Yep.

Time spent on Twitter today: 2 minutes
Time spent on Google+ today: 40+ minutes

Works for me.

and like this is a clean getaway that is basically Facebook but not Facebook. So everything they love about + is basically Facebook with some re-structuring and minus a whole lot, whether that's good or bad

The interface is cluttered and hard to navigate. Also, they make it very hard to manage your own privacy.

G+ doesn't have those problems, for mow.

Google+ is worse at nearly everything than facebook.


http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

photos and everything
there's no way around it

Like....you want me to try to import my entire friend network....just cuz it's Google doing it?

No.

I haven't even made a status or shared anything on there yet.

it's not a place for party promoter types, or
ppl complaining about their baby daddies or
laying down bible verses.

it's a great companion to twitter.

i barely use twitter.

i added a gang of okps to a circle
but shit, i'm always on here
barely on fb & twitter (except for today)
what yall do different yall don't do here?
lol

Twitter is good for networking, but there's only so much one can say in 140 characters.

Also, it's easy to text, "tweet", and blog all from one screen and one form by proper use of circles.

Plus, Hangouts!

>Twitter is good for networking, but there's only so much one
>can say in 140 characters.
>

>it's not a place for party promoter types, or
>ppl complaining about their baby daddies or
>laying down bible verses.

and I don't have to add them or read their nonsense if they've nothing to say.

Google+ understands me and my elitism.

Plus, I really like controlling who I share stuff with.
Everything I say ain't for everybody.

>it's not a place for party promoter types, or
>ppl complaining about their baby daddies or
>laying down bible verses.

just like facebook was supposed to be an escape from myspace...lol
the digital neighbourhood always goes to shit so to speak. because if it's easy to use then eventually everybody will want to use it including party promoters and baby momas complaining and evangelical christians.

being selective of who you add is probably the only way to avoid all that. but the social pressure will always get the best of you.

Myspace, facebook, twitter and migente all took a year or two to really get popular.

Even tho it's a google site it's not going to be an exception to that.

I like the potential it has.

and will be even better when ppl start seeing and using it for all the ways it can be useful.

for instance, i'd like to start a black in LA circle.

any time you wanna know whats going on in LA at any given time, you can go to that circle on g+ or on your phone and check.

ppl can upload pix of parties theyre at. ppl can post flyers, videos of events, etc.

and the singles can flirt, lol.

>and will be even better when ppl start seeing and using it
>for all the ways it can be useful.
>
>for instance, i'd like to start a black in LA circle.
>
>any time you wanna know whats going on in LA at any given
>time, you can go to that circle on g+ or on your phone and
>check.
>
>ppl can upload pix of parties theyre at. ppl can post flyers,
>videos of events, etc.
>
>and the singles can flirt, lol.
>
>

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I'm sorry, I realize we've had issues because you feel like i've been mean to you.

but you don't seem to understand how circles work.

The only person who sees the circles you make is you. Other people cannot upload things to your circle. You don't "make a young in la circle" that people then upload events to.

no.

no.

no.

no.


http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

enough yet." Damn, she got me hyped for a few seconds for nothing.

i know what circles are and how they can be used.

if i start an "RJCC is a douche" circle and other ppl decide to have an "RJCC is a douche" circle, then we can all add each other have that forum to discuss how much of a douche you are.

just jokes, but im not stupid.

It still wouldn't work the way you think it works.


http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

don't otherwise know each other, how would they know about the circle?

>don't otherwise know each other, how would they know about
>the circle?

and with whatever labels you want to organize them.

its not a published circle. its just suggesting that ppl create the same circle, not unlike an OKP circle.

im not suggesting ppl share a circle.

im just saying theres an opportunity for ppl to create circles in common and share within that particular circle. aint that the point of circles?

And to do what you're describing, you WOULD have to share circles b/c everyone would have to know who's in everyone else's group and you'd all have to add each other to the same circle in order for what you're talking about to work.

>im not suggesting ppl share a circle.
>
>im just saying theres an opportunity for ppl to create circles
>in common and share within that particular circle. aint that
>the point of circles?

You can share content.
You can't share who is in your circles; you're describing Twitter lists http://support.twitter.com/entries/76460-how-to-use-twitter-lists

Everyones' circles are different.

sounds like too much "programmin'" for my tastes

I want to share something with people in one group but not the other. G+ allows that.
facebook sez EVERYONE IS A FRIEND - unless you want to *really* be inconvenienced by creating a facebook group.

so i have no clue what youre talking about.

or an email list.

those are the only things that she is familiar with, and she thinks this works the same way.

she does not get that your circle only exists for you as a means to sort what you share to other people, and a way to sort whatever they choose to share with you, no matter how they do it.

no one creates identical circles and then shares freely within them.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

.

than facebook

can we "Chat" together like okp chat and chime in as we feel like it and everybody see it?

you have a whole slew of contacts, right...

you group them in circles of friends, acquaintances, family, colleagues etc.

when you make a post, you add the circle/s that you want to read/participate in your post. that way you can control who sees your posts.

and yes, it works just like FB posts in that everyone that you allow to see your post can chime in and make comments, etc. beyond the circles, its very much like facebook.

