Slashdot Mirror


Google+ Photos To Be Separated From Google+

An anonymous reader writes "Speculation on the eventual shuttering of Google+ has once more risen with news that Google+ Photos will soon be developed and run separately from the social media site. This news follows observations that Google+ "was barely mentioned at Google I/O 2014, while there were 15 sessions dedicated to the service in 2013" and that the company has ended its controversial real name policy. Google Hangouts was also separated from Google+ at the end of July." I've actually heard several people praising Google+ lately; scaling it back to "just a social stream" probably fits into some kind of corollary to Murphy's Law.

71 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    First there were Picasa Web Albums. Last year my albums got moved to my Google+ account. Now there is a new branding coming along.. My albums will be moved to another service once again..

    1. Re:Yay! by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

      First there were Picasa Web Albums. Last year my albums got moved to my Google+ account. Now there is a new branding coming along.. My albums will be moved to another service once again.

      You can still access your albums via picasaweb.google.com (picasa.com directs to a download without any links to get you to your albums). It's much more flexible and has more options than Google+ (particularly when it comes to album management). I've just continued to use picasaweb for my albums (there's a Lightroom extension which automatically uploads my photos to it). I've just been using it as though my photos also happen to show up on Google+, not the other way around.

      I suspect the "another service" they'll move it to is photos.google.com (redirects to plus.google.com/photos). They've already migrated the photo viewer in Android to a Photos app. As long as they keep the additional functionality that's on picasaweb, it won't make any difference to me what they call it nor what URL I have to use to get to it.

  2. Until Google comes clean by Virtucon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Until they come clean on what they're mining from your activities, I'd stay away from it.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:Until Google comes clean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it would be easier and faster for them to list what they don't mine.... here, i'll list them out for you.

      1. (this space intentionally left blank)

      done.

    2. Re: Until Google comes clean by Mitsoid · · Score: 1

      They mine blank spaces to

    3. Re:Until Google comes clean by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Until they come clean on what they're mining from your activities, I'd stay away from it.

      What's to "come clean" about? Their privacy policy says they aggregate information about you from all your uses of their services. There you go. That's it. What else do you want to know? What they'll use it for? For providing you services, and for selling ads which they display to you.

      Seems pretty obvious and straightforward to me.

      (Disclosure: It's not really relevant to the content of my comment, but I'm a Google employee. I'm not, however, a Google spokesperson. The above is my own words and opinions only.)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Until Google comes clean by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know *which* information they aggregate.

    5. Re:Until Google comes clean by GNious · · Score: 1

      aaaaaallllllll of it.

      simples

    6. Re:Until Google comes clean by thsths · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly why politicians cannot touch the NSA. It is a typical problem when the secret service gets too powerful. Nothing new here.

    7. Re:Until Google comes clean by swillden · · Score: 1

      Not withstanding the free-access pipe straight to the NSA..

      Doesn't exist. Government requests have to go through the process of being vetted by Google's attorneys and are rejected if not legitimate, including if overly broad. The NSA shouldn't be able to tap the lines between data centers any more, either, because it's all encrypted now.

      We'd like to know which data Google sells to who. Its clear that they do sell the data.

      They don't, except for aggregated non-personally identifiable. That means it's not possible to identify a person.

      Whats the "aggregated" information on breast cancer patients aged 40-41 in zipcode 33333. Oh look ! Its only a single person.

      Google isn't that dumb, and neither are attorneys or judges.

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

      I'd like to know *which* information they aggregate.

