41–50 of 182 posts
The new Hangout stuff is great, and the addition of screen sharing has now obviated my need to use Skype. Maybe when On Air opens up I'll be able to broadcast my programming sessions.
Not at all sure if it was stupid of them to wait this long to let everybody in (you want socializing on your social network!) or brilliant because now they'll get a lot more press right when the buzz seemed to be dying down. One also wonders how this route will affect their demographics long-term... it's got a bit of a "geeky" slant so far, which seems to be working for them, but might not be in their best interests…
The whole "real names" fiasco[1] diminished my excitement for the platform. 1: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/08/04/real-na...
Too late, guys. Facebook is already copying the features that make G+ cool/useful (circles, etc), and the one big, inherent advantage you had in your favor (Your user base, e.g every Google account) you alienated by keeping it "invite only" for too long. Either open it to everyone sooner, or hold off on this prolonged "invite period" so you don't risk confusing / alienating people that want to try G+ but can't. G+ fe…
Too late, guys. Facebook is already copying the features that make G+ cool/useful (circles, etc), and the one big, inherent advantage you had in your favor (Your user base, e.g every Google account) you alienated by keeping it "invite only" for too long. Either open it to everyone sooner, or hold off on this prolonged "invite period" so you don't risk confusing / alienating people that want to try G+ but can't. G+ fe…
Agreed. I wouldn't use Google+, I would also recommend to everyone I know that they never use Google+. The implications of loosing my gmail account over a trivial name change are just too seemingly random and risky. It's just not worth it. Facebook won by default. Google+ had a chance, it really could have succeeded, but something went terribly wrong with it's management. Piss poor execution and hints that Google is…
Why is everyone complaining about Apps accounts not being able to sign up? It says right on the "features" page http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/features.html "99.9% uptime SLA" which means that if they add a service with less than 99.9% uptime, they're going to lose money. They haven't even finished writing Google+ for normal users, there's no way they can make promises about support yet. Edit: according…
During this process, users who maintained secondary accounts were encouraged to merge them into their Apps account. I used to have two accounts, one for Apps services on my own domain, and another for things like Reader. I now only have one, my Apps account, because the accounts clashed and had to be merged.
So the doubly galling thing about this Google+ farrago is that a) it proves that the accounts transition did not in fact stop Apps accounts being second-class citizens, but also b) most of us no longer have our secondary accounts, because we merged them at Google's insistence.
Add to this several years of teeth-grinding annoyance at the incompatibilities between Google Apps and the rest of the Google world, and, well, that's why people are complaining. :-)
I'm alarmed that the comments here are so bitter. Am I the only one who's had a positive experience with G+ so far? (Is my perception rose-tinted because I really, really want Facebook to die?) The new Hangout stuff is great, and the addition of screen sharing has now obviated my need to use Skype. Maybe when On Air opens up I'll be able to broadcast my programming sessions.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3018236
Google+ offers quick and continuous iteration of new features.
Why is everyone complaining about Apps accounts not being able to sign up? It says right on the "features" page http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/features.html "99.9% uptime SLA" which means that if they add a service with less than 99.9% uptime, they're going to lose money. They haven't even finished writing Google+ for normal users, there's no way they can make promises about support yet. Edit: according…
I don't think that's the reason. 99.9% uptime is plenty. Uptime in SLA is defined as "Monthly Uptime Percentage", which is explained as follows ( http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/sla.html ): "Monthly Uptime Percentage" means total number of minutes in a calendar month minus the number of minutes of Downtime suffered in a calendar month, divided by the total number of minutes in a calendar month. For average m…
You're off by one power-of-10: 43776*(100%-99.9%) = 43.8 minutes of acceptable downtime.