Slashdot Mirror


Google Is Discontinuing Google+ Hangouts On Air On September 12 (venturebeat.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Google today quietly announced that Google+ Hangouts On Air will no longer be available on September 12. Four weeks from now, Google users will be asked to use YouTube Live instead. Google first debuted the livestreaming feature for its Hangouts group video chat on Google+ back in September 2011, though it was only available to select performers and celebrities. Google started making Hangouts On Air available to all its users in May 2012, and completed the rollout a month later. But then in May 2013, Google debuted YouTube Live, which also gradually became available to more and more users.

75 comments

  1. One less thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And one step closer to the end of that piece of shit called Google+

    1. Re:One less thing by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I like it. I'm not on Facebook but I hear it's better in every way except popularity. And popularity has never proven to correlate with quality. Given all these things dropping off, I'm worried they're going to drop G+ altogether. Which should not affect any of the haters whether it lives or dies, but I'll be stuck without an alternative.

    2. Re: One less thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any time someone tells you the thing they prefer is "better in every way" you can rest assured it is not

    3. Re:One less thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google Plus is actually pretty good.

      It's real mistake was Google screaming "GOOGLE PLUS" at you constantly and then demanding you use it if you want to continue using virtually every google service.

      It royally pissed people off and never recovered.

      Shame really.

    4. Re:One less thing by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Bring back iGoogle!

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  2. Why maintain a product by Luthair · · Score: 2

    when you can just make something new that does exactly the same thing and annoy your users by forcing them to switch.

    1. Re:Why maintain a product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the hell uses Google Plus anyway?

    2. Re:Why maintain a product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its obvious u are not in the tech or academia communities
      it is well used by us in both
      by me, luthair, and manishs

      GET IT IN YA MANISHS U FABULOUS SWAGLORD

    3. Re:Why maintain a product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's popular with myspace users.

    4. Re:Why maintain a product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      make something new that does exactly the same thing

      Or in this case, make something new that does less. Hangouts on air was the last way to get to the old version of hangouts that let you use plugins. It's like google maps all over again. Make a new version that removes 90% of the old functionality but looks a little bit prettier.

    5. Re:Why maintain a product by GrumpyNope · · Score: 1

      Because Hangouts, Messenger, Allo, and Duo.

    6. Re:Why maintain a product by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Who the hell uses Google Plus anyway?

      Supposedly there are 111 million active users (according to Enge data) on it, why do you ask?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    7. Re: Why maintain a product by Luthair · · Score: 1

      I don't use Google+ but I use hangouts for messaging as does everyone else I know because it's cross platform.

  3. PRESUME IT'S A LIE (FBI) (FBI) (FBI) [singing] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything Google/YouTube/Alphabet are USA Government Spy Apparatuses anyway.

    What would we ever do without Google+ ? IRC is great.

  4. G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google+ is (was?) a better designed and engineered alternative to Facebook, but it was marketed poorly. They positioned themselves as some kind of social network for cool tech people, forgetting that all the real cool tech people were already active with each other in their own online communities, You *had* to be on LinkedIn, because Business, and you *had* to be on Facebook, because Family, even if you weren't active in either, so you really, really needed a good reason to join another social network with strangers. And all that cringeworthy astroturfing and bought-and-paid-for testimonials by the those who were supposed to be our Nerd Leaders, such as Wil Wheaton, Felicia Day, and Guy Kawasaki just made the whole thing a laughing stock.

    1. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Dwedit · · Score: 1

      Making it INVITE ONLY killed it off before anyone could try it out.

    2. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precisely. They were aiming for generating some sort of mystique or chic about the service based on it's exclusivity... in reality, they forgot that a social network needs to, you know, network people socially... which is hard to do if the people in your social group can't get on the network.

      They tried to take on the 900lb gorilla that was Facebook and just didn't do it very well.

    3. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Wil Wheaton endorsing G+ was particularly disappointing, he's always struck me as someone who's genuine and down to earth. Just goes to show that anyone can be bought for the right price I suppose.

    4. Re: G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and let's not forget they did what they could to avoid interoperating with any other platform. I would have loved to have my G+ feed slurp links from my blog, for example. Or follow my G+ friends in Google Reader, and leave comments in there.

      G+ suffers from a dearth of content, because they provide crap content authoring tools, and made it a pain and three quarters to automate pulling in from other sources.