I keep asking this...nobody ever answers me tho lol

the point was to differentiate it from FB in that you have more (and easier) control over who sees your posts.

i don't really speak to the people that i actually interact with on fb outside of fb

i have email chains in relation to different topics now

so i don't get what this would do for me exactly

i still don't get this shit..i need somebody irl to explain it to me lolol

i feel so stupid :-(

>the point was to differentiate it from FB in that you have
>more (and easier) control over who sees your posts.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>don't otherwise know each other, how would they know about
>the circle?

http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/static.py?page=guide.cs&guide=1257347&answer=1302427

You have to explicitly select it when you share content.

EDIT: They're not alerted to a circle, though. Extended content is just shared in your stream. No one is notified of what circle they're in.

if i have an okp circle and you post something to your okp circle, i could go to my okp stream and see it right?

>if i have an okp circle and you post something to your okp
>circle, i could go to my okp stream and see it right?

as b.Touch pointed out, not everyone has the
same circles.

maybe you've added 500 OKPs to my 25.
circles are not published.

if someone decides to share something
you posted, then it could get around,
but circles are not public lists.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>if i have an okp circle and you post something to your okp
>circle, i could go to my okp stream and see it right?

It doesn't matter if they're labeled the same.

and i dont have the energy to make myself clear right now. oh well.

it seems like you guys think i mean we all have an OKP circle and we can all automatically join this one circle and share information with each other in it.

im saying a group of ppl can agree to have a circle on whatever. each person can name that particular circle whatever they want. they post something to that circle and everyone else that has that designated circle can see it. i dont understand yet why that wouldnt work.

i dont
>understand yet why that wouldnt work.

"for instance, i'd like to start a black in LA circle. any time you wanna know whats going on in LA at any given time, you can go to that circle on g+ or on your phone and check. ppl can upload pix of parties theyre at. ppl can post flyers, videos of events, etc."

that read like you thought you could use the circles to create some type of public stream that strangers could sign up for.

i'd say, "hey, everybody...make a circle that pertains to LA and shit going on in LA."

nothing official.

lol

1. each person to add the exact same people to a circle, which would be a real pain for any group of people over, say, 12 people.
2. each person to maintain said circle so that they add/drop people as they come & go, which is a pain no matter how big the group of people is.

What you're describing is like the party-promo groups on Facebook. I'm sure this sort of a thing will be added to Google+ eventually. As it is, there's no such automatic way to do what you're describing, nor is the manual way efficient.

when i get an email that someone has added me to their circle, i automatically add them to my circles.

You'd have to check the profile to make sure it's an LA person rather than assuming. WHich is fine if you're adding 5 people a day, but what about 20?

If this group gets to be of any decent size worthy of the effort to promote things, it WILL become a pain to maintain it.

What happens when someone wants to be removed?
There's an awful lot of black folks in LA.
That's a lot of work. (c) Nopayne

>You'd have to check the profile to make sure it's an LA
>person rather than assuming. WHich is fine if you're adding 5
>people a day, but what about 20?
>
>If this group gets to be of any decent size worthy of the
>effort to promote things, it WILL become a pain to maintain
>it.

i mean, if you tell 20 ppl to start their own LA events circle, and to add each other for that circle, and to share LA shit in that circle, how is membership and all the stuff you speak of coming into play?

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

or for someone to explain it to me like im 6.

you've decided one thing, that's wrong.


in the real world.

assuming all 20 of these people all created 20 circles individually with the same 20 people in them.

there;s nothing keeping any of the 20 from sharing completely unrelated things into the circles just because.

so any of the 20 people reading any of their 20 individual circles would be getting a lot of irrelevant crap any time any of the other 20 people hit the all button on their share.

if you wanted to add a 21st person, they would have to add everyone to a circle, and everyone would have to add them. and if anyone missed anyone, everything would be fucked up because not everyone would see everything anymore


THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>you've decided one thing, that's wrong.
>
>
>in the real world.
>
>assuming all 20 of these people all created 20 circles
>individually with the same 20 people in them.
>
>there;s nothing keeping any of the 20 from sharing completely
>unrelated things into the circles just because.

i thought you could designate which circle you wanted to share something with. why would someone wanting to share something in their circle for LA share something completely unrelated to LA events?

>so any of the 20 people reading any of their 20 individual
>circles would be getting a lot of irrelevant crap any time any
>of the other 20 people hit the all button on their share.

again, why hit the all button for something thats for one circle?

