G+for business users?
Didn't I read in one of the press analysis that much of G+ would be left if a person were signed up as a business user?
Didn't I read in one of the press analysis that much of G+ would be left if a person were signed up as a business user?
social.antefriguserat.de - FAQ - PlexodusWiki
ReplyDeleteStuart O'Neill
ReplyDeleteG+ will still be available to those with a G Suite account, but...
_ it is believed that it may not function as the consumer G+ does. It may well be limited to only those within that particular G Suite domain (i.e. not available to those outside your organization)._
Stuart O'Neill I'll answer this somewhat differently than Andrew Hatchett did. All indications are that the G Suite version of Google+ will have all of the functions of today's Google+, HOWEVER Google+ users will only be able to interact with other users in the same G Suite domain.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Hatchett The reality is we have absolutely no idea what the G Suite version of G+ is going to look like after April. “It is believed that” is a zero-content statement. Who believes that? Why do they believe it? Google has made very few statements about this. While it is true that the new features they announced in October (gweb-cloudblog-publish.appspot.com - New enterprise-grade features in Google+ help businesses drive collaboration) were focused on within-enterprise communication, no statements have been made about changes to the existing ability for cross-enterprise collaboration. Now, it may well go away, but there is no hard evidence one way or another.
ReplyDeleteBrian Holt Hawthorne It is true that there is a possibility that G Suite Google+ will allow any sharing across domains. The rest of what I said is quite firm. As for who believes what I said? I do -- based on working directly with the Google+ team as a member of Google's Product Expert Program (formerly called Top Contributor Program).
ReplyDeleteJohn Skeats You called early curtailment and feature reduction of G+ incorrectly, earlier.
ReplyDeleteWe're going off thin data from Google, and they seem to have trouble figuring out how to fly this submarine or what colour to set the loudness control.
Uncertainty rules this period, and Google are short on credibility.
John Skeats I’m confused. As far as I can tell, the only thing we are disagreeing on is that I said we have seen no evidence that Google plans on removing cross-domain (or rather, cross-enterprise) sharing in G Suite Google+, whereas you said “HOWEVER Google+ users will only be able to interact with other users in the same G Suite domain.” Now, you are saying there is a possibility that G Suite will allow cross-domain sharing. So, it sounds like we agree completely.
ReplyDeleteStuart O'Neill It's highly likely that the GSuite experience of G+ will be completely unlike today's consumer experience. It is just an intranet.
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius Yes, I did -- because no one including Googlers anticipated a second serious problem with the API that would force Google to change its plans. The information I gave before and that I gave just now was the best information available at the time it was given and was correct at the time I gave it. Nothing can be absolutely guaranteed with respect to this or anything else (or that matter) because contingencies and emergencies can always force changes.
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius I would argue that it is highly unlikely that the G Suite experience of Google+ will be unlike today's consumer experience. What will change will be the "universe of users" that Google+ users will be able to interact with. Instead of everyone on the internet, all indications are that the "universe of users" will be limited to other members of the same G Suite domain.
ReplyDeleteThere's a very simple argument that supports that theory: It would require the minimum amount of change to Google+ and therefore would cost dramatically less to implement than making the new experience "completely unlike today's consumer experience."
John Skeats Uncertainty rules this period, and Google are short on credibility.
ReplyDeleteBrian Holt Hawthorne
ReplyDeleteYou said:"The reality is we have absolutely no idea what the G Suite version of G+ is going to look like after April."
It all depends on how you define "we"...
Consumers who are not part of the PE program see one thing. Those in the PE program, while having no certain knowledge of some things, can make good educated guesses about future actions based on past observations of previously encountered actions of Google's inner workings (i.e. learning to read between the lines and interpreting tea leaves). It is all a matter of perspective.
John Skeats The minimum amount of change would be leaving in the ability for G Suite users to make their posts visible outside of their domain/organizational unit, which currently includes other domains in the same G Suite organization, G Suite Google+ users in other G Suite organizations, and consumer G+ accounts. Since the latter will go away, the simplest change would be to leave things as they are, including all of the work that has been done recently to make it easier for G Suite admins to control whether their users can post outside the domain.
