So, I have a Google+ invite.

[theweaselking]

Does anyone know what it *is*?

Is like Buzz, the tool where nobody knows what it's good for or what you can do with it, or like Wave, where nobody knows what it's good for or what you can do with it? Or is it more like facebook, where it's useless crap that does nothing and EVERYONE knows it?

I mean, seriously. What is Google+ and why would I possibly want it?

EDIT: If you uncheck the "let Google use your personal information to spam you" checkbox, it won't let you sign up at all. FUCK. THAT.

Comments

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

This is more a "but what is it FOR?" question.

Like, anyone who wanted facebook has facebook. So what *is it* that's supposed to entice either people who don't like facebook or who do like facebook but will maybe like this better?

[publius1.livejournal.com]

Well, I think the obvious answer is "It's not for you, it's for Google," for a whole host of reasons.

But if I were on Google's "side" here, I'd say that the easy "Hangout" ability could generate some favorable press and word-of-mouth.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

What "hangout" ability would that be?

I, an invited participant, am unable to join without signing away the contents of my email account and browser history. The news articles on news.google.com are, unsurpringingly and yet still ironically, completely lacking in details.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

Invite 10 friends to talk with you in video chat! Your loudest, most obnoxious friends get face time, because that's how it determines whose video gets showcased.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

That seems... not good, even as it favours me.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

And a few other friends I know. I hate the entire concept of video chat (yes, I was promised video phones when I was a child. Whoopee that we got that instead of flying cars and personal jetpacks), so, REALLY not for me. But I can see some teenagers being really, really into it.

[the-trav.livejournal.com]

Some people have facebook, and want what it offers, but they have heard people say bad things about the owners of facebook and their privacy.

Google wants to cash in on some of that distrust by offering an extremely similar service but relying on their reputation of a trusted provider.

It's all marketing of course, and there's no reason to expect better privacy behaviour from google, but if the service is as good/better than facebook then I don't see a problem with it

[publius1.livejournal.com]

"but they have heard people say bad things about the owners of facebook and their privacy"

Yes, because nobody could possibly have a legitimate complaint.

[the-trav.livejournal.com]

Facebook has done bad privacy stuff, I don't argue that.
However I'm fairly confident that it hasn't negatively impacted 95% of their user base.

On top of that, anyone who actually expects Facebook (or googlebook now it exists) to respect their privacy while they're uploading tons of personal information, is holding unrealistic expectations and setting themselves up for trouble.

[mejoff.livejournal.com]

Probably facebook functionality with two bonuses.
1. Google is not owned by a christian fundamentalist.

2. I suspect it will not be quite as popular, but will attract the sort of people I would want to have connections with, while those I don't will stay with facebook, so there's a self selecting elitism attraction there.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

1. Wait, what?

[mejoff.livejournal.com]

Stands corrected, turns out there was some fuss about some shareholders a few years ago that managed to become all the information I contained about the matter.