>if you wanted to add a 21st person, they would have to add
>everyone to a circle, and everyone would have to add them. and
>if anyone missed anyone, everything would be fucked up because
>not everyone would see everything anymore

i guess i imagined it like this:

person a checks their LA events stream. sees a post by person b. person c responds to person b's post. person a likes person c's comment, and decides to add them to their LA events circle. person c does not add person b to their LA events circle and no one gets mad. is that possible?

>THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA

ok. maybe g+ will come up with something similar but manageable.

>i thought you could designate which circle you wanted to share
>something with. why would someone wanting to share something
>in their circle for LA share something completely unrelated to
>LA events?

When you hit "your circles" or anything more inclusive, it goes to EVERYone regardless. If you hit public, it goes to EVERYone regardless. You'd have to mute that person to avoid their non-LA event posts - but you'd be avoiding their LA event posts by muting them.

>
>>so any of the 20 people reading any of their 20 individual
>>circles would be getting a lot of irrelevant crap any time
>any
>>of the other 20 people hit the all button on their share.
>
>again, why hit the all button for something thats for one
>circle?

Because if I want to make a mass post and I have 12 circles, and yours is the thirteenth, it's easier to spam you with an unwanted post than look up the other twelve circle names.

>
>>if you wanted to add a 21st person, they would have to add
>>everyone to a circle, and everyone would have to add them.
>and
>>if anyone missed anyone, everything would be fucked up
>because
>>not everyone would see everything anymore
>
>i guess i imagined it like this:
>
>person a checks their LA events stream. sees a post by person
>b. person c responds to person b's post. person a likes person
>c's comment, and decides to add them to their LA events
>circle. person c does not add person b to their LA events
>circle and no one gets mad. is that possible?

They're then missing person B's posts, defeating the entire idea of this "shared circle" of yours.

>
>>THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA
>
>ok. maybe g+ will come up with something similar but
>manageable.

What you want is a Facebook group. They have those on Facebook.

>>i thought you could designate which circle you wanted to
>share
>>something with. why would someone wanting to share something
>>in their circle for LA share something completely unrelated
>to
>>LA events?
>
>When you hit "your circles" or anything more inclusive, it
>goes to EVERYone regardless. If you hit public, it goes to
>EVERYone regardless. You'd have to mute that person to avoid
>their non-LA event posts - but you'd be avoiding their LA
>event posts by muting them.

basically what youre telling me here is that it wouldnt work because ppl wouldnt follow the rules. which i get. i pay more attention to my circles than i do my general stream, so i wouldnt need to mute them if they were following the rules.

>>>so any of the 20 people reading any of their 20 individual
>>>circles would be getting a lot of irrelevant crap any time
>>any
>>>of the other 20 people hit the all button on their share.
>>
>>again, why hit the all button for something thats for one
>>circle?
>
>Because if I want to make a mass post and I have 12 circles,
>and yours is the thirteenth, it's easier to spam you with an
>unwanted post than look up the other twelve circle names.

true.

>>>if you wanted to add a 21st person, they would have to add
>>>everyone to a circle, and everyone would have to add them.
>>and
>>>if anyone missed anyone, everything would be fucked up
>>because
>>>not everyone would see everything anymore
>>
>>i guess i imagined it like this:
>>
>>person a checks their LA events stream. sees a post by
>person
>>b. person c responds to person b's post. person a likes
>person
>>c's comment, and decides to add them to their LA events
>>circle. person c does not add person b to their LA events
>>circle and no one gets mad. is that possible?
>
>They're then missing person B's posts, defeating the entire
>idea of this "shared circle" of yours.

lol. ok.

>>you've decided one thing, that's wrong.
>>
>>
>>in the real world.
>>
>>assuming all 20 of these people all created 20 circles
>>individually with the same 20 people in them.
>>
>>there;s nothing keeping any of the 20 from sharing
>completely
>>unrelated things into the circles just because.
>
>i thought you could designate which circle you wanted to share
>something with. why would someone wanting to share something
>in their circle for LA share something completely unrelated to
>LA events?

because people hit the all button and share to all their circles. it would be entirely on these people to keep from flooding the others with their irrelevant info, and worse, if you actually did want something else from these people, you'd never get it. your idea is terrible, stop thinking it.

>
>>so any of the 20 people reading any of their 20 individual
>>circles would be getting a lot of irrelevant crap any time
>any
>>of the other 20 people hit the all button on their share.
>
>again, why hit the all button for something thats for one
>circle?

.....you have no idea how it works. you clearly have never actually shared anything on google+ and had nay idea where it was going.


>
>>if you wanted to add a 21st person, they would have to add
>>everyone to a circle, and everyone would have to add them.
>and
>>if anyone missed anyone, everything would be fucked up
>because
>>not everyone would see everything anymore
>
>i guess i imagined it like this:
>
>person a checks their LA events stream. sees a post by person
>b. person c responds to person b's post. person a likes person
>c's comment, and decides to add them to their LA events
>circle. person c does not add person b to their LA events
>circle and no one gets mad. is that possible?

there is no "la events circle".

there are a bunch of people randomly adding other people to circles.

