Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service" • Hacker News Board

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#51

Post by dirtyaura » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 11:02 PM UTC

halo wrote: post #34

frossie wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 elsew…

Fundamentally, Facebook is an identity directory. The ability to easily transfer real world identities and relationships into the digital world is the big problem Facebook solves. It's one of those fundamental problems left unresolved by Internet protocols, similar to Google being able to solve search because the web has no implementation built in by design. Facebook's communication features, the 'social networking',…

> Fundamentally, Facebook is an identity directory. ...

> Facebook's communication features, the 'social networking', in itself isn't anything special.

Throw away your cynical world view for a second and just go to your Facebook feed and see how people are interacting there, having fun, supporting each other, spreading a little bit of love in form of "likes" (even if it's a bit silly) and come back and say it ain't anything special and it's just a solution to an identity directory problem. It's much more.

Facebook is the closest thing to a chat at a bar with your friends that internet has to offer. Certainly, there are better bars already out there, but FB is a bar that your friends are willing to come to. It's still early days of internet and our virtual existence, so FB ain't that colourful and deep as an evening at a local pub can be, but painting it just as a identity directory is a fundamental misunderstanding of social internet.

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#52

Post by icandoitbetter » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 11:04 PM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #36

RexRollman wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are non-geeks on G+ now?

College students signed up, found nothing of interest and didn't bother to visit again. I'm fairly certain that G+ has failed, but I can't say I didn't expect it: Circles, its main selling point, is a gimmick that no normal user would bother to use after day 1, the UI is rather unexciting, etc. As far as I'm concerned, there's really no incentive to switch from Facebook for most people.

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#53

Post by dredmorbius » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 11:05 PM UTC

Permit wrote: post #40

ltamake wrote: post #3

Losing 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 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…

Speaking for my own use-case, it's a mix of founder's statements (http://gawker.com/5636765/facebook-ceo-admits-to-calling-use...), investments by less-than-pristine Russian businessmen, my own various intersections with data mining, personal information aggregators, and legal processes, history of wide-spread domestic spying (watch "The Lives of Others" about the East German Stasi for a chilling view, understanding that this has and does happen in many lands).

The conceivable downsides of open participation in Facebook far outweigh the positives.

Add in social fatigue in the mass market as well, I suspect the trend has peaked.

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#54

Post by dredmorbius » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 11:07 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #49

maeon3 wrote: post #26

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 don't understand how anonymity would work with a social network.

That does pose some interesting questions.

Simply drawing social graphs by itself is hugely informative.

That said, a federated system in which I could present numerous identities of varying levels of persistence and/or repudiability could be of some interest.

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#55

Post by rjd » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 11:16 PM UTC

Permit wrote: post #42

rjd wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its because the root motivation most people including myself see is that its about control. And things that try and control other things are evil. Years ago Google was a disruption force towards existing controlling organisations. Now Google are trying to prevent disruptive technologies eroding their market share. Hence they have joined the ranks of the old guard such as Microsoft, IBM, Apple etc... those desiring co…

You don't think it cheapens the world 'evil' to be using it like that? I don't think control constitutes "profound immorality and wickedness" to be honest.

Well I haven't seen them sacrificing children to Baphomet or anything, but I do believe they are ethical and morally in the wrong camp and have been for a few years now.

They take money from one industry and use it to crush/undermine competitors in other industries. Hence making a situation where no one can compete with them. IMO abusing market position i.e. they use advertising money to drive technology business out of business

They have also perpetuated a belief that you shouldn't pay for anything on the internet. You know that would be fine if we lived in some Marxist utopia, but we don't. Things are expensive to make and produce and Google is making it harder and harder on a daily basis to get returns off products.

They did what was needed, improved the world, but those days are gone.

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#56

Post by dredmorbius » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 11:23 PM UTC

Pewpewarrows wrote: post #9

Alex3917 wrote: post #6

Earlier 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?

That's been the aim of virtually every large Technology presence for the past decade or more.

Microsoft spent a decade chasing the dream of taking a "vig" on every electronic transaction. At one time, Visa's CEO listed among its three largest competitive threats MasterCard, AmEx, and Microsoft (I guess it doesn't pay to Discover...).

Amazon and eBay are doing well on the same basis. Apple has its iTunes store. Google sits on the nexus with search, advertising, and a huge social / demographics database. Being able to siphon a few cents off of every online transaction, plus advertising, would be a tremendous market.

And having saturated the search and advertising markets, it's not as if Google has much growth through its traditional core functions.

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#57

Post by cageface » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 11:35 PM UTC

ltamake wrote: post #3

Losing 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.

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.

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#58

Post by jonursenbach » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 11:38 PM UTC

icandoitbetter wrote: post #52

dasil003 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are non-geeks on G+ now?

College students signed up, found nothing of interest and didn't bother to visit again. I'm fairly certain that G+ has failed, but I can't say I didn't expect it: Circles, its main selling point, is a gimmick that no normal user would bother to use after day 1, the UI is rather unexciting, etc. As far as I'm concerned, there's really no incentive to switch from Facebook for most people.

  College students signed up, found nothing of interest and didn't bother to visit again.

Citation needed.

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#59

Post by enqk » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 11:42 PM UTC

dirtyaura wrote: post #51

halo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fundamentally, Facebook is an identity directory. The ability to easily transfer real world identities and relationships into the digital world is the big problem Facebook solves. It's one of those fundamental problems left unresolved by Internet protocols, similar to Google being able to solve search because the web has no implementation built in by design. Facebook's communication features, the 'social networking',…

> Fundamentally, Facebook is an identity directory. ... > Facebook's communication features, the 'social networking', in itself isn't anything special. Throw away your cynical world view for a second and just go to your Facebook feed and see how people are interacting there, having fun, supporting each other, spreading a little bit of love in form of "likes" (even if it's a bit silly) and come back and say it ain't a…

IRC feels much closer to a bar, if you want to use this metaphor. A bar does not record people's discussion and keep it forever for all to see..

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#60

Post by jahmed » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 11:46 PM UTC

rjd wrote: post #55

Permit wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think it cheapens the world 'evil' to be using it like that? I don't think control constitutes "profound immorality and wickedness" to be honest.

Well I haven't seen them sacrificing children to Baphomet or anything, but I do believe they are ethical and morally in the wrong camp and have been for a few years now. They take money from one industry and use it to crush/undermine competitors in other industries. Hence making a situation where no one can compete with them. IMO abusing market position i.e. they use advertising money to drive technology business out…

Well sure they make it harder for some to "get returns off products" but its not a bad thing. Google returns that value to users. Like Google Docs, its sucking the margins out of word processing like Microsoft Office and returning that consumer surplus back to consumers. Google making things free to use isn't bad for users its bad for competitors.

No one owes you the ability to extract consumer surplus.