Google Quietly Nixes Mandatory G+ Integration With Gmail

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Quietly Nixes Mandatory G+ Integration With Gmail

Posted by timothy on Tuesday September 23, 2014 @04:23AM from the maybe-now-I'll-like-it-better dept.

An anonymous reader writes Back in 2012, Google had made it mandatory for new Gmail users to simultaneously create Google+ (G+) accounts. This is no longer so. Following the departure of G+ founder Vic Gundotra in April 2014, Google has been quietly decoupling its social media site from its other services. First, YouTube was freed, then Google+ Photos. Now, anyone who wants to create a new Gmail account unencumbered with a G+ profile can also do so.

35 of 139 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Does it matter? by misosoup7 · 2014-09-23 04:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

Even if you had a Google+ account, if you didn't use it, what did it matter?
1. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 04:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  ^ Part of the problem ^
2. Re:Does it matter? by spire3661 · 2014-09-23 04:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It was an annoying insert between me and the services i want to use. I want to see my pictures on PICASA, where i put them, not integrated into G+
  
  --
  Good-bye
3. Re:Does it matter? by petermgreen · 2014-09-23 04:40 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Some examples
  One was the real names policy, previously youtube had been happy with psuedononymous commenters. With google+ they tried hard to push people into using their real names on google+ (though they eventually dropped that policy) and they also tried hard to push youtube users to sign up for google+ and use their google+ name (which was likely their real name) on youtube. It was possible to avoid it but they tried pretty hard to push people into it.
  Another was that gmail users were appearing in google+ searches. Some people don't want it to be easy to search out their email accounts.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
4. Re:Does it matter? by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-09-23 04:46 · Score: 2
  
  I fail to understand how they don't just have a Google account and then you go into some kind of 'setup' or 'preferences' panel and check/uncheck boxes for 'enable: Picassa, YouTube, GMail, Plus, Reader (oops), Wallet', etc. If that's too complex it can be automatically enabled if you go to the relevant service and try to use it (upload a picture, post an update, etc.).
  I don't believe that Google is irrational, but by making their services as hard to use as possible (I know, don't read the YouTube commments...) they limit page views to some extent, which much affect their advertising stream - but I haven't seen the wisdom of why they want to do that.
  Is it just that disk space is expensive and the consumption stream size's increase is only proportional to the creation stream's size on a diminishing returns scale? I could possibly buy that - I have a hundred videos in my Watch Later queue on YouTube, so they won't make any more money on my views than they would if they made it easier to upload, edit, and share videos.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
5. Re:Does it matter? by misosoup7 · 2014-09-23 04:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Fair point regarding the Google+ search results. I guess I never really thought about that. I guess it's good that they reversed the result huh?
  
  Not sure if I follow the real name policy argument. Personally, I understand that people want privacy and there was a huge outcry when Blizzard also required real names as part of their RealID row out. But at the same time I think the issue that both Blizzard and Google wanted to address was cyber-bullying by hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. I think everyone else just got caught in the crossfire because of a few bad actors. In all seriousness, neither Google nor Blizzard really benefits by having your real name. It's not like the earn money by knowing your name, they earn money by knowing your interests. Your name just doesn't give them that. And for them to require real names, there must be something else there. But then again that's just my 2 cents, take what you will.
6. Re:Does it matter? by cayenne8 · 2014-09-23 05:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  One was the real names policy, previously youtube had been happy with psuedononymous commenters. With google+ they tried hard to push people into using their real names on google+ (though they eventually dropped that policy) and they also tried hard to push youtube users to sign up for google+ and use their google+ name (which was likely their real name) on youtube. It was possible to avoid it but they tried pretty hard to push people into it.
  I never converted my pre-Google YouTube account to G+. I still am no longer able to comment on my or others' videos.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
7. Re:Does it matter? by X0563511 · 2014-09-23 05:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Personally the issue wasn't that Google knew my name (I'm sure they know a lot more than that) but that they made that information available to everyone who cared to look.
  That left a bad taste in my mouth and I have since refused to touch G+ because of it, even though they did back out from that particular stance quite quickly.
  
