How can that even be true. The statement is ridiculous. If they claim to only hire the best and brightest, then they can create a more secure platform. Look, nothing is EVER 100% locked down. Not anything because there is always someone trying to hack in; BUT, that doesn't mean they can't build a better mousetrap and then monitor it to catch the mice. Claiming otherwise is...is...is...it's the equivalent of saying your staff were all purchased as blue-light specials on aisle 0 at K-mart.
Julie Wills They wrote in their "announcement" of the shut down: Our review showed that our Google+ APIs, and the associated controls for consumers, are challenging to develop and maintain. (https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/project-strobe/)
Of course, they don't really say it is impossible for them to do just that, just that they don't think it is with it anymore. But the possible leak is the pretext for their decision.
I don't believe that. It's not a question of can't; it's a question of won't. They are just using that as an excuse to close the service, or one excuse anyway.
They were not making any money on it and growth slowed and they never found the hook that gave them massive growth.
For me the hook was dialing in all of my interests and seeing posts I was interested in, from politics to sports to cooking to cycling and bunches of stuff in between. Shame others couldn't figure that out.
New comments on this blog are moderated. If you do not have a Google identity, you are welcome to post anonymously. Your comments will appear here after they have been reviewed. Comments with vulgarity will be rejected.
Google+ Sounds like a gauntlet is thrown down.
ReplyDeleteLink?
ReplyDeleteI feel an attribution is appropriate for that claim just john
ReplyDeleteMe. I'm claiming it. Tell Google I said so. Their actions are the evidence.
ReplyDeleteHow can that even be true. The statement is ridiculous. If they claim to only hire the best and brightest, then they can create a more secure platform. Look, nothing is EVER 100% locked down. Not anything because there is always someone trying to hack in; BUT, that doesn't mean they can't build a better mousetrap and then monitor it to catch the mice. Claiming otherwise is...is...is...it's the equivalent of saying your staff were all purchased as blue-light specials on aisle 0 at K-mart.
ReplyDeleteJulie Wills They wrote in their "announcement" of the shut down: Our review showed that our Google+ APIs, and the associated controls for consumers, are challenging to develop and maintain. (https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/project-strobe/)
ReplyDeleteOf course, they don't really say it is impossible for them to do just that, just that they don't think it is with it anymore. But the possible leak is the pretext for their decision.
Korinne M Jackman Then why did they hide the data breach for so long?
ReplyDeleteHmm, they continue the business version of G+. So me thinks they simply want to get rid of non-paying, anonymous or pseudonymous users.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that. It's not a question of can't; it's a question of won't. They are just using that as an excuse to close the service, or one excuse anyway.
ReplyDeleteThey were not making any money on it and growth slowed and they never found the hook that gave them massive growth.
For me the hook was dialing in all of my interests and seeing posts I was interested in, from politics to sports to cooking to cycling and bunches of stuff in between. Shame others couldn't figure that out.
Hmmm... that probably appliers to all of their other products, too.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to freeze this thread soon. Parting shots are welcome, but this isn't promoting the goal of the community.
ReplyDelete