      I think it's safe to assume that all of the data you put into Google services is fair game. I suspect (but don't know), that Google isn't actually able to make the kind of detailed, nuanced use of the data that is often speculated, but the privacy policy says they collect the data you put into their services, so I'd assume that all of it is collected.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:Until Google comes clean by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Not with the same depth. To be sure Google has been successful but now like Facebook there's not an area they aren't trying to penetrate. I get the whole advertising idea, fine. But when your every preference, your every movement, email, text message while going about your daily routine is going way too far.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  3. android games by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Informative

    The only thing google plus is used for by me is games on android. I prefer it than having 1000 logins, nor using facebook for game logins. I havent found a real use for it other than that

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:android games by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 4, Informative

      The tech communities are really good. You can stay in touch with some tech leaders, discuss about some nich stuff (like your favorite Linux distro, Astronomy), etc. To me, Facebook = family and friend network. G+ = tech network.

    2. Re:android games by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The best thing about G+ is that you don't have to be on facebook.

    3. Re:android games by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      in games that allow it, i choose to login thru fb than g+. because that allows me to play against my friends with iphone or the rare windows phone. but yeah, except this, there is no other use for g+.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  4. Hey, they should call it Picasa! by HaeMaker · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sigh.

    1. Re: Hey, they should call it Picasa! by bobmrik · · Score: 1

      I logged in w/ my Google+ account just to Like you or +1 you or give you karma or something. Seriouly Ive been on /. since day 1 and I dont know how to do whatever it is Im supposed to do. Maybe Google will just read this and do it for me? Anyway, what you said.

    2. Re:Hey, they should call it Picasa! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Nah, Plus Photos needs an insane frenetic unusable landing page like Hangouts and then only ten percent of the features of Picasa, so they can go ahead and kill Picasa and then kill Plus Photos in two years when nobody uses it.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  5. Good. by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    De-plus youtube while you're at it... Fuck that noise.

    --
    Buck Feta. You know what to do.
    1. Re:Good. by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      De-plus youtube while you're at it..

      I have to disagree with that. YouTube is a much friendlier and saner place since the integration. The integration did increase the noise on Google+, but all in all I think it's better.

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

      The comments might be better, but who the hell thought it was a good idea to add the Google+ shares in the comments? It ads nothing but pollution

    3. Re:Good. by swillden · · Score: 1

      I suppose that's true for the shares that don't add a comment. Well, except that I like to see when my G+ friends have shared something, whether I'm looking at it from G+ or from YouTube. So, just removing the text-free shares wouldn't be quite the ticket, either. Hmm.

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

      I think that kind of thing belongs more in Google+. Anyway they should offer an option to remove that from the Youtube comments

    5. Re:Good. by swillden · · Score: 1

      There is no difference between a share with a comment on G+ and a comment on YouTube. They are the same thing. I think there's an argument to be made that shares without any comment are noise on YouTube... of course, I think they're largely noise on G+ as well, so maybe the solution is to find a way to encourage people to write something when sharing.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  6. Re:What's the issue? by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

    You brush your teeth in the morning to sell yourself to your personal audiences over the people that DON'T brush their teeth in the morning.

    I brush my teeth to prevent cavities and help clear up bad breath.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  7. Sure ... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

    ... "seperate"

    --
    Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  8. Re:What's the issue? by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

    No, "clear up bad breath" = "I have a bad taste in my mouth, and I don't like the smell of my breath, so I'm going to try to remove it." Seriously, how can you be that dense? Not everyone is an attention whore; I'm an extreme introvert.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  9. y mine everything just like everyone else. by cmorriss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good lord people. They use your information to display ads. Just like almost every other social network in existence. Clearly this isn't a sticking point for most people or Facebook would be a ghost town.

    Problem for you? Fine don't use it, but it's not like it's a secret. For most people it's worth the conveniences Google provides to have their data mined. I know it is for me.

    --
    10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
    1. Re:y mine everything just like everyone else. by EmperorArthur · · Score: 1

      Good lord people. They use your information to display ads. Just like almost every other social network in existence. Clearly this isn't a sticking point for most people or Facebook would be a ghost town.

      Problem for you? Fine don't use it, but it's not like it's a secret. For most people it's worth the conveniences Google provides to have their data mined. I know it is for me.

