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

We Need To Talk, Google

f-secure.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 245 posts

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#81

Post by VikingCoder »

kenko wrote: post #78
cromwellian wrote: post #49

Google is simply trying to unify their services. YouTube was an acquisition, with it's own login system and social network. They don't want to maintain this separation forever, they want a single signon for everything. Ditto for sharing and contacts. You had separate 'contacts' in Gmail, Latitude, G+, Reader, YouTube, and probably others I'm missing. Users shouldn't be prompted to maintain N different copies of this…

"Google is simply trying to unify their services." Right, well, that's the problem. Google wants to unify their services, but I don't want to use the thereby unified services, which are, after all, conceptually distinct anyway. The complaint is that they're trying to unify their services. The explanation, when faced with that complaint, that they're trying to unify their services is a non-starter.

They are not conceptually distinct, to the vast majority of users.

I mean, I'm sorry you feel that way. But it's an indefensible position.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#82

Post by darklajid »

fluidcruft wrote: post #54
darklajid wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try to. The single thing I struggle with? Android. Maybe Firefox OS will be interesting, iOS isn't. And .. right now I can pay for Android apps, but I'm banned from rate them, comment on them. Ignoring all the 'Do you want to be tracked to provide Better Services (tm)" stuff in that ecosystem.

If your phone is supported, you could install CyanogenMod (it works fine without gapps installed). From there you can use f-droid for apps, but possibly Amazon App Store could be a good alternative to the Google Play morass.

I'm running Cyanogenmod, but I like to have (potentially paid) applications (to avoid the 'apps' non-word). I paid for quite a lot already.

I'm never allowed to rate them, to comment on them in the Google Play store, since .. I cannot have a G+ account (and frankly, I don't want one).

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#83

Post by kenko »

VikingCoder wrote: post #81
kenko wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google is simply trying to unify their services." Right, well, that's the problem. Google wants to unify their services, but I don't want to use the thereby unified services, which are, after all, conceptually distinct anyway. The complaint is that they're trying to unify their services. The explanation, when faced with that complaint, that they're trying to unify their services is a non-starter.

They are not conceptually distinct, to the vast majority of users. I mean, I'm sorry you feel that way. But it's an indefensible position.

"thing I use to send email" and "thing I use to watch music videos" are not conceptually distinct?

Most users would send as emails to others the kinds of things they leave as comments on youtube?

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#84

Post by VikingCoder »

kenko wrote: post #83
VikingCoder wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not conceptually distinct, to the vast majority of users. I mean, I'm sorry you feel that way. But it's an indefensible position.

"thing I use to send email" and "thing I use to watch music videos" are not conceptually distinct? Most users would send as emails to others the kinds of things they leave as comments on youtube?

The word "I" showed up in both of those sentences. To most users, unifying all of their data adds a lot of value.

Google reads my GMails from major airlines, and shows me when my next flight is when I Google Search for "when is my next flight". The flight also just pops up on Google Now on my Android phone. It also knows where I am, and where the airport is, so it tells me how long it will take to drive there.

When I Google search for La Cucaracha on my desktop, when I walk out to my car and look at my phone, it automatically suggests Navigating to La Cucaracha.

When I Subscribe to a YouTube video, it automatically shows up in my GMail as a feed.

I find value in these things, and I'm sorry you don't.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#85

Post by iwasakabukiman »

> And to be clear, it has nothing to do with recent allegations that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy when using Gmail.

This claim has been a huge story about nothing. I think this has been proven false quite a few times over. Nilay Patel at The Verge has a great article about this.[1]

[1]http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/14/4621474/yes-gmail-users-ha...

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#86

Post by mrweasel »

VikingCoder wrote: post #81
kenko wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google is simply trying to unify their services." Right, well, that's the problem. Google wants to unify their services, but I don't want to use the thereby unified services, which are, after all, conceptually distinct anyway. The complaint is that they're trying to unify their services. The explanation, when faced with that complaint, that they're trying to unify their services is a non-starter.

They are not conceptually distinct, to the vast majority of users. I mean, I'm sorry you feel that way. But it's an indefensible position.

I doubt that most users understand that Youtube and Google are the same company. Having a single signon between those two services makes very little sense. As for the other services, those under the Google brand, it makes more sense.

It's the attempt to push Google+ on me that I dislike.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#87

Post by [deleted] »

cromwellian wrote: post #49

Google is simply trying to unify their services. YouTube was an acquisition, with it's own login system and social network. They don't want to maintain this separation forever, they want a single signon for everything. Ditto for sharing and contacts. You had separate 'contacts' in Gmail, Latitude, G+, Reader, YouTube, and probably others I'm missing. Users shouldn't be prompted to maintain N different copies of this…

[deleted]

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#88

Post by VikingCoder »

mrweasel wrote: post #86
VikingCoder wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not conceptually distinct, to the vast majority of users. I mean, I'm sorry you feel that way. But it's an indefensible position.

I doubt that most users understand that Youtube and Google are the same company. Having a single signon between those two services makes very little sense. As for the other services, those under the Google brand, it makes more sense. It's the attempt to push Google+ on me that I dislike.

> Having a single signon between those two services makes very little sense.

Where do you draw the line? GMail, Calendar, Drive, Contacts, YouTube, Google+, Android, Chrome, Voice, Hangouts? Should they all have different sign-ons?

Is Google forbidden from integrating signons for all future companies it acquires?

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#89

Post by ballard »

petitbeurre wrote: post #79
cbhl wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that if you didn't want them posted under "Mr John Smith" you shouldn't have posted them at all. I think they let you delete/hide all your old comments as part of the transition, but agreed that only accounts for the personal account use case, not the corporate YouTube channel use case.

That argument, though, makes no sense at all. I'm a homosexual, and living in a very conservative and homophobic part of France. I don't want any things related to homosexuality and the lgbt community posted under my real identity, because then any member of my family or any of my friends could stumble upon it and make problematical deductions. Does that mean that I shouldn't be involved online in the lgbt community…

Anonimity is a basic human right that one should be free to exercise at any time. Without it, those in power or those crazies out there that have nothing better can easily find something to attack those they don't like. This is not the providence of "something to hide" but that people should be secure with certainty against all forms of intrusion that lacks probable cause.

Anonymity is difficult for naïve people to understand: that what you say, online or offline, can at any point in the future (potentially indefinitely) may arbitrarily be used against you in familial, legal, political, business, personal, romantic or any other context. This amounts to individuals unwittingly manufacturing ammunition and handing it to their enemies.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#90

Post by marssaxman »

lawdawg wrote: post #10

Get over it people, Google+ is the new account system for all Google products. If you don't like Google having a single account/profile system, or the fact that Google+ profiles include a "social" network product, then you best look for alternatives ASAP.

I have gotten over it, and I have already switched to alternatives, but maybe your message would go over a little better if it included some trace of sympathy.
Post reply on HN