Score: 1

    On the flip side, it broke the ability for a relative to borrow your computer to check their email. Typing in a username while not logged in became impossible. It wants you to enter your password. Googling for a solution shows you have to log in, then manage accounts to create the other user's profile showing a corrolation even if it is a casual connection.

    As a work arround, I make multiple user accounts for guests, and then delete them after they checked their email. I don't need my account directly associated to some of my visitors.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  48. Sigh, G+ hate is fashionable, isn't it? by Dizzer · · Score: 1

    I seriously don't know what's with all the G+ hate. I primarily use the unlimited storage for photos on G+ to share my pics with friends and family (their APIs make batch uploading easy, and I migrated several thousand pics from my own Gallery2 installation to G+, including description texts, with a small python script). I am subscribed to a bunch of "communities" which deliver quite a bit of interesting content. And I also *enjoy* the link to to youtube comments as it floats interesting videos to my stream that people from my circles commented on.

    1. Re:Sigh, G+ hate is fashionable, isn't it? by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      You like {thing}? Clearly you are a shill for {maker of thing}!

  49. Re: Great by Alsee · · Score: 1

    He has a fetish for Sarah Palin, Nancy Pelosi, Michele Bachmann, and Hillary Clinton.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  50. Re:What's with all the consolodation? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    I don't reckon punters really want all this. Have the boffins gone mad?

    From urban dictionary...

    punter - London slang for costumer, may also be used for "johns" (among prostitutes and police agents), people who watch porn movies or go to strip joints regularly.

    boffin - Colloquial word used to refer to highly trained specialists in their respective fields; especially when the exact field of specialty is unknown.
    Usually used when an new and unknown piece of technology is being discussed, and having no idea what branch of speacialty is responsible.

    Accurate? You Brits and your crazy slang (chav, wanker, snog, knackered, sodding...). I would have guessed that a boffin is a small widget like a flange or something.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  51. It's dead jim. by MiggyMan · · Score: 1

    Dear Google, the horse is nead, Naaaay, it's a zombie horse, for the love of all that's holy let it die in peace!

    P.S While you're there can you see if you can do anything about Lady GaGa, boy bands, Simon Cowell (Sorry, he's our fault, I apologise on behalf of the UK), reality television and minecraft ?

    --
    Lifesigns: Present Hair: Escaped Age: Increasing
  52. Completely useless for me by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

    I specifically made an account for my android to avoid mixing of contacts. Very few people I have on G+ are folks I communicate with anywhere but online via IRC, FB, or G+. I don't need their e-mail addresses, and I certainly don't want them shoehorned into my address book.

  53. Gee that's nice but by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    I just get Gmail via IMAP in Thunderbird. So it ain't gonna work.

  54. Re: Great by Fwipp · · Score: 1

    Incognito mode?

  55. How quickly we forget. by tkprit · · Score: 1
    CardDAV... ah yes, it's related to CalDAV, the open-source protocol that Google wasn't going to support as of last March, unless you were whitelisted, because their proprietary "Google Calendar API" was "superior". It seems they changed their tune, for a while at least.

    Yes, I'm sure we ALL know about open-source protocols.

  56. Or we have the gift of foresight by tkprit · · Score: 1

    After what's happened with Google's other "upgrades" (for example, having android and not being able to warn people if an app is malware, unless I open a G+ identity service account), I prefer to call this "convenience", a sign of things to come.

    And am bailing. I'd far prefer a winphone or iPhone to Google's poorly-implemented and, quite frankly embarrassing, attempt at monopolizing the internet.

  57. Re: Great by swillden · · Score: 1

    I'm just waiting for a conclusive youtube history gets linked in to your G+ display.

    Google will never do that. The only thing that is displayed on your G+ profile is stuff you choose to make public.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  58. Re: Great by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

    Incognito or clear browser history.

  59. Re:Ditto by dhasenan · · Score: 1

    You can use the Google+ API for tha-- oh wait. That's readonly.

    Well, you can use a greasemonkey script, probably.

  60. Re: Great by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Isn't this pretty much what already happened for anyone who "upgraded" their YouTube account by linking it to their G+ account (which was the default choice and heavily promoted by having spam-like dialogs pop out at you again and again and again)?

  61. Re: Great by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Jolla phone?

    Of course, it won't actually be quite as good at many things. But that's economies of scale to you...

  62. Re: Great by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Well, your YouTube comments were public. Just not under the same name.

  63. Re: Great by swillden · · Score: 1

    Well, your YouTube comments were public. Just not under the same name.

    They were public under another name, yes, and will optionally become public under your real name. If you activate a Google+ profile, you're given the option of what should be done with all of your old comments. You can keep them public, hide them, or delete them.

    https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2657961?hl=en&ref_topic=3097177

    Google really is careful about this stuff.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  64. Re: Great by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    The way that migration was organized, I wouldn't call it "extremely careful". When you went to YouTube and tried to post anything, they told that you have to migrate to G+, and offered to automatically link your two accounts, determining your other one (from email presumably?). With a big blue button saying "Yes, sign me up!", and a grey and bleak one saying "No, I want my accounts to be separate". Even after I said no, I kept getting asked whether I really want to keep it separate, and maybe I would rather just merge everything, for the next couple weeks or so, every now and then (but certainly often enough to make me quite annoyed). Knowing how many users are about Yes/No popups, always clicking on the more prominent button without reading, I can only imagine how many were conned into merging their accounts.

    They seem to have stopped prompting to merge, so now I "only" have to be careful to keep an eye on which account is active whenever going to YouTube (it seems to be auto-switching it to my regular G+ account every now and then).

  65. Re: Great by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

    Amen. My all time most watched videos on Youtube are video game Lets Plays. The prospect of these suddenly being plastered all over my Google+ profile is the reason I will never, ever use G+ in any professional or real name context so long as I live.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  66. Re:I'm about to give up on Gmail... by elashish14 · · Score: 1

    I don't browse around with an active email login session anyways due to that LinkedIn fiasco from a little while ago and just use thunderbird now, but while I still used Gmail's web interface, the first thing I had to do on my browser was block cookies from youtube. As a result, I no longer saw my gmail login when I was browsing youtube. You might want to try that....

    --
    I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
  67. Re:Google, when will it end? by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

    don't mind him, anon. this guy has a g+ icon next to his username. I mean that's just the limit of bending over.

    --
    Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  68. who has G+ as prestige project? by Mirar · · Score: 1

    It's quite clear that someone at Google has Google+ as some sort of prestige project,
    and they are quite willing to sacrifice any Google service to get more people into Google+.

    Anyone know why?