Google+ is on life support... Android and YouTube to be seperated from Google+?!?

I do understand what AnonGuy is saying about G+. No one he knows is on there and for that reason, he chose not to invest anymore time on it.

Most people I know who use or tried G+ actually do not know a lot of people or any on G+. What happens next is some leave it because they only want to connect with people they know and not random people. Some people decide to explore G+ more to see if there is anything this service could offer. AnonGuy is in this first group and that's fine.

When I first got a Twitter account, I found that it seemed pretty useless to me. All I see is just random people following me. Also, you can't really have a conversation with anyone. Then a friend told me I was using it wrong. I did explore it a bit more and I have found a use for it after all. I generally just keep a list for local traffic reports. I also follow a number of sports reporters plus a few other people. Twitter to me is mostly my breaking sports news stories and traffic report service with a few other items sprinkled in. In the end, I did find a use for Twitter. I may still be using it wrong according to my friend. I actually haven't discussed it with him since.

What I use Twitter for, I haven't been able to use any other social network to do the same. Reporters tend to just tweet and don't post the same things on other social networks if they are on them. Sure, if all of these people used some other social network to communicate to their audience, they could probably do that. The features in many other social network services are over and above what is available in Twitter.

I won't say that AnonGuy is using G+ wrong. He apparently tried to use it to connect with people and the people he wanted to connect with aren't using the service. If AnonGuy chooses not to explore if there are other people he may want to connect with, that's his perogative.

The most significant value to any user of any social network service is what people are actively using that service and the ability to connect with those people of interest. (Some feel that there is also value on who is not actively using it.) Facebook is valuable to me because the people I know are on there and it is very easy for me to find and connect with them. Twitter is valuable to me because sports reporters are there and they use it to send out breaking sports news. Also, Twitter is my immediate traffic report service. Google+ is valuable to me because I am able to find people with shared interests.

Now, I will say that Google+ required more time and effort on my part to find people that I am interested in connecting with than the other social networks I have used. The main reason is that I initially have never heard of the people I have in my Google+ circles. With Facebook, I have my friends' and family's email addresses and names. With Twitter, sports reporters and media outlets do list the Twitter accounts of their staff or service. With Google+, I had nothing to go on. I started before communities existed on Google+. It took time to build up my network of people on G+ because I had to build it from scratch. I can see why many people choose not to put in much effort, especially when they already have other networks that are already established.

Chanchan05's theatre analogy is very good at comparing FB to G+. If you were to go to a mainstream movie, you go with a group of friends or family and you interact with them. If you were to go to a non-mainstream movie, you may be the only one amongst people you know who would be interested in going. If you want to interact with anyone there, you'd have to talk with a stranger and may end up meeting new people you never knew, but shared common interests that none of your friends or family share. You will probably never meet and interact with these same people at a mainstream movie.

G+ is not going to displace FB. At least for me, they can co-exist. I use many social networks and online services. I use so many because each does serve a purpose for me. There are many others that I don't use because I either have no interest/or I don't see it serving any purpose for me.

I expected that they would completely miss the point of the analogy and twist it around into another "one is Merlot and the other is Cognac" type dissertation.

The whole "Uninstall the App and use a PC" sounds about as dumb as the Blackberry Playbook users who said they didn't need apps cause "the browser runs fine."

And I don't carry a laptop with me everywhere...

Ciao, guys. Decent discussion.

There seems to be a misuse of the word "random" here (and most everywhere as well).
"Random people" is not at all what it sounds like. People that follow you on G+ or Twitter supposedly chose you for at least one reason and encountered your profile in some branching manner. None of that is actually random, which means that all options have an equal chance of being chosen. None of the people on this thread are random. We are all here specifically to learn and discuss Android. That's pretty much the exact opposite of random.

Colchicine said:

There seems to be a misuse of the word "random" here (and most everywhere as well).
"Random people" is not at all what it sounds like. People that follow you on G+ or Twitter supposedly chose you for at least one reason and encountered your profile in some branching manner. None of that is actually random, which means that all options have an equal chance of being chosen. None of the people on this thread are random. We are all here specifically to learn and discuss Android. That's pretty much the exact opposite of random.

Click to expand...

Random, in this case, is a noun referring to a person, not an adjective or adverb referring to their action of circling you. I'm well aware that their actions are deliberate, but to me they are nothing but random Internet personas that I couldn't care about.

Example of someone using it in a similar way:



Moving on... ...

On twitter you can protect your account to prevent randoms from following you. On Facebook you can turn subscriptions off. Google+ is the only mainstream (for lack of a better word) social network lacking a similar option. Even Instagram allows you to turn on verification for follows.

AnonGuy said:

I expected that they would completely miss the point of the analogy and twist it around into another "one is Merlot and the other is Cognac" type dissertation.

