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

Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 733 posts

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#721

Post by staticassertion »

dangerface wrote: post #682
staticassertion wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did "there was a vulnerability" become "there was a breach" ? I don't understand why it's being reported as a breach.

Because breaches come from public vulnerabilities, unless you can prove there was no breach, you should treat it as a breach. This is common information security practice. Google are unable to prove there was no breach because they didn't keep sufficient logs, which is also not acceptable in modern security practice.

> This is common information security practice.

No it isn't.

If every vulnerability in every product turned into a "We've been breached" disclosure the industry would be a disaster.

Yeah, they didn't keep sufficient logs and they fucked up really badly there. Still silly to call it a breach.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#722

Post by Shish2k »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #304
_uhtu wrote: post #6

Google+ had terrible marketing and release, but it had some decent ideas that I wish other networks had carried over. The idea of "circles", where you had a circle for "acquaintances" "friends", "family" would be great on, say, Facebook, as it would allow me to filter down my feed to just the people I really care about but still have a connection to more distance acquaintances. Currently on Facebook the news feed is…

> The idea of "circles", where you had a circle for "acquaintances" "friends", "family" would be great on, say, Facebook I don't think Facebook will add them, but Diaspora has them.

> I don't think Facebook will add them

Facebook already has them...

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#723

Post by crunchlibrarian »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #520
crunchlibrarian wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair Google+ just straight up stole the circle idea from that Path social network after failing to buy them.

Can you share evidence that Path had circles?

I cannot track down any screenshots of how Path worked in the early days, only some media buzz around Path declining Google's buyout offer shortly before they launched +

So many old apps and services are just forgotten now, it's hard to prove any claim about who stole what idea. Kind of a shame really, so much of our digital history is effectively unknowable and lost forever.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#724

Post by Zelmor »

michaelt wrote: post #674
joejerryronnie wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I see lots of early hires of the tech giants bemoaning the monsters they've created. They are very concerned about the negative societal impacts of their former employers, but not quite concerned enough to give back the millions of dollars they earned peddling these products.

not quite concerned enough to give back the millions of dollars they earned Do you have a way to undo the social harm done by facebook for a few million dollars? Or do you think they should just get rid of the money, K Foundation style, regardless of whether doing so would reverse the effects of the work they did to earn it?

Well they could start by planting trees.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#725

Post by dangerface »

staticassertion wrote: post #721
dangerface wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because breaches come from public vulnerabilities, unless you can prove there was no breach, you should treat it as a breach. This is common information security practice. Google are unable to prove there was no breach because they didn't keep sufficient logs, which is also not acceptable in modern security practice.

> This is common information security practice. No it isn't. If every vulnerability in every product turned into a "We've been breached" disclosure the industry would be a disaster. Yeah, they didn't keep sufficient logs and they fucked up really badly there. Still silly to call it a breach.

The industry is a disaster because companies don't disclose potential breaches.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#727

Post by Spellchamp »

mindgam3 wrote: post #720
Spellchamp wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure of this? I would find that surprising. Is there some market research somewhere that points to this?

There’s a lot of market research readily available, admittedly of questionable quality. But the more reliable weather vane is estimating when Apple will launch their smartglasses. Add 5 years to that for when glasses disrupt smartphones. At the rate Apple is buying up AR and VR companies you can expect them to launch in late 2019 or 2020.

But I can't turn my smartglasses around and show someone the memes I'm looking at. I don't see how it could replace my phone. Compliment perhaps, but having used Google Glass Enterprise I don't think it's as big of a game changer as you might think.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#728

Post by at-fates-hands »

dredmorbius wrote: post #685
HillaryBriss wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. FB's massive user base + user inertia = FB's killer feature. Which, IMHO, means Google didn't understand what it was doing when it started G+.

TBF, FB didn't either.

I'm not sure. Wasn't the underlying principle always to connect everybody in the world? I think FB has done a fair job of doing that.

They just tapped into one of the basic tenets of the human condition; the desire to be connected to another human.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#729

Post by rapind »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #551
rapind wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a practical reason for this. Temperature and where they unload (and the perishable nature). Not saying there couldn't be a manipulative reason too, but I wouldn't assume so by default.

Everything in business happens to increase sales. For retail, there’s even a name and occupation for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planogram You always want dairy and fruits/vegetables on opposite sides of the store since they’re perishable, hence they get purchased the most often, and you want people to walk past all the other aisles every time.

Completely and obviously false (the part about everything in business is about sales). It's not as sexy, but often policies are about reducing costs. Like changing suppliers to save a few pennies per item.

If it were all about sales, then I could buy widgets for $100 a unit, sell them for $50 a unit, and call it a success.

Obviously positioning matters too (hence all the garbage food at checkout), but I wouldn't by default assume that this is the case, and especially not the only driver, behind dairy placement.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#730

Post by garfieldnate »

I didn't use the social aspect much, but the ability to +1 a URL was awesome. With the browser plugin installed, I could immediately tell what kind of traction a site was getting and, in the case of technical information, if the contents were considered valid and useful by a large number of developers. They silently killed this feature about a year ago, and it showed [1] in the reviews for the Chrome plugin. I went a little crazy when the feature went away because I didn't realize how much I had relied on it. Not having it has made the web less useful for me.

[1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/google-%201-button...

Post reply on HN