    5. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Most things start as invite only and word of mouth only when they're new. Even Facebook did that in its infancy. This wasn't about exclusivity but about a slower and maintainable rollout. I've seen new products fail when they get inundated with too many users too soon then the word goes out that it's slow and down a lot.

    6. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Why do you ACs hate it so much? If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Will Wheaton was actually using it, not just a paid promotion.

    7. Re: G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Authoring tools? I'm not on Facebook so I'm confused here. You've got text, pictures, video, text with pictures, text with video, what else do you need? It's not a platform for bloggers. Post or share something without any delusions of being a journalist, then people comment on it, end of story.

    8. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anonymously is completely orthogonal to one's "social" networking platform choice.

      As for Wil, I think the feel of it may be what convinced people it was fake. I've not seen the posts in question, but the choice of words, level of enthusiasm, and corresponding comment tree are all factors that could contribute to whether someone feels a post is sincere or merely a paid hand leveraging their reputation. Ultimately only Google and Wil know the truth.

    9. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We did go somewhere else. It's called Facebook. Hell, there's plenty of alternatives to Facebook as well, maybe you might want to pull your head out of your ass and take a look around once in a while.

      Incidentally, Wil Wheaton "using" Google+ does NOT mean that he wasn't PAID to promote it. The Marlboro Man smoked quite a few cigarettes on camera, died of lung cancer as a result in fact. You think he was doing that for free? Of course you don't. You're just ignorantly running to the defence of a celebrity that you fawn over and it's utterly embarrassing.

    10. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Facebook = People I care about
      Google+ =Things I care about

      Facebook is filled with crap from people I care about. Most of it is crap / clickbait / memes and other "crap". It is really hard to filter all the crap from all the people I car about, but I still want to keep up with the People (the limited amount of non-crap items)

      Google+ has much better control over my feed. It is much better at filtering crap out. I want to see just "Photography" stuff, I open that Circle. Too Much spam from person A, they get removed from that circle.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Gmail was invite-only too for a long time. It didn't fail. The problem is google's standards for the success or failure of their products. If it doesn't dominate the market, they declare that a failure and discontinue it.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    12. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by swillden · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Wil Wheaton endorsing G+ was particularly disappointing, he's always struck me as someone who's genuine and down to earth. Just goes to show that anyone can be bought for the right price I suppose.

      Wheaton used G+ quite heavily until about six months ago. I think he genuinely liked it.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    13. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by gangien · · Score: 1

      where is good old clevernickname.

    14. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Gmail is interoperable with other email systems. Social networks aren't. Thus making it invite only was stupid.

    15. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I really did like Google+ the best. My major beef with the service was their real name requirement. Had they gotten rid of that (maybe require real names on the account but let people use "public names" that could be pseudonyms), then I know that I and a lot of other people would have used the service more.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    16. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gmail is email which is a standard and had protocols that support it.

      There is no social network standard, it is all run by corporate greed.

    17. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Wheaton is a whore clown.

      That said, Google Plus is actually good. The marketing (consisting of FORCING YOU TO SIGN UP) was exceptionally stupid... oh and getting endorsements from useless jizz mops like Wheaton didn't help.

    18. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      My major beef with the service was their real name requirement. Had they gotten rid of that (maybe require real names on the account but let people use "public names" that could be pseudonyms), then I know that I and a lot of other people would have used the service more.

      They did get rid of that. Doesn't seem to have worked based off your comment.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    19. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Gmail is email which is a standard and had protocols that support it.

      OpenSocial is a standard that is supported by some major social networks.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    20. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      You know, Facebook has lists, which are basically the equivalent of G+ circles - you can post to them and view posts from them. It's like having a whole separate newsfeed but just from those people. Dunno how many people use it but to me it's an invaluable feature.

    21. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by gsslay · · Score: 1

      Exclusivity only works as a marketing tool if you are offering something that people can't get elsewhere. So they come banging at your door asking for an invite. Google+ essentially didn't do much that Facebook didn't already do, making it invite only meant that people just got on with using Facebook and ignored it.

      And by the time it went open to all comers it was too complicated and too late.

