Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Plus Now Minus Chief Vic Gundotra

Posted by Unknown on from the google-plus-still-exists? dept.

JG0LD (2616363) writes "Vic Gundotra, the man behind Google Plus and one of Google's most prominent executives, announced today that he will leave the company 'effective immediately.' Gundotra made the announcement, appropriately enough, in a lengthy Google Plus post, praising his co-workers and saying that he is 'excited about what's next.' However, he did not further outline his future plans, saying that 'this isn't the day to talk about that.'"

29 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. Google- by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Any chance this means Google is going to back-pedal on Google+ ?

    I'd welcome Google splitting it's products such that you can subscribe to YouTube without also being signed up to Google+ and GMail and Maps and the kitchen sink. Or vice versa.

    1. Re:Google- by yuhong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or at least comply with EU privacy laws.

    2. Re:Google- by Scowler · · Score: 2

      Notably, this announcement is coming just days after standalone Google Talk was killed off.

    3. Re:Google- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are incorrect.
      You cannot comment on youtube without g+
      You cannot, according to ToS, have a g+ profile without having your real name on it.

      They already had single sign on using gprofile/gmail as the key. But they did not require a real name for that. Having a real name associated with the account is a no go for some people. I do not feel comfortable for people who follow my art blog having a way to go from my email to my real name. I'll choose to give it to those I am comfortable meeting in real life and no one else.

    4. Re:Google- by Windwraith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know, I think the same thing and I don't think it's about sticking it to the man, it's just that youtube and gmail/g+/etc are radically different things that should be separate. They will track me anyway, so let me have my video channel separate from a service I am not going to use and didn't ask for in the first place.

      It annoys me that trying to comment on Youtube requires having extra sites whitelisted, there's a checkbox that is always enabled by default to post comment to G+, and alerts and notifications are usually not related to youtube itself.

      So I don't think the parent post is anti-theman, I think it's just anti G+, which is a perfectly reasonable opinion. The ones that want G+ can just go there and use it, the rest shouldn't be forced to use it if they want to keep their Youtube channel up.

    5. Re:Google- by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Funny

      How could you be any more private than by being the only user of Google+ ?

    6. Re:Google- by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about a settings page?

      I would like to be enrolled in the falling Google services:
      Gmail
      Google+
      Youtube
      Google Drive
      Google Docs

      Etc.
      The problem with being universally logged into Google+ is that it introduces a LOT of other spying crap on other websites. Most people log in to Google+ so rarely that they don't even realize all that Midget porn they'd been thumbs upping is plastered all over a google website with their full name, email and phone number on it.

    7. Re:Google- by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Any chance this means Google is going to back-pedal on Google+ ?

      I'd welcome Google splitting it's products such that you can subscribe to YouTube without also being signed up to Google+ and GMail and Maps and the kitchen sink. Or vice versa.

      Why?

      Remember, you're the product in all those services, and by forcing G+ on you, Google's enhancing the product for sale.

      About the only thing is that they can take back the whole "Steve Jobs said G+ was a joke" thing, but really, G+ is a great way to get back at Facebook. Because well, Facebook aims to be a closed community - Facebook's tracking is limited to sites that have Like buttons.

      Google's ability to sell ads (Facebook can only sell ads within its network - it doesn't sell ads outside of Facebook, yet) means it reaches practically the entire Internet (Google, and Google-owned ad networks are around what, 98% of desktop browsers, and practically all mobile browsers), meaning it's out-Facebooking Facebook in its ability to gather user information (i.e., non-voluntarily-provided information), thus offering advertisers a far better product.

      Sure its last results are down, but they're still massively profitable, and within a short period of time (cost-per-click is down, which means the last 2% are dying) Google would really get at everyone.

      Hell, Android was released just so Google wouldn't be locked out of iOS ad sales.

      Face it - Google's addicted to ad money, and Google knows it - it's their massively primary revenue stream, the alternatives are a joke (iAds - you get LESS information about users from them than Google, they cost mode, and are limited to iOS), so Google's really the big guy. Google's trying to save Google Glass before the internet brands it as an always-present surveillance camera worn by people with more money than sense (i.e., Glassholes). Because otherwise it'll kill it as a data gathering option Google has to sell more ad data.