      The problem isn't the data mining or the ads, it's the potential for abuse of the raw data. Your search history is gold to anyone who wants to stalk/harass/blackmail/steal from you. The good news is that Google doesn't have police powers, and is pretty neutral about people's viewpoints and what they want to do. The bad news is at the least the NSA has/had access to it. Search for the wrong thing on Google and you'll never fly again in the US. Plus it's a prime target for hackers. Potentially worth more than a persons credit card information, and much easier to get.

      Saying that I still use them as my search engine, plus Gmail, Google Voice, and my Android phone....

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
  10. We called out these failures years ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What's with companies like Google, Mozilla and Microsoft continuing to work on projects that are obvious failures, even this is obvious before they've even been released?

    Windows 8 is perhaps the best example of this. Everybody who was exposed to it before its final release hated it. When there's that much dislike from the early adopters, it will be absolutely hated by everyone else. That's guaranteed! And what did we see eventually happen with Windows 8? Well, as predicted, everybody who had to use it hated it, and it became Microsoft's worst failure to date.

    Google+ is another great example of this happening. In its early days, everybody who was subjected to it hated it. The earliest users predicted it would be disaster, and it was. The fact that it would fail was obvious to everyone at the time, but for whatever reason Google still made the stupid decision to go forward with the guaranteed failure. The near-useless Chromebooks and ChromeOS is another example of an obvious failure that's pushed through anyway.

    And then there's Mozilla. Users are leaving Firefox like there's no tomorrow because Mozilla proposes shitty UI changes, everybody points out how stupid these changes are, Mozilla makes them anyway, users are not happy, and some of the users move on to Chrome. On top of this, Mozilla then creates something totally useless like Firefox OS, cripples it by making JavaScript the only usable programming language with it, then pretends they're targeting third-worlders when it and the shitty phones it runs on are called out for being the shit that they are. And like everybody who wasn't stupid pointed out way back when Mozilla started working on Firefox OS, nobody wants it, and nobody will use it!

    Why the fuck do these large and formerly successful companies, which have provided useful products in the past, keep making these blatantly stupid mistakes these days? They didn't do it before. When faced with a product that was going to be an obvious failure, they canned it right away!

    1. Re:We called out these failures years ago. by jphamlore · · Score: 1

      For Microsoft there is the obvious counterexample to the "good old days" of Windows Me the OS ...

    2. Re:We called out these failures years ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apple is a special case. They aren't selling devices, like other vendors. They're peddling a religion. The hardware specs rarely matter; it's the logo on the device that people are buying, and the "prestige" within the hipster community that said logo brings.

      Malda was right, because he was looking at the iPod not as a religious symbol, but rather as a personal music player. As a personal music player it was technologically deficient in many ways when first released, and still is. As a religious symbol, though, it excelled. It had a huge amount of hype surrounding it, it psychologically hit the right spot with hipsters, and together these caused a lot of stupid people to waste a lot of money on a device that was inferior to others on the market at the time, all while justifying it with their zealous attitude toward Apple and Steve Jobs.

    3. Re: We called out these failures years ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have you actually used a Chromebook? As a 20% Linux sysadmin, 80% manager, I have no difficulties using my Chromebook as my primary computer. Access to web and SSH is pretty much all I need.

    4. Re: We called out these failures years ago. by geekforhire · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anyone that hates the Chromebook has probably not watched "regular people" use one. I picked up a c720 new for $175, put a larger SSD in it to dual boot Linux and Chrome OS and its been worth every dime. Everyone that has used Chrome has loved it as they just want a browser and email and I have found it to run Linux very well with the right config. I have been a UNIX sysadmin fo over 20 years and the fact that I can use a sub $200 device to do most of what I need when visiting a client blows my mind. I remember when people dreamed of being able to buy anything that you coukd run X windows on let alone a cheap laptop with 7 hour battery life. Kids these days...now get off my lawn.