  --
  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...
8. Re:Does it matter? by ian_po · 2014-09-23 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  Mod Parent up. This is true. Google still force you to agree to "Google+ Pages" Terms of Service in order to have a pseudonymic voice on YouTube.
9. Re:Does it matter? by gbcox · 2014-09-23 06:03 · Score: 2
  
  No one seems to be foaming at the mouth about the ubiquitous "sign on with Facebook" feature many sites have which FORCE you to have a Facebook account in order to use their service.
  That would be because people can live without the ability to comment on those sites. It's harder (not impossible, but harder) to live without the ability to comment on Google-owned sites.
  A bunch of sites are requiring you to have a Facebook account to take advantage of their services. You dismiss it by saying those sites aren't important anyway? Regarding commenting on Google sites, they use a unified comment engine tied to your Google Account. None of those comments have to be pushed to G+...it's voluntary. You aren't forced to do it - whereas, you are being FORCED to signup with Facebook. Again, pure and simple this is just FUD.
10. Re:Does it matter? by i+kan+reed · 2014-09-23 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The reason is that "a single source for services" wasn't their plan. Their plan was "Steal users from facebook, by going absolutely nuts pushing G+".
11. Re:Does it matter? by Anrego · 2014-09-23 06:19 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly.
  The vast majority of google+ accounts are probably empty shells created so youtube would stop prompting, which kinda makes the service look like a barren wasteland.
12. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 06:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Cyber bullying is the reason I don't want my real name attached to everything so a bully can follow me from one website to the next.
13. Re:Does it matter? by RDW · 2014-09-23 07:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
14. Re:Does it matter? by osu-neko · 2014-09-23 07:46 · Score: 2
  
  Not sure if I follow the real name policy argument. Personally, I understand that people want privacy and there was a huge outcry when Blizzard also required real names as part of their RealID row out. But at the same time I think the issue that both Blizzard and Google wanted to address was cyber-bullying by hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.
  You can tell people at a company are speaking from a place of privilege when they assert that using real names will reduce bullying/make people safer/etc. For many of us, using real names pretty much guarantees bullying and danger, and quite possibly even threatens our lives. From Blizzard, it really takes the cake. Like I'm going to put my life in jeopardy for the sake of a video game. And even if the threats aren't serious, many people would just rather avoid the hate and abuse to begin with, even if it's "only" verbal/emotional abuse. Some people use anonymity as a weapon, but most of us use it as a shield. Congrats for those lucky enough to not need it, but understand we're not all so lucky. Removing it just further marginalizes those who aren't privileged enough to be safe without it.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
15. Re:Does it matter? by nobuddy · 2014-09-23 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  Makes you wonder if they notice Google+ accounts named "Fuck off, no means no!"
16. Re:Does it matter? by Opportunist · 2014-09-23 08:26 · Score: 2
  
  Because you're not their user, you're their product. The idea wasn't to be comfortable for you, the idea was to get as much information out of you as possible. What they did was basically a rip-off of the MS tactics: Use their most powerful, most successful product to muscle into another market they were late for, that was already taken by someone else and that they wanted. What Windows was for MS in their attempt to wedge into the browser business, YouTube was for Google in their attempt to squeeze themselves into social networking.
  Google's disadvantage here is that social networks have one huge drawback (for a company) compared to operating systems: They allow people to, well, network. And tell each other how to show a company the finger that tries to force you to do something you don't want to do. People talked. People told each other not only how to circumvent Google's plans (that would have been a minor nuisance that could have eventually been patched) but, worse, that there are alternatives that are by no means more complicated or different to use. And THAT WAS a huge problem for Google. Other than making people switch away from Windows to a different OS, switching to another mail provider, another video platform or another $service_google_offers is rather painless. There ain't no incompatibilities to deal with or a learning curve for a new OS.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 04:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

> Now, anyone who wants to create a new Gmail account unencumbered with a G+ profile can also do so.
The main value G+ gave to google was a way to unify all of their services so that they could track you across all of them.
But nowadays it is basically impossible to create a new account with any of google's services without giving up a phone number that they will use to "authenticate" you by sending a text or a robo-call with a number you have to type back into your browser.
That lets google track you by phone number because, 99% of the population can't be bothered to get a new phone number for each sign-up. So it really doesn't matter that you aren't using G+ to explicitly unify your google accounts, they've figured out how to implicitly do it. So the end result is the same for them, while you get a false sense of compartmentalizing your life.
1. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by Spy+Handler · 2014-09-23 04:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, the main value of G+ was that Google was losing social networking to Facebook big time and Sergei Brin decided Google cannot be left behind. So they tried to leverage gmail and youtube and all their other services into forcing you to make a G+ account to give it a big boost. (Google could already track you every way to Sunday before G+ was ever dreamed up)
  The fact that they're not forcing G+ on you anymore means that after 5 years of trying, they gave up trying to beat Facebook and decided not to piss off their core users any further.
2. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by gstoddart · 2014-09-23 05:10 · Score: 2
  