    22. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      The last time I checked, they got rid of it by allowing a pseudonym but requiring that the person choose a public name that included their real name. So I could be "Jason Levine (Pseudonym)", "Jason (Pseudonym)", "Pseudonym (Jason Levine)", etc. Not really helpful if you didn't want your real name publicized.

      (Yes, I realize that there's something odd about me complaining about a real name policy when I use my real name on Slashdot. I signed up for this account years ago when I didn't care if my real name was out there. I don't want to sign up for a new account so this is one of the few accounts I use with my real name and I never directly reference my pseudonym account.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    23. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      The last time I checked, they got rid of it by allowing a pseudonym but requiring that the person choose a public name that included their real name. So I could be "Jason Levine (Pseudonym)", "Jason (Pseudonym)", "Pseudonym (Jason Levine)", etc. Not really helpful if you didn't want your real name publicized.

      You might want to check out the Wikipedia page on Nymwars, while there are other better sources available, the article is a good summary of events and what has occurred.

      (Yes, I realize that there's something odd about me complaining about a real name policy when I use my real name on Slashdot. I signed up for this account years ago when I didn't care if my real name was out there. I don't want to sign up for a new account so this is one of the few accounts I use with my real name and I never directly reference my pseudonym account.)

      There is nothing odd about that.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    24. Re:G+: The Social Network for Sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Google+ is and always has been complete garbage. NOBODY wanted it despite Google trying to cram it down everyone's throat.

  5. #1 developer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of well designed vaporware. I have loads of friends/family that already have google accounts, but I cannot get them to use the google platform for more than mail/chat so they must be contacted via all the other bloaty crap. It gets to the point that you're afraid to try their newest shenanigan cuz you'll be left out in the cold.

    1. Re:#1 developer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand what vaporware is.

    2. Re:#1 developer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more like evaporatingware.

  6. Google is killing a lot of products by prograsm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I feel like using Google products is becoming a bad idea, simply because you can expect it to be retired as soon as it becomes useful when they decide to make an identical product under the banner of choice of the moment, or simply kill it with no replacement product at all. This used to be disappointing, but Google does this so often it doesn't affect me any very much more because I won't even try most of their recent offerings knowing they won't keep it around. According to this article, I started avoiding Google's new offerings late 2011 or earlier.

    1. Re:Google is killing a lot of products by luvirini · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. Basically any product made by Google or purchased by Google means it will likely shut down in few years.

      So learning to use and/or switching to any of their products is kind of waste of time and effort that way.

      I do use some Google products(mostly Mail,Drive,Maps, Chrome and Android), but I do make sure I have all the information also outside their unreliable environments.

      Unreliable being the keyword.

    2. Re:Google is killing a lot of products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's something of a problem for them really. I remember early on, people I worked with in IT-related positions were always excited about new Google products coming out...Google Wave was one example I can think of. Not a month after it was available to the public, pretty much every manager I talked to was trying to figure out some way of using it...I think they had it in their heads that it was going to be something like Sharepoint, but without the licensing costs. That didn't quite go as well as expected.

      Now it's evidently "Apache Wave," because of course it is. The Apache Foundation has turned into something of a retirement home for OSS projects that nobody really knows what to do with any more.

      In either case, I found myself experiencing the same dilemma not long ago...I was trying to think on what I could set up for my parents for video conferencing for some of my relatives. I was leaning toward Google Hangouts because it's ad free, relatively clean and simple interface, plus most of them have GMail accounts already...what happened?

      http://venturebeat.com/2016/08...

      Completely unavailable as of September 12th. Not exactly much notice for terminating a product (granted they're terminating a feature, not the entire product). The real problem is that they could well give just as little notice for terminating _any_ of their products. I'm sure plenty of people still use Google as their primary search engine of course, but I'd have to think that DuckDuckGo and the likes have put a pretty big dent in their market share as well. About all they have going for them is Android and GMail, Google Drive perhaps, but for various reasons there's a lot of skepticism about storing data in "the cloud" these days, regardless of the company behind it...

    3. Re:Google is killing a lot of products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, argument by condescension. I am sure that works well for you.

    4. Re:Google is killing a lot of products by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      In either case, I found myself experiencing the same dilemma not long ago...I was trying to think on what I could set up for my parents for video conferencing for some of my relatives. I was leaning toward Google Hangouts because it's ad free, relatively clean and simple interface, plus most of them have GMail accounts already...what happened?

      Sorry, I just don't understand how this affects them really.

      Why would just the functionality that allows the general public to view the streams in real time matter to people who are just using it for simple video conferencing for relatives?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    5. Re: Google is killing a lot of products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using *any* service (wether operated by you or the damn cloud) without a backup and plan B is a bad idea.

    6. Re:Google is killing a lot of products by houghi · · Score: 1

      Mail? No thanks. I have my own domain and just get it through my provider. I have webmail and spamfiltering, so no reason to use them.
      Drive? No thanks, they already know too much about me. I do not really trust the cloud and have it at my home that has access. I have the knowledge, so I use it.
      Chrome? Not really. Android, because it was installed already on my phone.
      Maps? I used it a LOT. Since the last update where they changed many of the things, I use it less and less. On the desktop I used it to plan routes when traveling. Now I rather use paper maps to plan a trip and put that into some device with offline maps.
      What I use heavily is YouTube as an alternative to TV. I have addblock, so that is nice. Finding content that I have not yet seen and that I am interested in becomes harder as they present the same videos over and over again, regardless if I have already seen them or not.
      I sometimes have the idea they want to show me ONLY things I have already seen, so I drop cookies when I log out and use differnt ways to seach for that content, including Bing.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    7. Re:Google is killing a lot of products by unixisc · · Score: 1

      On the maps thing, I used to use paper maps from AAA exclusively 10 years ago when I lived in CA. But when I relocated to the East Coast, I had a sense that roads were nowhere as gridlike as they were either in LA or the Santa Clara Valley, so I bought my car w/ a built in GPS. Most of the places I frequently visit are there in the StarLink navigation history or favorites, which is how I find them. That thing was a godsend in Charlotte, Atlanta and now DC.

      I don't have a TV at home either, so on one of my tablets, I just use YouTube to check out the shows I follow

  7. Slowly dismantling Google + by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally Google is dismantling Google + crap for good. Really doesn't bother me, I could never find anyone else who actually used Hangout's or Google +.
    Just another Google failure of their lack of social understanding of average users not geeks. Other than a decent browser and ads what else has Google been real successful at?

    1. Re:Slowly dismantling Google + by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      what else has Google been real successful at?

      Errr.. a fucking search engine?

    2. Re:Slowly dismantling Google + by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If it doesn't bother you then why are you bashing it? Is Facebook sending out an army of astroturfers?

    3. Re:Slowly dismantling Google + by johanw · · Score: 1

      Android. And the search engineof course.

    4. Re:Slowly dismantling Google + by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      > Other than a decent browser and ads what else has Google been real successful at?

      Gee, maybe 2 Billion Android Devices:

      http://www.itechpost.com/artic...

      Microsoft had a ~20 year head start with WinCE and yet Google still managed to beat them in ~ 6 years! (WinCE first shipped on 16 November 1996, Android first shipped on December 6, 2010)

      --
      Linux on the Desktop didn't "win" compared to Linux Mobile

    5. Re:Slowly dismantling Google + by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That OS with "1.4 billion Android users vulnerable to hijacking attacks" and new vulnerabilities every other week that will never get fixed is your success story?
      You Google shills are hilarious.

    6. Re:Slowly dismantling Google + by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Android

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:Slowly dismantling Google + by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      By "fucking search engine", you mean the worlds most used widely used service for searching for videos and pictures of people fucking, right?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    8. Re:Slowly dismantling Google + by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Android

      And Drive, and Photos, and Google Docs (that is not going anywhere). If you are not in need of Excel's analytics capabilities, Google Docs are a good alternative to MS Office for home and small businesses.

    9. Re:Slowly dismantling Google + by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      1. /sarcasm Who knew pointing out the facts makes one a shill! What are you smoking, because I want some of that!

      2. I don't use either Microsoft nor Google operating systems on mobile.

  8. What? by XSportSeeker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Man, this is going to piss off a whole lot of podcasters and streamers I know about.... though the ones most dedicated to that abandoned the platform long ago due to complete abandonment and a whole lot of weird glitches, bugs and problems.

    But yeah... another proof that people just can't rely on Google to keep up their platforms or even develop them properly. They just keep releasing crap, abandoning development, and then shutting them down. Really doesn't inspire much confidence on the company.

