They're going to make the same mistakes that are killing Facebook. I'm also concerned about them selling data from G+, since Schmidt describes it as an identity service. It's a very evil concept.
It's also quite duplicitous. It was represented as a social networking service, not as an identity service. Moreover people assumed (yeah, I know) that since privacy control was Facebook's Achilles' heel, that Google would do better than that, and they seemed to be going one step forward with the Circles thing. Ever since then, it has been two steps back.
It's easy to say "Hey, if you want to be pseudonymous go elsewhere". I have no desire to be pseudonymous, but I certainly want to socialise with people who are. I can't be the only one.
HN good news: the field is still wide open for someone who wants to do it right.
Google's shenanigans around G+ were the final straw for me. I'd been growing increasingly uneasy about the amount of personal information I'd placed in the hands one of company.
As it became clearer that G+ was an attempt to harvest still more monetizable information I decided to bow out. I've now unplugged myself entirely from all Google services and I don't intend to ever again rely so heavily on any one company.
I don't think it's fair to say a lack of anonymity or other mistakes are killing Facebook. It very may well be true that mistakes killed the experience for you, but the truth is that most people are not overly concerned with the lack of privacy on their social networks.
I think people online often mistake a vocal minority pushing for privacy settings on this network as a reflection of the wishes of everyone. Truth be told, most people are indifferent to the matter.
I don't see how it is an "evil concept", I think what he means by identity service is a platform on which they can build social apps, it's same as social network.
And I'm quite annoyed by claims that associate a real identity requirement with selling data or ad targeting and such, they can target well enough using interests, not sure your name improves much on it.
Also instead of speculating read the service's privacy policy and be certain about it.
I'm kind of disappointed in their handling of it. I personally would like Google+ to succeed and at first glance it seems the real-name policy is not good for publicity, and subsequently not good for Google+'s growth.
The majority of people will use their real names anyway so I can't imagine why forcing it on everyone would help much of anything.
Google is ultimately trying to turn the web into their own app store so that anyone who wants to create, view, monetize, or share content has to do it using their proprietary services.
Facebook does suspend users for using their real name in the past. But how come it's not as known? Because they started pretty small by having a social website for Harvard, so early tech people who got suspended were quickly re-instated because they could go over and talk to Mark. Then Ivy League universities, just send Facebook an email. Then all universities, getting harder to help. Then everyone, replace support with a FAQ(?) that's quickly becoming out of date.
Early tech users of Google+ who get suspended, and have no support. What are they most likely to do; complain to other users who listen to early tech users.
Google+ is overall; a very bad execution that could do with a different strategy next time. In the meantime, Facebook is excited to adopt G+ features until G+ is aborted. Validated features are very awesome compared to untested ones.
The policy is temporary. They will roll out support for brand names and other potentially trademark-infringing names eventually. Just for the field trial, they want to make sure that everyone is using their real names because it's less hassle.
This doesn't wash. Google Profiles seemed to me to be an "identity service". This seems more likely an identity characteristics service for data mining info about people.
Google Profiles _is_ the "identity service" that has tendrils into more than just G+ (and the banstick was swinging long before G+ hit the public). Schmidt just didn't generalize his comments enough to point out that subtle but critical difference.
Eric Schmidt says weird things (see http://dthin.gs/niXnvA). Here's what stood out to me in this talk (paraphrasing): "People don't have to use it if they don't want to."
You know you have a suspect product when that's the best defense you have for it. He wants people to use G+ yet he says that they don't have to. Saying stuff like that doesn't make current users comfortable or new users giddy to try it out.
This resonated with me too. "No one is forcing you to use it," - precisely, and therefore no one does! Just because there are a ton of nerds using the service right now, doesn't mean it's useful. My mom, who took a few years to get comfortable with email, she sure is not using it, but guess what, she's got Facebook! Google is disappointing :(
As far as I can see Google hasn't gone out of it's way to make + a compelling end-all identity integration platform that combines all of my other Google services, (I'm looking at you Reader. Where's my "share with circle" button, hmm?) so I'm not sure where they get this idea that it's going to be one for the web at large is coming from.
I think the phrase "they're going to build future products that leverage that information" gives away exactly who these future products are going to be designed and built for. They very carefully did not say "that are going to allow you to leverage this information."
Good point. It seems rather unsettling and dishonest if this was the plan all along. I guess in the coming months we'll see how the service evolves (and users react).
Context, please. I know it was an Q&A, hence there may not be a relation between what he said before and after answering this question. However the internet is very quick at taking one statement and turning it into something else.
In other words, it's about making money by selling your data profile, and if you're not willing to help Google make money, they don't want you using their service. Pretty much the same outlook as Facebook, with minor variations in rhetoric.
i use my real name a lot of places on the internet, and i would prefer to "sign in with G+" rather than use facebook (where I use my real name, like most of you..)