>
>>THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA
>
>ok. maybe g+ will come up with something similar but
>manageable.

it's called a message board or an email list.


http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

i can't tell if you really don't get it, or if this is just your way of being defensive/holding your ground.

cuz it really is a simple concept.

this is why i need to quit smokin man :(

that's what you seem to be missing here

circles are just a way for you to organise your friends

eg
i just added five people to a circle called "I don't really know these people but want them to see my art"

none of those people know what this circle I made is called
and they _never will_

they just know that i added them on G+

therefore, they can't really see each other
or interact with each other
and definitely not flirt. heh


umm
get it now?

>therefore, they can't really see each other
>or interact with each other
>and definitely not flirt. heh

they can see each other in one of your posts, no?

when i read a comment from someone i dont know on the post of someone i do know, i check out their profile and see what theyre about. in this case, if i read your post on art, and saw a few comments, i'd check to see if the ppl that commented talk about art in their profile. if they do, i'd add them to my "about art" circle.


>umm
>get it now?

lol. i think im more confused now than ever.

and the person you add to your Art circle wouldn't know the specifics; they just see that you've added them. It's up to them to decide how they are going to, um, classify you.

i dont see why this is problematic.

when someone adds me, i check out their profile and see if and where i can add them.

i really dont see where what i proposed was sooo far-fetched, besides the fact that ppl wouldnt follow the rules. or am i missing something else entirely?

>
>therefore, they can't really see each other
>or interact with each other
>and definitely not flirt. heh
>

All you're really saying is, 'It'd be cool if Google+ was more like Facebook Groups/Twitter lists.'
You don't know about those features or may not use them, but that's pretty much what your'e saying.
Groups require membership, circles does not.

---------------------------------------
laugh now, cry never.
nevermind, nice guys finish fine.

not compassionate....only polite.

I am not like you at all and i cannot pretend.

you know what? you niggas dumb & i dont feel like xplaining anymore. i TIRE of your juvenile shenanigans...*retires to chaise lounge while sipping mimosa*


do or die

>i know what circles are and how they can be used.
>
>if i start an "RJCC is a douche" circle and other ppl decide
>to have an "RJCC is a douche" circle, then we can all add each
>other have that forum to discuss how much of a douche you
>are.

INVITE PLEASE!!!





>
>just jokes, but im not stupid.

No, but RJCC is.

>if i start an "RJCC is a douche" circle and other
>ppl decide to have an "RJCC is a douche" circle,
>then we can all add each other have that forum to
>discuss how much of a douche you are.

I'm busting a gut over here laughing.

Are you talking about publicly or privately created groups?

>and will be even better when ppl start seeing and using it
>for all the ways it can be useful.
>
>for instance, i'd like to start a black in LA circle.
>
>any time you wanna know whats going on in LA at any given
>time, you can go to that circle on g+ or on your phone and
>check.
>
>ppl can upload pix of parties theyre at. ppl can post flyers,
>videos of events, etc.
>
>and the singles can flirt, lol.
>
>


http://i56.tinypic.com/rwlyxs.png

The closest thing to what you are talking about would be a "huddle".

"Huddle is a new way for you to easily stay in touch while you're on the go. With Huddle, you can text groups of people or individual friends in Google+ Mobile. When you receive a new message in Huddle, Google+ sends a push notification to your phone."

http://www.google.com/support/mobile/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1304763&topic=1248781

Right now it's only on the mobile app and the functionality is limited.

i would've introduced the huddle to this
convo earlier on, but i didn't want to
further confuse her.

...ain't got a TAP of patience to hold you down. Nah, but for real, you gotta give something like that time to build. Most people haven't either heard of it or still haven't been invited. It's gonna have to take word of mouth and the selling of G+'s potential to get the ball rolling.





Since 1976

http://goofygifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/funny-animals-baby-elephant-charges.gif

http://www.freepostia.com/fimages/664ShAkY.gif

Like..."ok, I'm on, got folks on it....so, what do we do?" It is currently useless b/c everybody I have on it is on Twitter and still on FB, so it's not giving anything additional just yet. But yeah

on G+, i'm networking

i had to unfollow Pete Cashmore (Mashable). all he ever does is ride on G+'s nuts

aside from that its cool because there's only the talented 10% on it for now
so my feed is basically great talks, music recommendations from people i trust, and interesting articles. i only added the people that i really like and like to work with... and a few okps

facebook serves as a point of contact for people i've met in person at one point or another.

I don't use Twitter much at all anymore.

I do feel like I'm spoiled by the way Flickr handles photos tho. Google+ compresses things in a way that can make em look nasty at times. Not quite as bad as Facebook was before they offered high resolution photo uploading, but still kind crappy.