  The fact that they're not forcing G+ on you anymore means that after 5 years of trying, they gave up trying to beat Facebook and decided not to piss off their core users any further.
  I'm really hoping this is signalling a shift that, yes, social media exists ... but it's not the be-all and end-all of technology.
  Because I've seen way too many corporate presentations saying how everything was going to be done in social media, and "OMG! Teh Social!".
  And, at the end of the day, these tools don't always pan out, don't actually help you get your work done in some cases, and leave people thinking that somehow getting a badge in the company social media site was anything of value.
  I like the idea of Google going back to giving me really awesome services which provide the information I need, without the supposition that I'm going to go all social on everything I see and blog about it to my friends. If I want to do that, I'll send them an email or text them.
  And, yes, I know ... I am nowhere near the core market for social media ... I'm old and fat ... get off my lawn and all that ... but the over-hyping of social media has made me have to actively avoid it in some cases. And in a few cases, I get forced to use it so that the "visionary" who foisted this on the company can pretend he was onto something. And then over time they stop getting used as people realize that it's not actually adding anything to they job.
  Social media exists, it will continue to exist. But not all things are social media, nor should they be. But once it became the latest craze, that's what everybody treated it as, then it became the defacto "if we don't have social media we're falling behind".
  But, like the self tweeting toilet ... some things don't really add value to people, and don't reflect how they use the service.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
3. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by cayenne8 · 2014-09-23 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's called "two factor authentication" and it's only mandatory if you care about security.
  Well, if it is a matter of 2 factor and giving my phone number to Google vs less secure and keeping my phone numbers to myself, I'm afraid I have to err on the side of less secure, sadly.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Good move... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 04:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

Thank god... This was a TOP google annoyance. You had to be careful when signing up for the forced Google+ that you didn't inadvertently leave your permissions for sharing, +1's etc wide open to the public.
Not everyone wants every video they've marked to watch later tied back to their email address, tied back to their name on a public profile!
I never really understood it, it was so anti-customer and I actually reduced my usage of Google+ because of it. Google+'s initial appeal for me was what I felt like a more controlled sharing circles world. But then everything (Picasa web albums and photos, youtube activity) started to link into the profile. UGH! I've never posted a Google+ update since, even though I liked the way they handled photo's.
1. Re:Good move... by Copid · 2014-09-23 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly this. I want to keep Google, the company that knows everything about me and then some, totally separate from social media, a thing whose default beahvior seems to be to share whatever it knows about me with anybody I've ever met. Kept separate, both of those things have value. But let's be honest--Google has my email, records of most of my purchases, my web search history, and everything on my smart phone including GPS location stamps and call records. Why would I ever want to connect all that shit to a public data spew with constantly changing policies and behaviors? No good can come of it.
  
  --
  An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Re:Who wants to bet... by __aaclcg7560 · 2014-09-23 04:36 · Score: 2

You mean Google+ is finally coming out of beta?
Re:What about Android? by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2014-09-23 04:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

ownCloud does a pretty good job of it. Granted I'm one of those fortunate United Statsians that has a 50/5 connection, but a homemade microserver combined with docker and a slew of other applications hasn't let me down yet.

--
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Can _I_ decouple? by dmatos · 2014-09-23 05:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

The real question, here, is whether or not I'll be able to decouple my gmail from the unused google+ profile that I had to create. I hate that I cannot have my real name on my email without having it spread all over the internet simultaneously.

--

It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
1. Re:Can _I_ decouple? by SternisheFan · 2014-09-23 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  How to Delete Your Google+ Account http://lifehacker.com/how-to-d...
But will the Google Account bullshit remain? by Misagon · 2014-09-23 05:05 · Score: 2

When Google forced the Google+/Google account integration on the users, it wasn't just Google's "Social Network" that was forced upon us. The first hazzle I noticed was that I could not be logged in into Youtube and Gmail at the same time using the two different accounts that I had.
When I was logged into Youtube and wanted to check my mail, instead of a login prompt, I was prompted with a page offering me to "upgrade" the account, and vice versa.
I don't want the confidential correspondence I have with my doctor to be at the same security box as my list of favourite cat videos on Youtube. Youtube is used casually, while GMail is used seriously.
I still use Youtube and GMail a lot, but for a while now I use GMail exclusively in Private Browsing windows in Chromium, so that my credentials are kept separate. But I think that shouldn't be necessary.