ReplyDeleteI think the words 'until they close it down too' should be applied to most Google services at this point 8)
ReplyDeleteBrian Holt Hawthorne Given that Google decided to shut down consumer Google+, your suggestion would be far from the minimum amount of change because it would require the consumer Google+ infrastructure to remain in place and a significant part of the consumer Google+ function to remain -- but be changed substantially to only allow viewing by non-G Suite users. Allowing interaction only within a G Suite domain, on the other hand, is a relatively simple change because that function already exists within G Suite Google+. All they have to do is disable the options that allow sharing outside of a domain.
ReplyDeleteJohn Skeats I don’t believe that there is any separate infrastructure between “consumer” G+ and G Suite G+. They are all running on the same servers. The only difference is the type of account that has access to it. In the early days of G+, I had to use a gmail account because Google Apps logins did not have access to G+. Google has the ability to have consumer accounts not associated with individual Google properties, including G+. In fact, anyone can today delete their G+ profile while keeping their Google account.
ReplyDeleteSo, Google is clearly already planning on deleting all consumer G+ profiles and not allowing consumer Google accounts to create a new G+ profile.
If they just do that, it will get rid of consumer G+, while still allowing G Suite accounts to use G+, including across enterprises.
To eliminate cross-enterprise G+ collaboration, they would have to also make additional changes. Why would they do that?
Brian Holt Hawthorne The only portion of this I take exception to is "clearly". There's little of Google's intent or assertions of same that's at all clear or credible.
ReplyDeleteGoogle have always been opaque, and are now on steroids. My sense is that this isn't merely the external state.
Edward Morbius Excellent point.
ReplyDelete. And if you're relying on the past (and falling back on it as a rhetorical defence of your position) at this time, you're probably going to be Having a Bad Time.
ReplyDeleteThe theory I've developed is that one of the first signs of a catastrophe is that things don't add up. I've traced this through a number of personal and historical catastrophes, and it's a pretty common thread. Charles Perrow's works (Normal Accidents and The Next Catastrophe especially) address this. Yonatan Zunger is a fan, as it happens.
So, if you look at where you and I butt heads (and I expect we will, and I actually appreciate it -- I like to have my own priors challenged as well), it's probably been, and will be, somewhere along the axes I've outlined here.
And your prior experience may well be a trap for you, that you might want to be aware of.
In friendship.
Edward Morbius I certainly have never believed that "the Google Way is [implicitly] the Right Way." I've seen mistakes they have made very clearly. As you said, things change over time. We always try to give the best information available _at the time the information is given -- but that doesn't mean that what we said at one time will remain valid into the future.
ReplyDeleteAnd, yes, members of the Product Expert Program have "inside-the-bubble knowledge," some of which we can and do share directly, and some of which is covered by our Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) so we cannot talk about it. When it comes to NDA-related topics, we cannot even refer to the fact that we know something that is not public without saying what we know. In all cases, our responses are consistent with all information available to us even when we have information related to the question that is under NDA.
Sometimes the inconsistencies between what we say and what appears to happen from your perspective are because we also have channels to get things done that we cannot or are not permitted to do ourselves. Those, too, are covered by the NDA, so I cannot go into further detail.
You might believe that things don't add up based on what you see. I don't. I worked at IBM including working in and with headquarters for decades. While none of what I worked on there directly applies to what is going on here, the experience of working at that level in a comparable corporation gives me tremendous insight into what is going on internally at Google at the moment -- and it all makes tremendous sense when you look at all the pieces of the puzzle. I don't like it, but in a very real sense, I understand why they have made the recent decisions they made with respect to Google+ -- and would realize that I would probably "vote" to make the same decisions were I were in a position to do so and had the information that is available to them.
One other thing: I know the people at Google involved well enough to say that I absolutely trust them. They're not the kind of people who would lie or intentionally mislead anyone. They're sharing the best information available to them at the time with both the public and with those of us under NDA.