The whole "Uninstall the App and use a PC" sounds about as dumb as the Blackberry Playbook users who said they didn't need apps cause "the browser runs fine."

And I don't carry a laptop with me everywhere...

Ciao, guys. Decent discussion.

Click to expand...

Works for me, although the phone's browser will do I found. :thumbup: Thing is I don't have to know in real time what my friends in the UK are having for breakfast or that they're going shopping or whatever.

I removed the G+ app when I saw how much data it was using in the background, it was actually costing real money as i don't have an unlimited data plan. And I've never used the FB app, because it's just too intrusive.

Here is a more optimistic article regarding the future of Google+: http://mobile.eweek.com/cloud/google-social-network-wont-get-the-ax.html

Stuntman said:

Here is a more optimistic article regarding the future of Google+: http://mobile.eweek.com/cloud/google-social-network-wont-get-the-ax.html

Click to expand...

Nice read mate thanks :beer:

AnonGuy said:

On twitter you can protect your account to prevent randoms from following you. On Facebook you can turn subscriptions off. Google+ is the only mainstream (for lack of a better word) social network lacking a similar option. Even Instagram allows you to turn on verification for follows.

Click to expand...

I was going to touch on this myself, but wasn't absolutely sure about this feature on other social networks. This is what I thought was the case and you have verified it for me.

I think the lack of control on who chooses to follow you enables me to more easily connect with people who shares interests with me and whose public posts I would like to read. In contrast, Facebook doesn't exactly allow me to do the same by default. I cannot check what someone posts on Facebook to see if I really want to friend him and read what he posts. In G+, I can read anyone's public posts to see if I want to add him to my circles. I get notifications when someone adds me to his circles and usually, I check his posts to see if I want to add him.

G+ makes it easy to share things publicly. If you want to share only to certain people, you can. You just remove Public from the field of who can read your post and you can include whomever you want. It does take some effort, but it is possible. I do occasionally choose to only post to certain people.

This is one difference between G+ and FB that affects how you use each of these social networks. When you post to FB, you generally post to people you know. When you post to G+, you generally post to everyone. The default use of each social network is one factor that affects how people end up using it. You can choose to use G+ like how you would use FB (this is assuming the same people are on both). Likewise, you can choose to use FB how I would use G+ (if you and almost everyone else changes the FB privacy settings). The features are there, but it would require everyone to really change their behaviour which is not going to happen.

Removing choice is now a great thing. Wow. Just... Mind blown.

Nothing else to say.

AnonGuy said:

Removing choice is now a great thing. Wow. Just... Mind blown.

Nothing else to say.

Click to expand...

You have the choice to not post publicly. You can choose who can see your posts. If someone chooses to add you to his circles and you do not include that person in your posts, that person will not see them.

Stuntman said:

You have the choice to not post publicly.

Click to expand...

But I don't have the choice to forbid followers while every other network gives that choice. Spin is fun, but doesn't accomplish anything.

I don't post publicly.

I just don't want random following me because other people can see you in their circles.

I shouldn't have to put "don't circle me unless I know you" in my profile only to have it ignored because random ignore it and I get propagated across dozens of other's circles, which leads to other inconveniences.

Google had the choice to prevent that, and didn't take it.

Those other services respect privacy better.

AnonGuy said:

I don't post publicly.

Click to expand...

I must be missing something. If you don't share publicly then by definition you must choose which of your 'circles' see the post, and you choose who is in those.

There are also various options in the Google + Account Settings to further refine your sharing behaviour.

Btw, anyone can follow anyone on Twitter without confirmation being required. You simply "follow" or "unfollow" as the mood takes you.

Slug said:

I must be missing something. If you don't share publicly then by definition you must choose which of your 'circles' see the post, and you choose who is in those.

There are also various options in the Google + Account Settings to further refine your sharing behaviour.

Btw, anyone can follow anyone on Twitter without confirmation being required. You simply "follow" or "unfollow" as the mood takes you.

Click to expand...

You're wrong. Twitter allows protected accounts which requires your authorization before someone can follow you.

https://support.twitter.com/articles/14016-about-public-and-protected-tweets

Clearly you missed that...

Instagram has a similar mechanic. Facebook allows you to enable or disable subscriptions.

And why turn that on even if you don't publicly post?

To keep your name out of circles. Cut down on the amount of notifications you get from it. Completely lock down all your account info to friends only, etc.

Facebook has Lists. And allows you to refine how you share. But has the benefit of letting me toggle the subscriptions or Facebook Platform off. Point?

Facebook is, laughably, much better equipped for keeping things private at this point. they can do this, because their entire ecosystem revolves around Facebook while Google is simply bolting Plus onto everything and using it as an additional data source and aggregator.