It's also kinda annoying how everyone's first 5-10 posts are spent just talking about Google+ and everybody shares that Useful Google+ Shortcuts or whatever article it is.

http://i51.tinypic.com/fndir.jpg

good going bro.
i'm laughing so fucking hard right now.

I was looking for it in that NBA player thread, where all these chicks were tawkinbout how fine he was and all I could see in my mind's eye, was that jpg.

What is the Blocked circle for? I don't know of any those people.

the thing with invites is pretty funny.. google makes you ask around for it.. that's why i don't want to try it.. it's so obviously a marketing ploy.. and i see through it.. so no thanks.

and a great tool. As played out as the word "Networking" is, it's helped a griiiiiiiiiiip with that.

that the majority of the people on there (for me) are people talking about tech, startups and basically suck their own cocks all day

it's not much different from the self indulgent shit you see on fb or twitter all day, but its just more boring

everybody on my network seems to only be bothered with branding themselves, what startup gets what funding etc. its like a live feed mashup between mashable, techcrunch and brandnew

theres this place outside your basement called earth. its real not the internet. lotta fun. good shit going on out there thats like...real. not internet.


do or die

Yep

Add me! (Not you OP) https://plus.google.com/107463213732606117172

this only further highlights how much i suck at this

im decent on facebook from time to time...but i have a bunch of friends and i communicate with the same 12 over and over again...

twitter moves too fast for me and i hate the platform in general and i think i follow too many people i dont care about...

my objective should be to meet new people that are like-minded or have the same interests as me or completely different interests than me but that shit rarely happens...i mostly just do updates of the funny shit i think about during a random day...my dating life...and the few little bit of time not working i spend doing fun shit

<----------- Do the KFC dance.

The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory~

right
lol
her tenacity to hold on to her position is why she's her
don't ever stop

other than you can choose who sees what updates (and that Google can access shit automatically that you might want to share)???

Folks complaining about FB for shit that's low key their fault. Talkin bout "Baby momma drama" n shit...that ain't FB, that's the hoodpoodles n hoodlums you add on there!!

Having said that, if anyone wants to add me, search 'Lamont Dozier'.


---------------------------------------


---------------------------------------

.

if you don't know how to use it
*shrug*
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

I mean I know how to use the tool

wink

no edit
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

like someone said, the tech crowd might like it
but regular people i don't think so. I can't see there being a black google+

it's also okp as shit too tho

I asked if you still have to face.

<----------- Do the KFC dance.

only YOU see the circles you make
and the people in the circles see what you post according to which circles you share with.
you can share with all of them or some of them or one of them.
it's up to you
but there are no public circles to join

:(

If you create these public circles but it's still considered private, then what's the point?

group your contacts. no one sees your circles, but you.

You can take your friends and add them to a group that you created but since you made it hidden only you see them in this group; but what I liked about that (myspace) is that if you wanted it to be public you could.

Well right now we're here complaining when Google said this is the beta stage of G+ so maybe later on down the road they will fix these things.

>Well right now we're here complaining when Google said this is
>the beta stage of G+ so maybe later on down the road they will
>fix these things.



*facepalm*
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

...but you get what I mean, maybe they will update this feature with better options.

>*facepalm*

...and to you I'll give you the *scrunched face*

<----------- Do the KFC dance.

(notice how I used plural up there...)

#teamthatsite

http://youtu.be/8SaeEQWkVJ0


<------ Boho Model Madness Presents: Andy Allo

http://www.gifsoup.com/view3/2298233/andyallo2-o.gif

http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://djshinobishaw.tumblr.com/
http://twitter.com/DJShinobiShaw
PSN: ShinobiShaw

"Arm Leg Leg Arm How you doin?" (c) T510

"I think he's talking to you."

Bwahahaha!!!

lol

and continue to debate it.. is just beyond my powers of comprehension..

Ego is a hulleva drug.

im not debating. im asking questions and not getting it.

in case you didnt notice, im only slightly embarrassed by being wrong. im more frustrated with staying wrong, which is why im persisting.

but apparently, the nerds are saying it can't... so I'll trust the nerds for now.. who knows.. I'm sure Google will have to innovate on this... social sites are all about the public connection.. and not necessarily with the people you only have as close friends... what's the point in only being circles you already have via email and facebook? what is the benefit of using google+?

What we've been trying to explain to her is that, as of 2:35 AM EST on Tuesday, July 26, 2011 A.C.E., shit don't work like that.

im not smoking no weed for the rest of the week behind this post!

Don't ever change yo! lol

from what I understand.. is that you build your own specified circles... kind of like branches in a tree... all come from you.. but are not themselves connected directly... I'm sure there will be some type of cross over connection though.. there must be some type of innovative twist on what we currently have.. twitter was innovative because it cut out all the "fluff"... know full well they could just add it on later.. lol...

just like the buzz thing they tried to start.
the circles thing is stupid, I don't need to label people.
I don't the contacts from my gmail account on a social network.