    5. Re: We called out these failures years ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're not really using the Chromebook at all in that case, then. It's the servers you're connecting to using the web browser or ssh that do all of the real work. The Chromebook is, at best, a dumb terminal. But unlike a traditional dumb terminal, your dumb terminal may very well be sending information to Google that they then use when advertising crap to you.

      I have seen regular people use a Chromebook, and they are not at all happy when they find out that it doesn't run Word, Excel, games, and other Windows or OS X apps they've bought. They're pretty pissed off when they find out that they're stuck using shitty web-based alternatives that rarely do what they need. And so they go out and buy a real laptop, which these days may only cost a couple of hundred dollars more than the Chromebook, but is far more capable.

    6. Re: We called out these failures years ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They may not say it outright, but your clients probably think you're kind of dumb for using "a sub $200 device to do most of what I need when visiting a client" instead of using a real laptop.

      It's the "most" part that's key. The moment you need to do something beyond what crappy web imitations of real software allow you to do, you start wishing that you had a real laptop. Your clients start wishing you had a real laptop, too. It probably takes just one or two incidents, and the $200 you saved by buying a shitty Chromebook rather than getting a $400 laptop ends up turning into big losses for your clients.

      And if you're doing any sort of serious work, you'll now have to carry around the Chromebook plus a real laptop, and waste time switching between them on the fly. You might as well just use the real laptop all of the time. It does everything the Chromebook can, plus so much more, at almost no additional cost.

    7. Re: We called out these failures years ago. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Anyone that hates the Chromebook has probably not watched "regular people" use one.

      (bolding mine)

      I picked up a c720 new for $175, put a larger SSD in it to dual boot Linux and Chrome OS and its been worth every dime.

      ... the fact that I can use a sub $200 device to do most of what I need

      I'm not sure that someone who changes the OS and storage is representative of "regular people." Or of a sub $200 device, for that matter. How much did the SSD cost?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    8. Re: We called out these failures years ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm much more of a fan of buying a really good, long-lived computer (say a ThinkPad or a MacBook Pro), and using that as my only machine for work.

      That way:
      1) When I go to a client site, they see I'm not using the modern equivalent of plastic tinker toys to run their mission critical infrastructure (believe it or not, the customer's perception of quality service IS impacted by you dressing up nice, and having professional-looking tools);
      2) When I go to a client site, I have my entire toolkit with me, not just some bastardized one-off hacked together so I can line Google's pockets;
      3) It retains some resale value;
      4) I get a better sized screen;
      5) I get more than 2GB of RAM, and more than a 16 GB or 32 GB hard drive;

      I guess if you're from the old "roll everything by hand" school of thought, you just need a keyboard and a terminal window to type in all those commands. For those of us who value our time and efficiency, having a machine that can function as a legitimate development system is more important than saving a couple hours of billable time buying a cheap piece of plastic that'll fall apart in 6 months.

    9. Re:We called out these failures years ago. by Clsid · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, one could say that you find the religion argument attractive because you dislike Apple products, and yet there must be a reason why people are still buying them. So instead of assuming that people just like easy to use, well designed things, even if they are expensive and maybe not even top of the line (technically speaking), it's easier to think of them as people without a clue.

      In my case I fail to see myself living happily in one camp exclusively, because I can actually have a Linux/Windows PC, a Mac laptop, an iPad mini and an Android phone. Use them all and you will quickly realize that all of this "religious" product wars in the end are just about some personal preference and not because one is necessarily better over the other. If you were using a Windows 8 PC however... :)

    10. Re: We called out these failures years ago. by geekforhire · · Score: 1

      My clients care that I get the job done not what I use to do it. I have several powerful laptops but mostly what I need is a device to run SSH sessions (and some serial sessions) so a Chromebook running Ubuntu works just dandy. If I need more I will obviously use the right tool for the job but a $175 c720 lets me do 95% of what I need and I dont worry about theft of any damage it might take since its so cheap. Now excuse me while my dumb ass walks a block to the beach from my home that I paid for by doing dumb stuff....