--
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
What do they mean YouTube Freed? by cayenne8 · 2014-09-23 05:13 · Score: 3, Informative

What do they mean

First, YouTube was freed
???
I had an account on there from before YT was purchased by Google. Since the G+ requirement, which I resisted...I've not been able to comment on other videos, not even reply to comments on MY videos because it keeps popping up saying I need to associate it with a G+ account in order to post comments to YouTube.
I've not seen a change there. Is there a secret Mickey Mouse handshake one needs to know to fix this? I miss replying to people commenting on videos I post.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
1. Re:What do they mean YouTube Freed? by VGPowerlord · 2014-09-23 05:36 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know about if you've never had a Google+ profile, but I deleted mine earlier today and can still comment on my own videos... haven't tried replying to someone else, though.
  
  --
  GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
2. Re:What do they mean YouTube Freed? by Apotekaren · 2014-09-23 06:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Top left corner, Profile->Settings, scroll all the way down and find: Disable Google+
  Ah, the smell of freedom from that useless putrid thing!
  
  --
  She: Hey, are you a traitor? Me: No, I'm atheist.
Stop bundling. by ledow · 2014-09-23 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have a social networking account already, thanks.
I have an email account already, thanks
I have a cloud storage account already, thanks.
I have a search engine already, thanks.
I have an instant messenger already, thanks.
When you try to do EVERYTHING, you believe that all your customers will drop everything they have years invested in and run to you. Doesn't work out that way. And if you get over-precious and try to force them to do it, well, that doesn't go down well either.
So run them as separate, independent services that I *can* join together if I want to (it's handy to be able to sign into Google Drive with my old GMail account, for example, but don't FORCE that upon me).
In the same way that if you sell me TV, phone, Internet, water, gas, electricity, burglar alarm and music lessons - and then try to "punish" me for not using one of them, or force me to use one in order to get another - chances are that I won't use any of them. Whereas if you just ran them all as separate services, I might well decide to lump in TV, phone and Internet into a single package for convenience. But you have to think about what happens when I'm perfectly happy with my Internet provider and DO NOT want to change. If your offerings are that inflexible that you won't let me use one without the others - even if the others are useless to me - then I'm likely to find yet-another-company that will do, say, my email without requiring me to sign up to their social network too.
This is exactly how I viewed things. I was one of the first GMail accounts, back when they were invite-only and nobody knew they existed. It took over from my Hotmail (primarily because my Hotmail account was trying to tie into my Windows Live account, and into my Microsoft account, etc. etc. etc.). And when G+ came along, I looked and deliberately decided against it. The more the pushed, to more I ignored.
It never got to the point where it became a hassle to opt-out, even when it did become annoying, so I'm still on GMail but not G+. Hence, it's not a shock to me that probably a lot of other people did exactly the same.
Just because you offer "your" Facebook, doesn't mean I'll immediately move everything off my Facebook to change to you. No matter how good you are.
1. Re:Stop bundling. by dysmal · 2014-09-23 06:11 · Score: 2
  
  I completely agree. This "bundle" mentality is frustrating. Not everyone wants the entire package. I don't like having all of my eggs in one basket because then i'm at the mercy of the whims of the company i'm dealing with. Technology is constantly changing. Products are always changing. I may not necessarily WANT to use your product in 6 months after you ram the latest update down my throat (Gnome, FireFox, Facebook, Windows 8, etc).
still loving my g+ account by Gnaythan1 · 2014-09-23 06:22 · Score: 2

Had it a couple years now, and still using it daily. made a lot of friends on there, and I've had some fantastic debates. I still post two or three times a day to g+ and I've got around 14000 followers.
Re:Play no longer appears to require Gmail by Kazymyr · 2014-09-23 06:44 · Score: 2

Precisely. You can't rate or comment on an app without a G+ account. Which is why I haven't commented or rated any apps for the past 2 years.

--
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem