Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 87 posts

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

#61

Post by ddw »

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.

> You don't think it cheapens the world 'evil' to be using it like that?

Google has used the world "evil" a lot, internally and externally, for years. Of course it isn't demonic or something, but it at least used to have meaning to that company in that they would never do things that they considered "evil" by their own standards.

I don't think forcing real names only is "evil," but it can lead towards some evil things.

Who has access to our information and communications is going to be a looming issue for a while. It was probably silly for us to think Google would act differently.

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

#62

Post by dirtyaura »

enqk wrote: post #59
dirtyaura wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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..

Maybe, but most of my physical-life friends friends won't come to IRC. As I said, there might be better bars, but FB is a good enough to socialize with people you want to see. And IRC can be downright nasty for uninitiated, it's like this awesome watering hole on outskirts of the town that reveals it's beauty only after repeated use.

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

#63

Post by alexqgb »

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…

It's not that they're indifferent to privacy in general. Rather, the system as reached a point where users are satisfied with the amount of control they've been given.

Specifically, they can render their profiles invisible to people they don't know, disengage from people they come to dislike, remove their names from pictures they don't want to be tagged in, and easily limit any personal details (except birthdays) that they don't like sharing.

For an enormous number of people, that's just fine.

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

#64

Post by rjd »

jahmed wrote: post #60
rjd wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is that Google pushing margins so low that returns are below production costs. And the way they manage to do that is by transferring funds to cover that loss. No one can compete with that unless they have a secondary market to channel funds as well.

You may be able to get some customers with higher quality goods, but generally people go for the cheapest option. So its good for customers, up until competition and innovation dry up. Which is the normal out come of this situation (and then prices start to climb).

The clincher in the whole evil'ness about this is Google has set it up so the only way to compete with them is to buy ads off them. Total abuse of there monopoly IMO.

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

#65

Post by gms »

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.

'killing' Facebook? Facebook is hardly dying; rather the opposite.

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

#66

Post by bobo418 »

lukesandberg wrote: post #12
stingraycharles wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-i…

Great article! Personally I'd prefer PeopleRank to describe what Google is building but the AuthorRank mentioned in the article definitely gets the point across.

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

#68

Post by jahmed »

rjd wrote: post #64
jahmed wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is that Google pushing margins so low that returns are below production costs. And the way they manage to do that is by transferring funds to cover that loss. No one can compete with that unless they have a secondary market to channel funds as well. You may be able to get some customers with higher quality goods, but generally people go for the cheapest option. So its good for customers, up until competitio…

Yeah I agree, the rough approximation is Wal-Mart selling loss leaders to drive other higher margin sales. In the case of Google, we see they "sell" Google Docs for free to create network effects (and to erode the lock in of Office) and to cross promote other Google products. This is controversial but is hardly new in any industry.

Yes I agree that after a company gains market power there is an incentive to raise prices but I dont think there are many (any?) examples of Google switching a free product to a paid one.

You missed the point, Google isn't evil. Yes they make it difficult to compete but thats what successful companies do. The difference is Google does it by making simple disruptive products and prices them at their marginal cost. Google isn't a monopoly by any definition. Google isnt the single seller in any of their markets, Google doesnt compete in a market with high barriers to entry and Google isnt a price maker. Users (advertisers and internet service consumers) can easily switch to competing products and avoid Google entirely.

Google is powerful yes, but they create value by helping their users keep their money. Google has never made any promise to anyone else other than their users.

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

#70

Post by A-K »

sixtofour wrote: post #67

"He replied by saying that G+ was build primarily as an identity service" Which is becoming more and more obvious. However, it was sold to its users as a social networking service.

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).
Post reply on HN