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

211–220 of 245 posts

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#211

Post by zurn »

gwu78 wrote: post #132

Your experience may be different, but I welcome any confirmation from anyone using a tablet: I notice that when user signs up for a Gmail account on a tablet, after she completes all the required info, she is then presented with a "one-click" style sign up screen for Google+. This screen does not have a "No thank you" option. Nor is there a "Back to previous" link. There is nothing to indicate the new Gmail account h…

I think this can be remedied by providing a sufficiently unnatural sounding "real name" for the pseudonymous google id you use on the tablet. Then you get kicked out of Google+ automatically.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#213

Post by zurn »

colanderman wrote: post #184
k3n wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, you can replace "watch?v=12345" to "/v/12345" to view videos without logging in (works for age-restricted content as well). As a bonus, the video fills the browser screen, and removes all the annoying "related" content, comments, etc.

Or if you're on Linux, you can use youtube-dl + mplayer to get a high-quality hardware-accelerated glitch-free viewing experience, instead of the RealPlayer-esque experience Flash provides.

Also try youtubedown in place of youtube-dl - I think it works with a bigger percentage of videos.

http://www.jwz.org/hacks/#youtubedown

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#214

Post by infoseckid »

acuozzo wrote: post #145
infoseckid wrote: post #110

You should try to build own your video hosting site or SHUT UP. At least Youtube is free, the last time I checked F-Secure was not, so SHUT UP! or build your own :)

You've an interesting perspective. So, in your mind, someone shouldn't complain about something unless he/she has tried to build his/her own version of it?

Either build your own or do not complain when it is free. Its fair. You cannot "demand" in exchange for FREE

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#215

Post by [deleted] »

ballard wrote: post #89
petitbeurre wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 u…

[deleted]

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#216

Post by mcv »

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…

The acquisition of YouTube isn't that recent. It's been thoroughly integrated with Google's other stuff for quite some while now. The problem is that they want to make G+ the center of everything, and that's a stupid assumption.

I mean, I love G+, and my YouTube account now also sports my G+ avatar, but it's obvious that that kind of integration isn't for everyone.

There are older examples of problems with G+ integration: a year ago or so, G+ had that stupid "normal name" policy, and people who used an unusual name had their G+ account blocked. And if your G+ account was tied to a GMail account, that was also blocked. But if you only had a GMail account without G+, Google didn't complain if your name was unusual.

The main thing that sort of stuff accomplishes, is that it gives people a good reason not to use G+.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#217

Post by mcv »

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.

They have their own domain name. How are they not distinct?

If you used a single site for gmail, youtube and G+, integrating it all into a single service, then you'd have a point. But they're different sites, different services. It's nice if you can use a single account for them all, and if it's easy to move content from one to the other, but that's not the same thing.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#218

Post by tiziano88 »

pasbesoin wrote: post #121
tiziano88 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What product? they're trying to consolidate their login system across products, and you happen to get a social profile with the bundle. It's not like you even have to use it or be aware of its existence, if you don't need it.

The Google+ "social" product. I'm not sure of its current state, as everything is a moving target, but at the time I acquired one, the creation flow was deliberately somewhat misleading, for example not pointing out that you don't need to supply a profile photo. And/or there was one question that required a response; some googling (irony?) revealed that one could remove the answer or its public visibility after signi…

You do realize that YouTube is still owned by Google, and therefore if they wanted to consider your profiles as one, they probably can already? My guess it's that they're trying (more or less successfully) to reduce the confusion, by not letting users sign up several times for all their products (which in the end is only one product -- Google).

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#219

Post by sdfjkl »

I agree that this overzealous cross-promotion of services and unification into the One Account (to in the darkness bind them) is annoying and clearly only in the best interests of Google and not their users. There may be a minor benefit to users, but if it were about providing convenience, it would not be pushed so aggressively.

I've stopped recommending Chrome to my friends/family when it sprouted that evil "Not signed into Chrome - you're missing out!" button, trying to lure them into sharing their live browsing history with Google.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#220

Post by adventured »

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…

All Microsoft was doing is integrating a browser into the operating system, and trying to make it impossible to separate them.

I don't regard that as grounds for anti-trust, but I do view it as ridiculous. And it's equally ridiculous for Google to try to trip users into using their other services by leveraging their overwhelmingly dominant search and video products. It'll be interesting to see if Google eventually claims that you can't separate G+ from YouTube and search, going down the same conceptual road as MS.

Post reply on HN