Google G Suite pricing
The continued G+ product is being rolled into Google's G Suite brand. Three pricing tiers of $5, $10, and $25 per user per month, or straight prorating of $60, $120 or $300 annually, exist.
Qualified nonprofits may be eligible for a free account:
https://support.google.com/nonprofits/answer/3367223?hl=en&ref_topic=3247651
Public accounts are not convertable to Enterprise to the best of my knowledge.
(The question has been asked. I'm answering it here.)
https://gsuite.google.com/pricing.html
https://support.google.com/a/answer/1247360?hl=en
https://support.google.com/a/answer/1247360?hl=en
The continued G+ product is being rolled into Google's G Suite brand. Three pricing tiers of $5, $10, and $25 per user per month, or straight prorating of $60, $120 or $300 annually, exist.
Qualified nonprofits may be eligible for a free account:
https://support.google.com/nonprofits/answer/3367223?hl=en&ref_topic=3247651
Public accounts are not convertable to Enterprise to the best of my knowledge.
(The question has been asked. I'm answering it here.)
https://gsuite.google.com/pricing.html
https://support.google.com/a/answer/1247360?hl=en
https://support.google.com/a/answer/1247360?hl=en
I have my own G Suites account. I also manage a non-profit account with 16+ users. We'll see how GSuites G+ engages there if at all.
ReplyDeleteUntil it gets "sunset" in 5 years....
ReplyDeleteOlivier Malinur I can think of numerous other issues. The question's been raised.
ReplyDeleteIt'll be interesting to see if once G+ Public goes away, if there will be any type of "public" posting from Enterprise G+ that the outside world can see.
ReplyDelete!!!
ReplyDeleteThere has never been a way to convert any more than a very tiny aspect of one G+ account to another (of any type - consumer OR GSuite), and even that was deprecated years ago.
ReplyDeleteI used it myself back when it WAS possible.
A product is like a living being ... to survive it needs food, a source of income. G+ is not different .. in the physical world it needs storage, servers, electricity, and all operational cost etc. Differently from Youtube where users can build communities and try to monetarize their content it also lacks advertising features so when Google's subsidy budget ends and the product is not mature enough to stand on it own feet, then the product is done.
ReplyDeleteGoogle did not try to monetize G+. Upper management still does not understand socmeds and that is why G+ is closing.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of monetizing social media is a mirage caused by the overwhelming presence of large walled gardens. The real future of social media lies in standard protocols. RFC 822 and friends standardized email; we don't talk much about monetizing email because there are so many different ways the global email service supports itself. It's the same with federated social media.
ReplyDeleteAnd the thing is, I'm finding that the current protocols actually work pretty darn well, and I believe the influx of g+ refugees is pushing the federated population over the population required for the necessary network effects to take hold.
Kent Crispin my bet is on RFC 488o second bis
ReplyDeleteKent Crispin Ports 25, 80, 443, and 53 all ended up highly centralised.
ReplyDeleteWhy?
Is this good or baad?
Assuming you want to avoid doing that again, how?
Edward Morbius I think your opening premise is off -- in fact, these ports did not end up as highly centralized services.
ReplyDeleteAccording to netcraft there are more than half a billion active websites, operated under a myriad distinct administrative and financial umbrellas. There are large email providers, to be sure, but there are millions of active smaller providers as well. DNS is explicitly designed to distribute administrative authority -- though of course the root-server/ICANN nexus is an interesting special case.
This is fundamentally different from the situation that has existed with social media, where we have a few giant non-interacting walled-gardens that completely dominate the scene.
At least that's what I thought until a few weeks ago. I have been pleasantly surprised by the maturity and the performance of the federated protocols -- so far they work really well. I'm looking forward to seeing this shake out :-)
Kent Crispin It's not the number of each but the traffic concentration of each.
ReplyDeleteWhat fraction of all Web traffic and time do the top five websites account for? What fraction of all email do the top five email providers account for? What fraction of all DNS to the top five DNS providers account for (I suspect this is somewhat lower, but Google's 8.8.8.8 / 8.8.4.4, and other similar services are widely used).