    11. Re: We called out these failures years ago. by geekforhire · · Score: 1

      Yea, for sure, normal people wont setup a Chromebook to dual boot. I only keep ChromeOS on it for others to use but everyone that I have let use it has found it to work great. Several of them have ditched their larger and heavier laptops to go with a c720 and they are all quite happy with them as all they really need is good battery life and access to a browser and email.

      If I remember correctly the 64GB SSD was only about $25-$30 so the total cost of the setup was right around $200. It runs Ubuntu 14.04 very well as long as you don't need to run anything that requires over 2GB of RAM. I get 6 to 7 hours of runtime on it and since I mostly need it to access web interfaces or run SSH sessions (or serial via minicom) it fits my needs very well. Its probably not an ideal setup for everyone but for average folks ChromeOS gives them what they need and if you need a bit more loading your Linux distro of choice is quite easy as long as you put a larger SSD in.

      As with everything in life you need the right tool for the right job and I find this cheap tool to be a really handy one to have in my arsenal. If I need to do some heavy lifting I will take a fully loaded MacBook Pro with me but most of the time I just don't need it so it stays in my trunk. For really serious work I have a small 1U (not very deep) with two quad core Xeon's and 16GB of RAM that I will just toss on the LAN and use the c720 to SSH to it...works way better than using the MacBook and only weights slightly more ;)

    12. Re: We called out these failures years ago. by geekforhire · · Score: 1

      Yep..I pretty much use it as a dumb terminal but I am not sending anything to Google as I only boot to Linux when I use it, it only boots to Chrome when I let my wife of someone else use it. It might not be ideal for everyone but it does the trick for my needs and keeps me from having to tote my expensive MacBook around in crappy areas of LA. For the money they are great devices, and I totally get that they are not for everyone, but for the money they can be great tools.

  11. something worked by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I tried silver bullets, garlic, holy water, blessings, etc and Google+ still wouldn't die. I wonder what finally killed it. Maybe a knight in shining armor, accompanied by the court wizard, went on a quest to destroy Google+ and he's finally at the final boss.
    Everyone hates it? Complete immunity! The FTC, protests, petitions, foreign government lawsuits, HA! Laughable. WHAT? IT'S NOT MAKING ANY MONEY? *dies*

  12. Re:What's the issue? by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

    You'll eventually notice the cavities, though. Especially with as much sugar as I eat.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  13. EU may have contributed pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One of the big problems that EU countries have with Google is the inter-linking of the services it offers, which is a strong intrusion on privacy in European eyes. Americans seem not to care about that, but all EU countries have Data Protection Authorities and applicable laws about that kind of thing, so Google has been getting a lot of heat over it. Indeed, Google's banner line of "One account. All of Google." reads like a threat over here.

    So, it's possible that Google has realized that its previous business plan just isn't going to work in Europe, and may be dismantling some of the interconnections between services. They probably don't care too much about the EU fines, but the bad PR every time a fine or an investigation is announced does them no good, and might well spread EU discontent beyond the European countries.

  14. Its all about getting an accurate head counts. by Bob_Who · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Google needed to sort out users versus user accounts. They had to distiguish all of the duplicate human beings, as separate from their various accounts. The high value data is gmail storage, google docs, and especially picasa web albums. Google sites hosted my web site experiments, and docs and forms, cloud stored my binaries, and voice relayed to my phone numbers, wallet, etc etc. The process of attempting to force feed Google+ to me, though futile, still accomplished their primary objective: It functioned to consolidate my multiple user ids and to figure out what I claim is the meaningful data.