    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      their developers are too busy enjoying their, i dunno, "perks" that they have no time left to "drag that pig outta beta" and put lipstick on it. The bad news? It's still a pig, guys. That group over there wants to rename it the baconator; buy their team lead a lunch at Wendy's, willya.

  9. Obligatory quote by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    "And nothing of value was lost."

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  10. Wanna know what killed G+ ? by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real name policy was a complete turnoff.

    Oh, that and the fact that G+ conflated my "mission-critical" GMail, Voice, Wallet (mainly for Express), and other stuff with my personal life, where I could get banned for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person.

    Yeah, about the same kind of incentive mismatch as Apple Ping (where I had to worry if Apple's closeness with the music/movie industry meant I couldn't discuss torrents/etc).

    You have everything to lose (your Google identity) with G+, and little to gain - why should I bother?

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Wanna know what killed G+ ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real name policy was a complete turnoff.

      Why the fuck do people keep going on about this. FACEBOOK has the same FUCKING policy.

    2. Re:Wanna know what killed G+ ? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck do people keep going on about this. FACEBOOK has the same FUCKING policy.

      I'm wondering why people are still going on about it when it's no longer a policy on Google+.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    3. Re:Wanna know what killed G+ ? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Because it may have been part of its downfall. When they reverted their policy the damage may have already been done.

      And "Facebook does the same" is not an excuse. Google+ is a competitor to the already established Facebook, it has to offer something different, otherwise, people won't switch.

    4. Re:Wanna know what killed G+ ? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      And "Facebook does the same" is not an excuse. Google+ is a competitor to the already established Facebook, it has to offer something different, otherwise, people won't switch.

      Google+ did offer something different (circles, clean UI stream etc). But the issue with social networks is to do with user usage to become a self perpetuating reason in it self. There are many people that despise Facebook, but use it regardless because everyone else is there, including people that prefer to use Google+ over it.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  11. Careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When mainstream companies throw up innovations. They have so much going on, and the new things numbers will be so poor compared to their mainstream apps, that it's hard to justify continuing them. Startups are a lot more invested and there indicates you can watch for to give you a heads up.

  12. Here's the thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally, I just tend to stay away from probably 90% of anything google. I have gmail, ok. I watch youtube. ok. I do use their search engine as well at times.

    The thing I hate is that they retire their services as fast as they start them up. Generally because they're not doing as well as they hoped. Meaning people DO use them. But not ENOUGH people use them. So kill the service for everyone.

    So I ended up thinking to myself "Why bother using their services at all then if there are others around that are probably going to be more permanent, and I'll be forced to use those other services within 3 years anyway."

    And with all the projects/services I've seen Google kill off since then, I'm glad I took this stance since it simplified my life from having to go find replacements every 6 months to a year. (I already have a replacement for my gmail. The gmail is now mostly used for mailing lists.)

    So seeing google+ being slowly closed down like this is no surprise to me at all.

  13. Is this different from the Hangouts app on Android by Oloryn · · Score: 2

    So, is Hangouts on air different from the Hangouts app on Android? Or will the functionality of the Hangouts app shut down on Sep 12?

  14. Re:Is this different from the Hangouts app on Andr by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2

    So, is Hangouts on air different from the Hangouts app on Android?

    No, the Hangouts App contains Hangouts on air support.

    Or will the functionality of the Hangouts app shut down on Sep 12?

    Just the Hangouts on air portion.

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  15. Re:Is this different from the Hangouts app on Andr by unixisc · · Score: 1

    What exactly is that? I remember when Google switched their messenger service to Hangouts, and to this day, I've resisted using it on the desktop. Just use it on my phone to force open a dialog window w/ a contact, and then continue the conversation on the computer. Is there a separate Hangouts on Google+ than there is for one's normal Google account?

  16. Re:Is this different from the Hangouts app on Andr by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

    What exactly is that?

    Hangouts on air is when you can host a Google hangouts session between a few select people and essentially provide the general public the option to view the stream (but not join). It's popular with podcasts, game streamers having discussions etc.

    It's a feature built into Google Hangouts, but isn't Google Hangouts as a whole.

    Is there a separate Hangouts on Google+ than there is for one's normal Google account?

    Sorta, I guess? You can access Hangouts separately on hangouts.google.com, which I don't believe requires a Google+ profile (I could be wrong).

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.