>just like the buzz thing they tried to start.
>the circles thing is stupid, I don't need to label people.

I do. I have to separate the curd from the whey sometimes. I do this on FB all the time with all sorts of complex tiered privacy options, but Google + makes it a lot easier.

>I don't the contacts from my gmail account on a social
>network.

you don't have to add them.
>
>

got the labels in my head

twitter annoys me
tumblr is just random pictures over and over

facebook is about the only thing I can tolerate.
too many sites going on to keep up with. all I need is one.

and i don't even smoke!

I'd bet anything that the vast majority of people (that aren't geeks) thinks thats how circles work.

Hence why I don't ever see G+ taking off in a major way.

Nikka is still dumb as shit for not understand multiple attempts at explaining it to her, but you're right...Google has failed again at clearly laying out what one of their products actually does.

G+ is a *slightly* cleaner product launch than Google Wave.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>I'd bet anything that the vast majority of people (that
>aren't geeks) thinks thats how circles work.

I think most users misunderstand facebook, too, when it comes to privacy and how to restrict content to certain groups - hence the drama and complication of sharing content.

Google is (mostly) responsible for Circles' misunderstandings and thinking at 'it's just like fb' doesn't help.
It's a battle of sharing models.

The facebook approach of symmetrical sharing is too simple and the Google Plus approach of tiered content can be confusing.
Our relationships IRL are complicated and I'm not sure a Google Plus replication is the best solution.

>Hence why I don't ever see G+ taking off in a major way.

To be fair, this is the same indictment that was placed on Twitter.
It was "too techy, nerdy, etc., but time will tell.

Get 25% off www.karmaloop.com w/ rep code JR9103 SALE!!!!

JUST for the replies alone from the usual suspects...

LOL!

I understand Google + better than I ever could reading about it elsewhere.
Salutes all parties involved.Snarkers and snarked alike.

.

I talk to move to Google Plus, Imma stay with just using Facebook. It's too much.

It took people a while to figure out how to use twitter. Shit, some people still don't know.

I've been spending time reading articles written by the developers to get a better understanding of how everything works.

I would say that so far the quality over quantity on G+ is the biggest attraction for me, right now.

Plus, it's still in beta. And it's brand spanking new.

http://www.google.com/support/+/

@Nikka - this one's for you, mon cher: :)
http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/static.py?hl=en&page=guide.cs&guide=1257347&rd=1

so i can see how useless it is?

.

that exchange was awesome. I mean on the Tupac/Two Pacs level.

**********
the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.

me and my 5 friends make a mutual circle that we put each other in

i mean, the only problem with that is when it grows to be like 40 people

https://plus.google.com/105741610296406100064/posts/c57jv2vk4e4

"Group discussions

Okay, so there are discussions happening all over the place on Google+. Public/Private posts, comments, Hangouts (10-person video chat), and Huddles (mobile-only group chatrooms). But ever since the advent of Twitter Lists, people have wondered (perhaps too quietly/subconsciously) why there can't be a way of everyone in a list tweeting at each other on a given topic (e.g. Design)? Facebook has Groups for this, and mailing lists have existed for ages.

The issue here is that for a community to share content with each other (a community could be something like Arduino enthusiasts located in a particular city), everyone will need to maintain their own copy of the list. Twitter Lists can serve as a pretty good example, where Lists can be public or private, and if they're public, they can be "followed" by other users. This doesn't imply that the members of the followed List or Circle would see your content, though. In both cases, your content would only be seen if the other members of the List or Circle either A.) follow the same List/Circle, or B.) follow/add you directly. Facebook Groups handles this differently, where if you are added to a Group, you start to see posts from other members of the Group, even if you don't know them.

This area seems to be a mess, especially if you consider the desktop-only Google+ Hangouts, mobile-only Google+ Huddles, or the options available from other services (mailing lists, Twitter Lists, and Facebook Groups, oh my!)."

http://groups.google.com/?pli=1


**********
the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.

and the relaunch leans more toward a messageboard - what Rjcc mentioned earlier.

out there TWICE.

Crickets.

Let me post a taco, though.

i know some jobs out here

my govt is susan caldwell.

http://profiles.google.com/dominickbrady

might actually get their attention.

i definitely like the circles feature and how easy it is to manage and control your privacy.

i like that i can share whatever's on my mind to a smaller, more refined group of people, rather than to a whole stadium audience.

i'm not going to bother importing my facebook photos to g+...its probably easy but ehh. it feels like a fresh start so i'll just post new pictures from here on out for g+.

i see fb and twitter comparisons but i dont understand

>i see fb and twitter comparisons but i dont understand
>
>

google+?

it's really a very simple concept. this post and the confusion in it made it seem much more complicated than it is.

all it is is google's version of facebook.

https://plus.google.com/112678702228711889851/posts/eVeouesvaVX#112678702228711889851/posts/eVeouesvaVX

i'm gonna swipe it in case it gets pulled.