Facebook rates 9m44s on site, daily, per visitor to the site. That is, the metric overcounts site time by excluding all non-visitors. By the time you hit the 50th site on Alexa's list, you're down to times as low as 36s/day.
https://www.alexa.com/topsites
Similar:
https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites
For social media, the number of users on Facebook dwarfs all others, and the time on site and frequency of use is also disproportionately larger. This is only partially reflected in this Pew survey (from 2016 -- more recent ones present the relationship less well, though similar trends persist). Again, time is a nonfungible resource.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/
Data networks tend strongly toward monopolies.
Edward Morbius you need to distinguish transport and content. There is a lot of content centralised. The transport layers are open. In the bad old days you paid compu$erve, AOL and friends to use their services and they controlled the content and took a hefty cut. Today the content distribution is similar but you can host your own.
ReplyDeleteFixing the content problem is hard, in some cases impossible. eBay for example is a natural monopoly just because of economics. YouTube wins because of ease of use and search, it like many others win because of aggregation
It's all about value - most of them trade in convenience. YouTube is easy, even Amazon is fundamentally about convenience. It happens to sell physical goods but the core of its business is convenience.
Alan Cox It's a number of factors, those are two.
ReplyDeleteTransport, directory, discovery (audience), reach (creators), abuse and hygiene controls, protocol specification, protocol development (avoiding stuckness/stagnation, capture) , ease of use, ease of deployment, ease of access, stickiness, induced behaviours, filtering, fairness (of access, reach, discovery, ...), community norms, tolerance/intolerance, warrens/plazas, financing/revenue, capture, burnout (devs, admins, mods, user, financiers), mission creep/drift.
Convenience absolutely appeals, but it ceates unstable minima subject to sudden shifts.
This topic's become an obsession of mine in recent years, going well beyond electronic media.
Edward Morbius Actually, as far as I am concerned, the number of instances is quite important, while the traffic concentration is not so much so. Gmail isn't evil because it is big, it is evil because of how it (reputedly) treats the data. [That's an oversimplification, of course -- neglects the lock-in that comes from the tie of email address to domain name.] But because email is email, if I don't like gmail's practices, I can go elsewhere with no loss of essential service. This is not the case with FB or G+.
ReplyDeleteThat is, size of service provider's market share is not so much the issue. The real criteria is how many other providers can provide essentially the same service.
And the good news is that the fediverse actually seems to work pretty well. There's a learning curve, but there was a learning curve for G+ as well -- in my case, there's a lot I still don't know about it, in fact :-).
Kent Crispin "More is different."
ReplyDeleteScale has effects, some of which are negative. As I mentioned above, virtually all monopolies are premised on a network dynamic. Possibly all, full stop.. Though I don't think all networks are monopolies, and the exceptions should prove interesting.
I'd like to help build an exception.
In the case of Gmail, its size may not be the problem, but it helps lead to them.
Edward Morbius network effects produce similar problems even in distributed spaces. Linux volume of use has a huge impact even when it's open. To the point people prefer to violate the GPL rather than use FreeBSD
ReplyDeleteAlan Cox As in; the benefits of using Linux (costs, talent, hardware/drivers, software) is compelling enough that vendors risk GPL violation?
ReplyDeleteFamiliar with that, largely the same mechanism.
Knowledge also. A very large library is a machine for reducing search and traversal costs among materials. Researchers will preferentially seek out a larger rather than smaller library (all else equal) because more hits are available at the same costs.
Much as with cache, memory, disk, net, etc.
But knowledge-as-web means information itself has network effects. And monopoly potential.
Edward Morbius yes on Linux. Libraries not quite so simple. A narrow specific library can compete, as can its parallels. Classic example being dating sites.
ReplyDeleteAll of which is why it needs more regulation like pipelines and rail. Common access, compatibility, compulsory sharing and interchange.
Alan Cox Pipelines, rails, roads, mails, shipping, electric grid, water, sewerage, air, telegraph, telephone, radio, television, cable, Internet: all networks.
ReplyDeleteMaterial, energy, information, over links, between nodes.
A central control locus (or at least a significant one, for which alternatives have markedly higher costs) becomes a point for establishing power. Holding that in common, or at least in thecommon interest or weal, helps.
I could go on about this at length, but I'll call off-topic on myself here. New thread if you care to continue.
Well, this thread jumped the shark...
ReplyDeletewara zashi Trying to steer it back, myself included.
ReplyDeletePlease comment positively, thanks.