I prefer anonymity. Google knows too much about me already, I'd prefer they stop trying to make every fact about me known by the servers that serve me pages. I don't want every link on the internet an opportunity for the authorities to stop that click event.
I thought Google+ was more like twitter. It seems Google+ envies facebook's "intimate friend groups" that cause people to upload personal photos and events. Alas they don't realize that people are under "social fatigue" right now after five years of frenzy. They are copying something that is already going out of fashion. Anyway it's crazy. I only registered to Google+ with my real name because i want to develop apps. Google+ is not my identity.
I'm not sure how much of that is improvisation on Eric's part or how much of his original meaning was preserved in the paraphrase, either way I doubt he is involved with the development of G+.
Not that there was much wrong with what was said, but if you're after some real insight here is a recent interview with Bradley Horowitz were he touches on psuedonyms, and basically says that the service will be more inclusive as it matures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5sRC67s9fg#t=26m25s
[+] [-] ltamake|14 years ago|reply
They're going to make the same mistakes that are killing Facebook. I'm also concerned about them selling data from G+, since Schmidt describes it as an identity service. It's a very evil concept.
[+] [-] frossie|14 years ago|reply
It's easy to say "Hey, if you want to be pseudonymous go elsewhere". I have no desire to be pseudonymous, but I certainly want to socialise with people who are. I can't be the only one.
HN good news: the field is still wide open for someone who wants to do it right.
[+] [-] cageface|14 years ago|reply
As it became clearer that G+ was an attempt to harvest still more monetizable information I decided to bow out. I've now unplugged myself entirely from all Google services and I don't intend to ever again rely so heavily on any one company.
[+] [-] Permit|14 years ago|reply
I think people online often mistake a vocal minority pushing for privacy settings on this network as a reflection of the wishes of everyone. Truth be told, most people are indifferent to the matter.
[+] [-] gms|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yanw|14 years ago|reply
And I'm quite annoyed by claims that associate a real identity requirement with selling data or ad targeting and such, they can target well enough using interests, not sure your name improves much on it.
Also instead of speculating read the service's privacy policy and be certain about it.
[+] [-] fragsworth|14 years ago|reply
The majority of people will use their real names anyway so I can't imagine why forcing it on everyone would help much of anything.
Can someone help me understand their rationale?
[+] [-] Alex3917|14 years ago|reply
Google is ultimately trying to turn the web into their own app store so that anyone who wants to create, view, monetize, or share content has to do it using their proprietary services.
[+] [-] stingraycharles|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Joakal|14 years ago|reply
Early tech users of Google+ who get suspended, and have no support. What are they most likely to do; complain to other users who listen to early tech users.
Google+ is overall; a very bad execution that could do with a different strategy next time. In the meantime, Facebook is excited to adopt G+ features until G+ is aborted. Validated features are very awesome compared to untested ones.
[+] [-] sp332|14 years ago|reply
To downvoters: straight from the horse's mouth https://plus.google.com/u/0/110295984969329522620/posts/ExKJ... and http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2391461,00.asp and https://plus.google.com/105923173045049725307/posts/E3mVj6ns...
[+] [-] yanw|14 years ago|reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5sRC67s9fg#t=26m25s
[+] [-] mcantelon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duh_org|14 years ago|reply
But I did: https://plus.google.com/103653740605668919281/posts/iHugVQvM...
[+] [-] yanw|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] easyfrag|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ifben|14 years ago|reply
You know you have a suspect product when that's the best defense you have for it. He wants people to use G+ yet he says that they don't have to. Saying stuff like that doesn't make current users comfortable or new users giddy to try it out.
[+] [-] kirillzubovsky|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dotcoma|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] daedalus_j|14 years ago|reply
I think the phrase "they're going to build future products that leverage that information" gives away exactly who these future products are going to be designed and built for. They very carefully did not say "that are going to allow you to leverage this information."
[+] [-] jamesbritt|14 years ago|reply
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2931770
[+] [-] tokenadult|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sixtofour|14 years ago|reply
Which is becoming more and more obvious.
However, it was sold to its users as a social networking service.
[+] [-] abraham|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] A-K|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rokhayakebe|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] njharman|14 years ago|reply
What's described is the archetype slippery slope. What's evil shifts and grows ever larger.
[+] [-] HankMcCoy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gallerytungsten|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Astrohacker|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badclient|14 years ago|reply
It's over.
[+] [-] RexRollman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ditojim|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maeon3|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baddox|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ltamake|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ristretto|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yanw|14 years ago|reply
Not that there was much wrong with what was said, but if you're after some real insight here is a recent interview with Bradley Horowitz were he touches on psuedonyms, and basically says that the service will be more inclusive as it matures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5sRC67s9fg#t=26m25s