Ol boy goes in on Amazon and throws shots at a lot of Tech Giants.
______________________________________________________________
Stevey's Google Platforms Rant

I was at Amazon for about six and a half years, and now I've been at Google for that long. One thing that struck me immediately about the two companies -- an impression that has been reinforced almost daily -- is that Amazon does everything wrong, and Google does everything right. Sure, it's a sweeping generalization, but a surprisingly accurate one. It's pretty crazy. There are probably a hundred or even two hundred different ways you can compare the two companies, and Google is superior in all but three of them, if I recall correctly. I actually did a spreadsheet at one point but Legal wouldn't let me show it to anyone, even though recruiting loved it.

I mean, just to give you a very brief taste: Amazon's recruiting process is fundamentally flawed by having teams hire for themselves, so their hiring bar is incredibly inconsistent across teams, despite various efforts they've made to level it out. And their operations are a mess; they don't really have SREs and they make engineers pretty much do everything, which leaves almost no time for coding - though again this varies by group, so it's luck of the draw. They don't give a single shit about charity or helping the needy or community contributions or anything like that. Never comes up there, except maybe to laugh about it. Their facilities are dirt-smeared cube farms without a dime spent on decor or common meeting areas. Their pay and benefits suck, although much less so lately due to local competition from Google and Facebook. But they don't have any of our perks or extras -- they just try to match the offer-letter numbers, and that's the end of it. Their code base is a disaster, with no engineering standards whatsoever except what individual teams choose to put in place.

To be fair, they do have a nice versioned-library system that we really ought to emulate, and a nice publish-subscribe system that we also have no equivalent for. But for the most part they just have a bunch of crappy tools that read and write state machine information into relational databases. We wouldn't take most of it even if it were free.

I think the pubsub system and their library-shelf system were two out of the grand total of three things Amazon does better than google.

I guess you could make an argument that their bias for launching early and iterating like mad is also something they do well, but you can argue it either way. They prioritize launching early over everything else, including retention and engineering discipline and a bunch of other stuff that turns out to matter in the long run. So even though it's given them some competitive advantages in the marketplace, it's created enough other problems to make it something less than a slam-dunk.

But there's one thing they do really really well that pretty much makes up for ALL of their political, philosophical and technical screw-ups.

Jeff Bezos is an infamous micro-manager. He micro-manages every single pixel of Amazon's retail site. He hired Larry Tesler, Apple's Chief Scientist and probably the very most famous and respected human-computer interaction expert in the entire world, and then ignored every goddamn thing Larry said for three years until Larry finally -- wisely -- left the company. Larry would do these big usability studies and demonstrate beyond any shred of doubt that nobody can understand that frigging website, but Bezos just couldn't let go of those pixels, all those millions of semantics-packed pixels on the landing page. They were like millions of his own precious children. So they're all still there, and Larry is not.

Micro-managing isn't that third thing that Amazon does better than us, by the way. I mean, yeah, they micro-manage really well, but I wouldn't list it as a strength or anything. I'm just trying to set the context here, to help you understand what happened. We're talking about a guy who in all seriousness has said on many public occasions that people should be paying him to work at Amazon. He hands out little yellow stickies with his name on them, reminding people "who runs the company" when they disagree with him. The guy is a regular... well, Steve Jobs, I guess. Except without the fashion or design sense. Bezos is super smart; don't get me wrong. He just makes ordinary control freaks look like stoned hippies.

So one day Jeff Bezos issued a mandate. He's doing that all the time, of course, and people scramble like ants being pounded with a rubber mallet whenever it happens. But on one occasion -- back around 2002 I think, plus or minus a year -- he issued a mandate that was so out there, so huge and eye-bulgingly ponderous, that it made all of his other mandates look like unsolicited peer bonuses.

His Big Mandate went something along these lines:

1) All teams will henceforth expose their data and functionality through service interfaces.

2) Teams must communicate with each other through these interfaces.

3) There will be no other form of interprocess communication allowed: no direct linking, no direct reads of another team's data store, no shared-memory model, no back-doors whatsoever. The only communication allowed is via service interface calls over the network.

4) It doesn't matter what technology they use. HTTP, Corba, Pubsub, custom protocols -- doesn't matter. Bezos doesn't care.

5) All service interfaces, without exception, must be designed from the ground up to be externalizable. That is to say, the team must plan and design to be able to expose the interface to developers in the outside world. No exceptions.

6) Anyone who doesn't do this will be fired.

7) Thank you; have a nice day!

Ha, ha! You 150-odd ex-Amazon folks here will of course realize immediately that #7 was a little joke I threw in, because Bezos most definitely does not give a shit about your day.