I am not sure crisis mode is fair. They seem to be having a corporate wtf are we and why are we doing all this stuff - which in itself is healthy. They just treat services as random products which doesn't work in the long term. They've been screwing that up for years.. the smart home fiasco was years ago and they haven't learned.
ReplyDeleteAlan Cox I think crisis mode is absolutely fair. From the outside, the arbitrary actions and reactions we are seeing remind me of nothing else but the conflicting statements and bizarre actions we have seen from governments that were in the midst of internal reorganizations, coup d’etats, or revolution. Let’s just hope this is closer to Lech Walesa and Poland or to Mandela and South Africa than to Castro and Cuba or Putin and the Russian Federation.
ReplyDeleteJohn Skeats Why don't they just fix the problems with the API.
ReplyDeleteJohn Skeats I'm not going to tell you what you think or feel, because you're the authority on that. What I said is " an apparent tacit policy", words chosen carefully. It's not a statement of what G+H mods individually and collectively feel, but how they come across. My own impression and one that's been communicated to me by others.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not even asking you to change that. I'm just saying that my own views and statements are strongly opposed to The Google Way is Necessarily the Right Way.
(I've also changed my view on things I'd disagreed with Google over, small example: downvoting of posts and comments. I'd long felt that should be present. My experience on G+ and other platforms now suggests it's overall unhealthy, though there might be other ways of short-cutting that particular behavioural failure mode. There have been many others.)
As for large, corporate, infotech, HQ experience: been there, done that, have the annual picnic teambuilding medical bills to prove it.
Being NDA-hindered is another strong reason for my not working more closely with Google. I've been asked not to repeat information and I've respected those confidences. But if Google can't ensure its people won't tell me things they shouldn't, why should I believe (and be tremendously legally burdened) to think I'd do any better? You've made your bargain, I've made mine.
On information changing, chaos, and apocalypse: The point is that when you realise you're in apocalyptic times, you don't give advice solely on present available information. You lead your shots, and you make allowances for evasive maneuvering, in trying to land your bullets (predictions) of the future. Norbert Weinberg, among others.
I'm not basing my predictions soley on present-available information, but on an assumption that that information is flawed, incomplete, and/or subject to radical revision. You might want to consider the same.
Another: if I'm proved wrong, I don't start spouting all the reasons I shouldn't be. I admit I'm wrong. Have a little chamber of horrors for that amongst my Collections here for just that purpose, even.
Makes life a little simpler for me, at least.
Hugh Lampert Apparently Google don't seem to think that's possible, and/or attractive. And strongly.
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to give them that. Though I'd prefer those of us who need to use the API to generate complete and/or useful archives before it's gone can do so.
Alan Cox I'm not going to argue the point strongly, but it's more the behaviours around the decisions, and particularly the fact that everyone's lips seem to be zipped, sewn, stapled, nailed, cemented, and TIG-welded shut, from a firm that tends to be reasonably chatty, that signals some level of panic.
ReplyDeleteThat and sudden and unexpected 40% reductions in the sunset period and massive curtailments of platform features.
Brian Holt Hawthorne There is strong reason to believe that there are separate infrastructures for a number of reasons:
ReplyDelete-- Since Google+ became a core service in G Suite, many Google+ enhancements were made available to consumer users and G Suite users at different times, which would make no sense if they were all in the same infrastructure.
-- There are multiple functional differences between Google+ for G Suite users and consumer users. Some of the differences are tied implicitly to G Suite (e.g., being able to share posts, collections, and communities with all member of your domain but no one outside of your domain), but there are enhancements to basic Google+ functions (e.g., formatting of posts) that are only available to G Suite users. That would be trivial to manage if there were two separate infrastructures, but extremely difficult to manage otherwise.
-- Google has an uptime guarantee for all G Suite core service (including Google+) but not for consumer Google+. That gives Google a very strong incentive to manage the two on separate infrastructures.