    While Google+ is a marketing fail, it was a database validation success, while also changing the overall TOS. This process unified various random accounts to identify the actual user. It combined the data of browsing habits, purchases, phone numbers, handles, ips, mac addresses, adress books, etc. They were all mined and combined to fully implicate individuals accessing anything Google. The fact is, that until all of this Google+ bullshit, I had quietly tucked away thousands of photographs which filled several accounts to the brink. The process of contending with the change forced me to access everything which eliminated the redundancy of me as multiple users. Now Google can be sure its all one of me, which they knew all along, but this just confirms my usage profile and actual breathing existence. I'm not worth as much money to advertisers if I am a redundant user already counted and sold. Just one of me is their assurance to clients so there's no double dipping on real head count. I feel so special, like social currency of unique importance to statistical metrics....

  15. Re:Like Chrome don't have Google account by thunderclap · · Score: 1

    Which basically means you want to use their services but not pay for them by sharing your information. How do you think people on 4chan and other hackers dox people? YOur info, my info, everyone's info is already out there. Google is simply asking for permission via using their services. Others do not.

  16. Re:What's the issue? by jeIIomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whether you work for yourself or a company you dress a specific way.

    I don't care about the clothes I wear. I go to job interviews dressed in what are essentially rags simply to eliminate employers who are worthless and superficial. Other than that, I just dress in random comfortable clothes (not suits or anything formal, since I don't find them comfortable).

    Slobs don't make money.

    I seem to be making quite a bit of money, so your absolutist statement is incorrect. It's all about finding the right place to work in. I choose not to surround myself with worthless people who only care about the superficial.

    But it's probably true more often than not. But what does that mean, other than that our species is mentally diseased?

    If you brush your teeth to remove bad breath, you are a] doing it wrong.

    Nope. It does actually help.

    the true purpose is to keep your teeth white.

    You don't get to decide what my true purpose is; I do. Society can go fuck itself, because my teeth aren't even straight.

    Everyone is an attention whore.

    Speak for yourself.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  17. Re:Developed? by jd · · Score: 1

    If it did, the quality of the pictures would be better.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  18. About this by Art3x · · Score: 1

    I am nonplussed and yet, not nonplussed. Figure that out ;)

  19. Google Has Other Services Less Used by enter+to+exit · · Score: 2

    Considering Google killed off Orkut at the end of last month, and still haven't killed blogspot/blogger i suspect Google+ will hang around for a while longer.

    It's a lot more integrated into their other services than Orkut and blogger ever were as well.

    I suspect Google+ will morph into a "Value added" social backend for some of their products, youtube, hangouts, gmail all have Google+ hooks. They are starting to use Google+ to rank your searches, I see my friends posts in my search results often now. They could use this to add personalization to Google Now.

    In a couple of years Google+ may be closer to Discus's "embed everyone" model than Facebook's silo. They might end up using Google+ to integrate the data across their products, which were (and still are) siloed until recently and just remove the Google+ homepage.

  20. Re:What's the issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Jesus, fuck. You are a seriously pedantic, trolling douche.

    congratulations, your request for attention has been fulfilled.

  21. Kinda like Google + by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

    My friends don't hang out on Google+ and I sure as hell don't post to the site... But it's a nice social stream to get info about my hobbies and people I follow. Heck of a lot better than FB. Not sure where I'll go if G+ shutters down.

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  22. So yet another interface? by gelfling · · Score: 1

    There's now 2; 1 for G+ and 1 for Piscasa and they don't play well together especially for Mobile. Instant Upload and AutoBackup create 2 different directories and Instant Upload isn't viewable from Android even when you use it in Android. The UI is different for Picasa and G+ even though they're supposed to be the same thing. They have different features. So is this going to be a THIRD way? Because that will suck and it will be time to move everything somewhere else.

    On the upside, not needing an 80MB G+ client in Android just to use pictures will be nice.

  23. robots.txt by StripedCow · · Score: 1

    The first post I made in Google+ is this:

    # go away
    User-agent: *
    Disallow: /

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  24. About time by melting_clock · · Score: 1

    Sorry for the following rant...

