At some point Google is going to be investigated for this. Like MS, they'll probably get away with this in the US because Google is US based and they let businesses get away with anything, but the EU will hammer them.
At some point Google is going to be investigated for this. Like MS, they'll probably get away with this in the US because Google is US based and they let businesses get away with anything, but the EU will hammer them.
Even if you were forced to use Google+, un-circling someone doesn't generate a notification, so there's no reason to worry about creating a relationship you can't revoke.
In other words, if you have person B in your circles, you can hide whether person C (or the general public) can find out that person B is in your circles. You can't prevent person B from knowing that they are in your circles (thought they won't know which circles they are in).
I'm pretty sure this is the model. I can confirm it if you'd like.
Knowing this beforehand I would have made a new email address to manage the account, and could freely allow circling. I guess I'll go find out now if I can change the owner of the page.
Google is turning into a social company and so it needs their users to set up a social network profile.
You can easily choose another email service if you don't like it. This only applies to new users so there's really no lock-in since none of your data are at Google yet.
And honestly I don't think the G+ users will want their Facebook friends to be on G+, same way that most users on Youtube have separate accounts from their Google/Gmail account. From the looks of this, G+ will just push away users from other Google services, and causing confusion.
The war is on between Twitter, Facebook, and Google and it has nothing to do with the number of messages or advertisements that can be served. It's the number of end user identities that can be authenticated.
In Google's case, it's highly doubtful that they will ever dominate social. The barriers to entry for the online world are way too low.
Yes, I was but I don't blame MS for that. There were no competent alternatives during the mid 90s. Apple was on the verge of going out of business and Linux wasn't ready for the average user yet. I don't blame Google either for dominating search. They (MS & Google) are or were the best at what they do. The problem arises when companies leverage a monopoly to enter another business.
>In Google's case, it's highly doubtful that they will ever dominate social.
With this news it is far more likely that they will (when this is about the number of users) if a user's only intent is to create a YouTube or Gmail account and have to accept all three.
Linux was gaining popularity, but it was difficult to install and use. It lacked the quality desktop apps that are available today. It lacked a coherent and usable desktop. I think it was around 1998 or '99 that I installed RedHat 5.2. It came with fvmw2 or something. It was hideous, and that was only after I spent hours trying to configure X in the first place. There was no free MS Office-compatible word processor. StarOffice came out around then, but it was commercial and pretty lousy. It was years later that there was decent office software that was compatible with the rest of the world. Netscape 4 was pretty much the only game in town for web browsing. Fonts looked like total crap. Oh, and that's if you could even get your modem to work in the first place. Winmodems were everywhere. I went out and bought an external 56k modem for like $75 and spent weeks getting it to work. I could go on, but I really don't like thinking about the bad old days.
Basically, you were stuck with Microsoft back then. They may have only lost %5 market share or some small number, but there are very good alternatives available. Market share hardly matters at this point for end users. Whether you choose MS, Mac or Linux you can expect wide support.
It's a very different landscape for end users, as well as Microsoft.
It's funny how people keep getting "shocked and surprised" by obvious moves, what use is it having a profile or a cohesive identity system for all your services if you don't incorporate it into said services or even use it when users sign up?!