Have you read the policies to how things can be reshaped and propagated when you tag someone in a photo in an album hosted on Google Photos, for example? It's ludicrous and reeks of lazy engineering.

AnonGuy said:

I just don't want random following me because other people can see you in their circles.

I shouldn't have to put "don't circle me unless I know you" in my profile only to have it ignored because random ignore it and I get propagated across dozens of other's circles, which leads to other inconveniences.

Click to expand...

What exactly are the inconveniences that you experience if you post nothing publicly, but someone added you in his circle? The only things I've noticed are notifications that someone added me.

AnonGuy said:

Completely lock down all your account info to friends only, etc.

Click to expand...

You can do that on G+. Just only allow friends to look at your account profile.

Have you read the policies to how things can be reshaped and propagated when you tag someone in a photo in an album hosted on Google Photos, for example? It's ludicrous and reeks of lazy engineering.

Click to expand...

This I haven't heard. I haven't used the tagging feature and I don't recall ever being tagged in a photo on G+ before, so I'm not sure what the implications are. I do understand that you may not want to be tagged in a photo. There is a way to prevent people from tagging you in a photo.

I couldnt care less who follows me, "random" or not lol. If they annoy me in my posts i block them. Simples.
I dont want g+ to work the same as fb and i dont think its a case of g+ trying to be like fb but their developers not being good enough.
It is how it is by design and it works (for me)

I don't use any of them, but I don't understand the hostility. Don't like it, don't use it. End of story lol.

Gmash said:

I don't use any of them, but I don't understand the hostility. Don't like it, don't use it. End of story lol.

Click to expand...

It's included on the phone and everything is bundled together. That's probably the main objection. If you use Picasa, pics appear elsewhere. If you don't turn off Location, others can see you. Your contact list is used in Play for recommendation for apps, books, etc from friends on the list who use Gmail.

All these services are eventually hoping that everyone will use all the goodies to help market. Malls want to track and send ads. The main problem - if you have limited data, you are paying for marketing you don't want.

It takes a lot of work to remove or disregard the stuff you aren't interested in.

zuben el genub said:

It's included on the phone and everything is bundled together. That's probably the main objection. If you use Picasa, pics appear elsewhere. If you don't turn off Location, others can see you. Your contact list is used in Play for recommendation for apps, books, etc from friends on the list who use Gmail.

All these services are eventually hoping that everyone will use all the goodies to help market. Malls want to track and send ads. The main problem - if you have limited data, you are paying for marketing you don't want.

It takes a lot of work to remove or disregard the stuff you aren't interested in.

Click to expand...

From my experience, it asks you to login or allow the services to run first. They don't run and send out info without you allowing it in the first place.

From my experience, your pics don't appear visible to other people in Picasa/Google+ Photos unless you explicitly tell it to. Same for location.

Same experiences :thumbup:

regarding the thread's title, i just don't see it. think about it a second. MySpace used to be the number 1 social site. then came along Facebook. we all know how that one ended. now Facebook is number 1, and now Google+ comes along. Facebook will die a slow painful death just like MySpace. MySpace's last throes were the apps they promoted on the Helio series of phones, which flopped. now there's Facebook phones, which have also flopped. i will let you decide the ending.

a bit unrelated but a question: how do i delete the APK for 'Google Photos?' i use the Samsung Gallery and G+ is the only Google app i have installed, but it seems to have included Photos. i have not seen it in root explorer or in my all apps list in settings where i could normally disable it? i ended up hiding it from the app drawer but i want to remove it entirely.

nickdalzell said:

regarding the thread's title, i just don't see it. think about it a second. MySpace used to be the number 1 social site. then came along Facebook. we all know how that one ended. now Facebook is number 1, and now Google+ comes along. Facebook will die a slow painful death just like MySpace. MySpace's last throes were the apps they promoted on the Helio series of phones, which flopped. now there's Facebook phones, which have also flopped. i will let you decide the ending.

a bit unrelated but a question: how do i delete the APK for 'Google Photos?' i use the Samsung Gallery and G+ is the only Google app i have installed, but it seems to have included Photos. i have not seen it in root explorer or in my all apps list in settings where i could normally disable it? i ended up hiding it from the app drawer but i want to remove it entirely.

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, it's part of the Google+ apk.

damn. i suppose i can live with hiding it from my app drawer.

Vic said nothing about Google plus going away. Though he is leaving, his message said that he needs to move on. Not Google plus. I hope its still here to stay. Otherwise they have to redo YouTube and blogger and so many other sites that incorporate Google plus into the ecosystem.

didn't Eric Schmidt also leave Android? Android is still here, although i can easily see Google ditching the name 'Android' and just calling it Google Play.