      Hell, think GMail's picture-proxy is for your safety by "not reveailing your IP address"? Why bother, when the proxy will happily load you tagged images confirming your e-mail address and that you read it. Perhaps think what Google has next in store - i.e., that Promotions tab might be the phase.

    8. Re:Google- by fibonacci8 · · Score: 3, Funny

      How could you be any more private than by being the only user of Google+ ?

      Being the first person to like Slashdot Beta.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    9. Re:Google- by Craefter · · Score: 2

      Any chance this means Google is going to back-pedal on Google+ ?

      Yes: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/...

  2. Please... by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 2

    Can it die now?

    1. Re:Please... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      Yeah plenty of competition in the social media space is important but I can't get much use out of G+. It comes across as a clumsy answer to a question nobody was really asking.

    2. Re:Please... by quarterbuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, they'd have to fix the real name policy and allow it to be separate from youtube/gmail etc.
      I don't want all my gmail contacts getting notified through Google+ that watzinaneihm liked the latest pop video on youtube.
      I don't think I do that many controversial things, but after what happened to the Mozilla CEO, I realize that what is acceptable in the future has no relation to how it is perceived today. I am not saying that donation to anti-gay-marriage was ever right, but I don't think doing what the president of the country was doing at that time was a fire-able offense either.

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    3. Re:Please... by pahles · · Score: 2

      Oh come on... The fact that you don't like it, does not mean it does not fill its niche. I remember people saying the same about Facebook and Twitter. Some people like it, get over it.

      --
      Sig?
    4. Re:Please... by lemur3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      one can create what is called a "Page" in google+ parlance.. and that page can be pseudonymous,.. you can be named anything you want under that page and use it on youtube, etc..

      of course youll have to create it from a 'real name' google+ account, but unless you divulge it in public theres no way to know who it is behind the 'Page' account. .....your gmail contacts dont get notified if you like the latest pop video on youtube when using a google+ account...

      on commenting for the *First Time* using an account on youtube which is tied to google+ the default option below the comment box is to 'make public' the comment, which sends it to your google+ feed, if you turn that option off it is sticky and will remain off in the future and that comment only lives within youtube.

      while there are annoyances related to google+ ..most of the complaints just dont apply these days, it has changed quite a lot since it came out a few years ago... and for most of the complaints, there is a (mostly) reasonable solution.

      the "i want to be totally anonymous" solution some people seem to look for doesnt really apply to the product.. pseudoanonymity is about as best as youll get

    5. Re:Please... by lemur3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh come on... The fact that you don't like it, does not mean it does not fill its niche. I remember people saying the same about Facebook and Twitter. Some people like it, get over it.

      I think google+ is pretty darn good as far as social networks go. It gets a lot of hate, but judging by what people say, a lot of that is from what it was in 2011, and concerns of anonymity. (The 'nag' screens feel like a different issue)

      As for anonymity I am fine with not being anonymous to Google itself. I send email using Google Apps for Business account using my real name, they have my billing info and I don't mind sharing stuff I like to friends, family, and the public using my name on my public Google+ account. I did the on a personal website long before Google+ existed.

      As for (pseudo)anonymity on Google+ I can choose how I share. I can choose whether or not to be BasementHacker20129 for my online profile using the "Pages" feature, sure, Google still knows that the name BasementHacker20129 that I used to reply a trollish comment about the Tea Party on youtube was sent by my Real Name.. but nobody else would. This seems reasonable to me, maybe not to others...

      I happen to enjoy seeing Wil Wheaton posting about the stuff he is doing that week on my Google+ feed. I enjoy seeing the stuff Linus Torvalds posts on Google+. Those guys are pretty geeky. It is good enough for me, and them. It has no ads.

      Sure, it wants to know your real name.. But I found, after poo-pooing it in 2011, that when I came back for a 2nd look in 2014 that it was actually pretty damned good.

    6. Re:Please... by vux984 · · Score: 5, Informative

      So go to your preferences and turn it off. Or uncheck the 'also share on Google+' checkbox when posting.

      And relearn how to do that every time google changes anything. Possilby needing to learn new permissions models and settings and interfaces on Google's unpredictable schedule.

