Once again I repeat: Google+ is dead.
It's over.
Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
11–20 of 87 posts
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#12I'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. Can someone help me understand their rationale?
Perhaps their rationale has something to do with a bigger plan of correlating G+ info with names of people they find online.
Exactly if you know who authored a peice of content then you can get a pretty good idea of how authoritative it may be. Google is pretty good about finding content but you want to know that the content is actually good (no content farms) if you know who wrote it then you can get a pretty good idea of how authoritative it may be.
This goes into some more detail about this: http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/google-plus-identity-and-seo
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Can someone help me understand their rationale?" 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.
Do you honestly believe that?
Yes of course. Google sees themselves as being in the utility business, like the digital equivalent of an electric or water company. The whole company is basically a series of strategically placed loosely connected platforms that work in the background like infrastructure. Right now the Internet is still very young so they are essentially just building their moyo[1], expect the pieces to become more closely interconnected over the next ten years.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moyo_(Go)#Moyo+.28.E6.A8.A1.E6....
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#14Context, 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.
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#15Losing hope in G+ very fast. 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.
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.
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#16I'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. Can someone help me understand their rationale?
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.
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...
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#17Losing hope in G+ very fast. 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.
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#18I'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. Can someone help me understand their rationale?
Here is their rational:
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#19Once again I repeat: Google+ is dead . It's over.
I wish I could agree with you but for so many people this isn't an issue. It will probably do fine regardless of how us geeks feel about it.
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#20I 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.