    My photos should stay entirely offline unless I chose to upload them. My last Android phone had them uploading to Google+ by default, without my explicit approval or agreement. Private online photo storage for backups is something that I sometimes use, along with backing up other files. If there is a photo that I want to share with people I will but having them stolen is not appreciated.

    I use my Android phone for personal and business purposes. It is frustrating that the amount of data that leaks has greatly increased in recent years. I do not want my contacts, or the rest of the world, to be able to see my activity. Even though I don't use Google+ and have made everything private on the profile the Google forces on me, I still see information on things like what my contacts think of Play apps and these are people that are not in any circles... Some of my business contacts have strong political and/or religious views that I don't share and they might not approve of all of my apps. Social media should always be opt in and not forced on customers.

    Basically, I hate G+ and have not liked a lot of what Google has done to their apps over the last couple of years.

    1. Re:About time by Troed · · Score: 1

      My last Android phone had them uploading to Google+ by default, without my explicit approval or agreement.

      Odd. I've always been asked, very explicitly and clear, if I approve of having my photos backed up to Google+ from my Android phone. I've always answered No, and they haven't.

  25. Re:What's the issue? by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

    And that is where you completely lost it.

    Nope. It's a common tactic among religious idiots to tell other people what they believe, and make statements such as, "If you don't believe in God, you're dead inside!" or "You know in your heart that God exists!" He tried to tell me what I think, so he reminded me of creationists.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  26. Re:thank you jesus by CauseBy · · Score: 1

    You were one of the people they were trying to chase away. They don't want you back.

  27. I know why by aybiss · · Score: 1

    Something to do with that period where Google+ thought it could upload my photos without asking. Google+ is just distancing itself from what is now no-doubt the largest repository of kiddy porn on the internet.

    --
    It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
  28. Re:What's the issue? by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

    You're eliminating employers who are superficial, but a good employer might eliminate you for reasons which are just as good.

    No, they'd eliminate me for superficial reasons.

    is a red herring that you don't understand social norms and will be difficult to deal with.

    No, it means I reject illogical social norms that encourage superficiality, not that I don't understand them. There is a difference.

    Besides, I found a nice workplace, thanks.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  29. Re:What's the issue? by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

    Also, "offensive" is subjective.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  30. Plus is primarily centralized account management by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    Google Plus is only incidentally a social network. It was designed to merge and centrally manage the YouTube, Picasa, GMail, et al accounts. It's been quite effective. The stream was an easy add-on goal and an additional selling point for consumers. Circles offer a nice benefit and are being used now not just for the Plus stream but to notify people about one another's activities on the other sites like YouTube.

  31. Re:What's the issue? by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

    Wait, so, maintaining basic hygiene so that you can be presentable to other people makes you an "attention whore?"

  32. Re:What's the issue? by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

    I would think you'd want to maintain basic hygiene for other reasons. I don't care about being "presentable" (which is subjective), but then again, I don't hang around with superficial drones.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  33. Re:What's the issue? by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

    So, if your intimate partner doesn't like it when your breath smells bad, that makes them a "superficial drone?"

    If your co-workers don't like it if you smell like body odor because you haven't showered in days, that makes them "superficial drones?"

  34. Re:What's the issue? by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

    So, if your intimate partner doesn't like it when your breath smells bad, that makes them a "superficial drone?"

    Not liking a smell is a practical matter. We're speaking of the superficial, here. Pay attention.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  35. Re:What's the issue? by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

    But your insinuation that I don't want bad breath so I can be presentable to others was wrong. I don't want bad breath because I don't like the smell or taste. The end.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  36. Re:What's the issue? by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

    Your reactions to comments are wildly hostile. "Dense," "attention whore," "superficial drones" ... what's that all about? Why are you so angry?

  37. Re:What's the issue? by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

    I'm actually calm while making such insults.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.