http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-plus-surpasses-twi.../ Um...the real problem is Google+ is not a failure. And far from being some random act by Google, this is a deliberate continuation of a strategy to make G+ the glue behind all of the company's services. Those who see this as an attack on YouTube don't realize that it's got nothing to do with YouTube per se, and everything to do with integrating information discovery into a curated, more relevant format over the long term. Yes it's annoying to some, because it's a) change and b) involves additional work to set up, but in the long run every part of Google is going to be connected together in this way, so your experience with all their products will be seamless, whether on mobile, the desktop or on the ISS. The one thing most people don't get about Google is the company is incredibly 'strategic'. They may get their tactics wrong occasionally (we're looking at you Wave!) but the overall strategy remains as strong today as when they set out to integrate search and advertising on as many platforms as they could find. This is just one more step along the road.
I don't know how anyone could call G+ a success. It was supposed to be some kind of social network that people might want to join, it's now a social network that people are forced to join. You can argue that it isn't really a social network, that it's really a central hub to integrate user access to services, which is really all that Facebook is to Facebook only Facebook has some value to it's users while G+ has no value to the vast majority of it's users. It doesn't become a success because Google has changed it's marketing definition, it isn't a success when people don't want it and even hate it. I must hear the word Facebook a dozen times a day, I don't hear Google mentioned in a social media context once a month in person. Woopty fucking doo. I don't want to be forced into a seamless experience. I actually want different services to provide the service they are built for well, instead of providing a degraded product in service of an advertising platform. It might be good for Google but I see no sign that it's going to be in any way good for me. Fortunately I can get most of the services that Google provides from someone else and as Google slowly degrades their product in an effort to rape my privacy I will increasingly be able to get a better product from someone else. The last really comforting thing is taking a look back at tech companies of the past, their bones and hollowed out shells litter the landscape. Google's grasp for power by making user experiences shitty and it's no holds barred push to monetize our every moment will be it's downfall. It won't come crashing down but one application at a time people will chose not to go with the power hungry controlling monster. Google will cast itself into the bin of AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft and GeoCities. Or at least that is my prediction. This shit isn't useful, in fact it reeks of nothing but dis-utility, I'm sick of saying no to changing my youtube name every time I log on and dodging G+ nonsense half the time I use any Google product. I've shifted by consumption away from thier ecosystem and I know others who are doing the same. Companies that start shirking their user base instead of growing face dark clouds ahead.in the long run every part of Google is going to be connected together in this way, so your experience with all their products will be seamless, whether on mobile, the desktop or on the ISS.
You won't be forced into anything. It's weird how folks think they're being railroaded into a particular product or service just because it's Google. As many other people have said elsewhere, if you don't like Google (and lots and lots of people don't), then simply don't use their products. I'm trying to make sure that I'm not too integrated with their complete eco-system (don't like apps for instance) for just that reason.
So if you have invested years into You Tube, you don't want to associate your real name or other accounts with your you tube persona for either professional, artistic or business reasons. Now all those years are getting trashed by a useless (to the user, to Google possibly useful or maybe just casually destructive to to the company by trashing it's user base) push to integrate your YouTube persona into a whole Google ecosystem and you aren't being railroaded? Your solution to years worth of investment into a product that is now becoming rapidly useless to many members is "simply don't use their product?" Sounds like a shitty solution for both the user and for Google's long term prospects. So why are you a Google apologist and why can't you see that forcing an undesirable ecosystem on users that are invested in a product line is undesirable for many users.
Um...you don't have to associate your real name at all. You get the option when setting up the G+ account and linking it. My YouTube account is completely separate from my real name and will remain so. If I want to, I can also set up another Google account (which I have done) to protect this situation even further. Please don't assume that I am an 'apologist' for anything or anyone. I am not.
Every time I log into YouTube I'm asked to change my username to my gmail name, I decline every time. What happens when if I accidentally click yes one time? Can I change it back? There is no opt out that I can find. Why would I want to decline every time I use YouTube? To leave a review for an app on the Google play store I now need to use the name that the account is associated with. I have no desire to make a searchable inventory of my opinions on app's that is associated with my Gmail account. The day that started was the day that I stopped using play store when an app was available on any other way. I would like to both offer useful feedback to developers and both endorsements or warning to other users but not at the cost of my anonymity. If there is a way to get Google to stop trying to associate my YouTube account with my other Google accounts I'd use it, but it's not very apparent. Just like the Google play changes and supported by comments from top management Google isn't interested in anonymity, it's interested in people using their real names and integrating services under one tent. It's more than reasonable to find this thrust annoying and undesirable, your inability to see that and your defense of their inconvenient annoying policies very much makes you an apologist.
I completely agree. I feel like I keep linking to it, but I had these same thoughts during the Google+ roll out. It might be a strategic move, and even the most logical one. However, I do think that it locks Google into a future that they will not easily be able to divorce themselves from. IMHO this is how Google's future competition will arise and gain steam.
Just read your post, and it's spot on isn't it? You hit the nail on the head, and while it is a bold gamble, it's something they obviously feel is important. The thing I always notice about those guys is they are constantly experimenting, and if something doesn't work, they tweak until it does, even if it takes years. How long was Gmail in beta? Of course if it's clearly totally broken as Wave was, then it's back to the drawing board, but I wonder how much Wave technology is sitting behind G+ right now? :)
Yeah MK, I know what you mean. The company is known for taking big bold gambles though (who would want to pump that much money into driverless cars for goodness sake - heh) and people said they were absolutely mad when they bought YouTube for however much it was, but the company has always had A Plan, and even if they are forced to eat humble pie, they carry on with the plan elsewhere. You have to admire their focus if nothing else (cf Yahoo!). :)
Wow, that is just so wrong. I'm really sorry, but a lot of people are becoming very passionate about Google+ for a whole heap of reasons. Things like Hangouts, Communities and the amazing photo features are really driving a lot of interaction. I guess this kind of misunderstanding is really common, it's no big deal, I suspect it was kind of the same as in the early days of Google Mail. Trust me, people with stuff to say (rather than 140 characters or pictures of cute kittens) really like what Google+ has to offer.
I've been a technology journalist and columnist for The Times and Sunday Times in the UK for 18 years. I've never worked for Google, nor would I want to. But my job is to report on the technology sector as it is, rather than what people might wish it to be. :)
She's great, I loved her series on hexaflaxagons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIVIegSt81k&list=SPaNzoFt... I totally agree with her, but I hope she doesn't leave YouTube altogether. That would be a shame.
I doubt that Google would be interested (or that it would be a good thing for us), but they might be a solution for Vi. Maybe we should ask her if she wants them on her blog. What do you think? On a related note, I recently saw Alexis Ohanian give a talk, and he said that Google was interested in acquiring Reddit early on and using it for youtube comments.
That would produce such drama over there. If that ever happens the community will throw the biggest hissy fit the internet has ever seen.Google was interested in acquiring Reddit
I think that Vi's content would be an awesome addition to the Hubski community. You should ask her. I'd definitely follow her and would be glad to have her use Discussion via Hubski.