Hugh Lampert Google fixed the two vulnerabilities that were discovered very promptly after they were discovered. To completely overhaul the API -- which apparently would be needed to leave it in place -- would not be a small project, and why should they do that for a product they have determined not be financially justifiable even without that additional cost? While many of us certainly love Google+, there simply aren't enough Google+ consumer users to make it justifiable to keep the product alive.
ReplyDeleteJohn Skeats true re same domain. What if, for purposes of GSuites use, we did all have the same domain name? Work or post output could forwarded to another site.
ReplyDeleteNot as convenient but if we did have a parent domain it would solve the issue. This assumes we start smallish and grow. Remember GSuites needs. minimum of $5/mo per person
So the parent umbrella is necessary. And many will not pay on the fallacy that the Net should 'free'.
I had finished another post in a comment stream on the same topic. I added some names so they would be aware. David Amerland & Tom Rolfson & Eli Fennell .
This is not an easy proposal/idea. We don't know the future of GSuites anymore than we did G+. I don't see how Google could deny entrance to a membership organization.
Figuring out the admin and whether members could be on different levels at different costs are questions to be asked or actions taken. (Do then apologize if it crossed a line.)
If we did come up with something created by G+ alumni, I believe we could get a good start. It would have to be throttled at the beginning to do shake down runs and beta.
But it may be doable.
Thoughts?
Stuart O'Neill We don't have to question the future of G Suite. It is a very successful program with a huge number of paying customers including many extremely large enterprises, so it is undoubtedly quite profitable for Google. It therefore has none of the issues that products like consumer Google+ have.
ReplyDeleteThe flaw with your proposal is that, as you suggested, there would have to be a parent organization that administered the G Suite domain and was financially responsible to Google for its costs. The parent organization would then be responsible for administering user accounts within the domain, billing members, and administering the domain itself. Members would have to have great confidence in the parent organization because that organization would technically be the owner of all of the individual users' accounts within the domain. They would have the power to delete users' accounts or even to take them away from the individual users and have full access to all of the users' data, etc. I don't see people being willing to sign up for that unless the owner of the domain was a well-established organization that already has the credibility for users to be willing accept that risk.
That being said, I see no reason why it would need shake-down or anything like that except for from the financial management and administrative perspective. The infrastructure provided by Google is well-established and has already been tested by thousands of organizations.
Well analyzed John Skeats . I wonder where we find that org with the firepower you've foreseen. Of course the other side is whether Google would allow thks use of their system.
ReplyDeleteStuart O'Neill Google would have no problem with a business that owns a G Suite domain allowing users within that domain to use Google+. The fact that the sole purpose of a business would be to provide Google+ access would almost certainly present no problem.
ReplyDeleteJohn Skeats Opinion or information? Asking for clarity.
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius Arguably opinion but based on the facts that Google doesn't ask detailed questions about your business plans, etc. when you open a G Suite account, so they would have no direct way of knowing that the sole purpose of the hypothetical business would be to provide access to Google+.
ReplyDeleteI'll add the opinion that I strongly doubt they would take issue with it even if that became apparent to them.
John Skeats Thanks.
ReplyDeleteSocial-media-by-reseller VAR is an interesting possible twist.
Of course, if the corporation in question was US 501(c)3 with a free non-profit G Suite account...
ReplyDeleteKeep the thought going Edward Morbius John Skeats Brian Holt Hawthorne we seem to be moving forward.
ReplyDeleteStuart O'Neill And remember that any 501(c)3 nonprofit with the free G Suite can have multiple domains. So if there was an existing non-profit whose purpose was to, for example, enable communication among people in the hopes of improving the world, they could choose to host a new domain on their G Suite account. They would need to be prepared for the administration workload of creating new users, etc.
ReplyDeleteBrian Holt Hawthorne I have serious doubts that an organization to provide Google+ to the world would qualify as a non-profit and even more doubts that it would qualify for G Suite for Nonprofits.
ReplyDeleteJohn Skeats You would be surprised what can qualify as a 501(c)3.
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius Any additional thoughts on the social-media-by reseller?
ReplyDeleteStuart O'Neill Not really.
ReplyDelete