      Take a look at Facebook's permissions settings history for an example.

      Seriosly, This isn't hard.

      It's harder than it needs to be.

      Separate the accounts entirely that aren't linked to something with your real name eliminates unintended mistakes no matter what google does with the interface tomorrow.

    7. Re:Please... by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and whenever they've added any sort of setting, the default was quite restrictive.

      Well good enough for me then, right? Nothing bad has happened so far, so nothing ever well.

  3. Made the announcement in a Google+ post by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, trying to keep it on the D/L?

  4. I did a Slashdot submission on the problems by yuhong · · Score: 2

    http://slashdot.org/submission...

  5. What's Next by adiposity · · Score: 2

    Not having to post this sort of thing in Google Plus.

  6. If he did it using Google+... by kwiqsilver · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm surprised anybody found out. I bet a bunch of people showed up at the office the next day asking, "Where's Vic? It looks like he cleaned out his office."

  7. "Papa, why do they not love me?" by Beeftopia · · Score: 2

    SFW observation on the difficulty with Google Plus.

  8. Re:Why should you care? by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The biggest reasons I hate it are 1) The "real name" policy and 2) The fact I'm basically forced to use it if I want to use any of the Goog's other services as a signed-in user (YouTube, gmail, etc.).

    The fact that I think it's utterly pointless shite is besides the point - I think the same of Twitter but don't wish it death. I don't have any need or want to interact with it, therefore its existence doesn't bother me. The Goog on the other hand has other things unrelated to G+ which I /do/ wish to use, without being forced to use G+. Hence, I wish death to G+.

    HTH.

  9. I don't understand the name by bitt3n · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why did they choose "Google+"? It has all the positive connotations of "HIV+" and the service is not even remotely viral.

    --
    how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
  10. Re:Vive Vacation Vic! by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    My daughter has removed every hidden tick from every hidden box she can find on G+, but every personal photo she takes on her Nexus 5 ends up straight away "shared".

    Amusingly, this is a feature which defaults off. She asked for this. Now she can't figure out how to turn it off, and Google is the bad guy? Maybe the apple just doesn't fall far from the tree.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Humans hide things from each other all the time by Camael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but G+ will fail because it doesn't reflect how humans interact with each other. We hide things from each other all the time. Human beings are multi-faceted creatures, and throughout our day we present different masks to different people.


    1.    
    2. To my pro-Republican boss, I show my hard worker side. I don't tell him I post rabidly on liberal websites.

    3.    

    4. To my co-worker, I show him I'm a cooperative team player. I don't show him that I bitch about his back stabbing habits to my colleagues.

    5.    

    6. To my wife, I show that I am a loving husband who appreciates her love handles. I don't let her know that I am a card carrying member of the Playboy Club.

    7.    

    8. To my secretary, I show that I am a pro-feminist boss who buys gifts on Secretary's Week. I don't let her know that I visit Hooters every other week and that I tell my friends she has a hot ass.

    9.    

    10. To that cute florist on the ground floor of my building, I am that that guy who always has time to chat with her in the morning. I hide my ring.

    None of this is true of course, but I'm simply illustrating that we tell white lies all the time. Everyone has something to hide. Putting everything under one unified identity, with the possibility of those that you deal with discovering previously unknown sides to you that you have been keeping secret from them is simply too big a risk to bear.

    1. Re:Humans hide things from each other all the time by neurovish · · Score: 2

      G+ is explicitly designed around this idea. That is the whole purpose of circles which is at the center of everything. You create a boss circle for those in your management-chain, a co-workers circle for the co-workers, a family circle for the wife, and a douche circle for all of the cute florists.

    2. Re:Humans hide things from each other all the time by lemur3 · · Score: 2

      i think that a simple appraisal of most peoples opinions/fears/gripes of google+ shows that theyve never actually used it.

      the circles thing was one of the big selling points going all the way back to 2011.. and probably covered here on /. ...now they allow you to create pseudonymous sub-accounts that cannot be tracked back to any real life identify ....and yet people are still crying from the rooftops 'OMG I CANT RISK PEOPLE KNOWING' ...well if you want yer head in the sand, ..theres that option too