#6, however, was quite real, so people went to work. Bezos assigned a couple of Chief Bulldogs to oversee the effort and ensure forward progress, headed up by Uber-Chief Bear Bulldog Rick Dalzell. Rick is an ex-Armgy Ranger, West Point Academy graduate, ex-boxer, ex-Chief Torturer slash CIO at Wal*Mart, and is a big genial scary man who used the word "hardened interface" a lot. Rick was a walking, talking hardened interface himself, so needless to say, everyone made LOTS of forward progress and made sure Rick knew about it.

Over the next couple of years, Amazon transformed internally into a service-oriented architecture. They learned a tremendous amount while effecting this transformation. There was lots of existing documentation and lore about SOAs, but at Amazon's vast scale it was about as useful as telling Indiana Jones to look both ways before crossing the street. Amazon's dev staff made a lot of discoveries along the way. A teeny tiny sampling of these discoveries included:

- pager escalation gets way harder, because a ticket might bounce through 20 service calls before the real owner is identified. If each bounce goes through a team with a 15-minute response time, it can be hours before the right team finally finds out, unless you build a lot of scaffolding and metrics and reporting.

- every single one of your peer teams suddenly becomes a potential DOS attacker. Nobody can make any real forward progress until very serious quotas and throttling are put in place in every single service.

- monitoring and QA are the same thing. You'd never think so until you try doing a big SOA. But when your service says "oh yes, I'm fine", it may well be the case that the only thing still functioning in the server is the little component that knows how to say "I'm fine, roger roger, over and out" in a cheery droid voice. In order to tell whether the service is actually responding, you have to make individual calls. The problem continues recursively until your monitoring is doing comprehensive semantics checking of your entire range of services and data, at which point it's indistinguishable from automated QA. So they're a continuum.

- if you have hundreds of services, and your code MUST communicate with other groups' code via these services, then you won't be able to find any of them without a service-discovery mechanism. And you can't have that without a service registration mechanism, which itself is another service. So Amazon has a universal service registry where you can find out reflectively (programmatically) about every service, what its APIs are, and also whether it is currently up, and where.

- debugging problems with someone else's code gets a LOT harder, and is basically impossible unless there is a universal standard way to run every service in a debuggable sandbox.

That's just a very small sample. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of individual learnings like these that Amazon had to discover organically. There were a lot of wacky ones around externalizing services, but not as many as you might think. Organizing into services taught teams not to trust each other in most of the same ways they're not supposed to trust external developers.

This effort was still underway when I left to join Google in mid-2005, but it was pretty far advanced. From the time Bezos issued his edict through the time I left, Amazon had transformed culturally into a company that thinks about everything in a services-first fashion. It is now fundamental to how they approach all designs, including internal designs for stuff that might never see the light of day externally.

At this point they don't even do it out of fear of being fired. I mean, they're still afraid of that; it's pretty much part of daily life there, working for the Dread Pirate Bezos and all. But they do services because they've come to understand that it's the Right Thing. There are without question pros and cons to the SOA approach, and some of the cons are pretty long. But overall it's the right thing because SOA-driven design enables Platforms.

That's what Bezos was up to with his edict, of course. He didn't (and doesn't) care even a tiny bit about the well-being of the teams, nor about what technologies they use, nor in fact any detail whatsoever about how they go about their business unless they happen to be screwing up. But Bezos realized long before the vast majority of Amazonians that Amazon needs to be a platform.

You wouldn't really think that an online bookstore needs to be an extensible, programmable platform. Would you?

Well, the first big thing Bezos realized is that the infrastructure they'd built for selling and shipping books and sundry could be transformed an excellent repurposable computing platform. So now they have the Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud, and the Amazon Elastic MapReduce, and the Amazon Relational Database Service, and a whole passel' o' other services browsable at aws.amazon.com. These services host the backends for some pretty successful companies, reddit being my personal favorite of the bunch.

The other big realization he had was that he can't always build the right thing. I think Larry Tesler might have struck some kind of chord in Bezos when he said his mom couldn't use the goddamn website. It's not even super clear whose mom he was talking about, and doesn't really matter, because nobody's mom can use the goddamn website. In fact I myself find the website disturbingly daunting, and I worked there for over half a decade. I've just learned to kinda defocus my eyes and concentrate on the million or so pixels near the center of the page above the fold.

I'm not really sure how Bezos came to this realization -- the insight that he can't build one product and have it be right for everyone. But it doesn't matter, because he gets it. There's actually a formal name for this phenomenon. It's called Accessibility, and it's the most important thing in the computing world.

The. Most. Important. Thing.

If you're sorta thinking, "huh? You mean like, blind and deaf people Accessibility?" then you're not alone, because I've come to understand that there are lots and LOTS of people just like you: people for whom this idea does not have the right Accessibility, so it hasn't been able to get through to you yet. It's not your fault for not understanding, any more than it would be your fault for being blind or deaf or motion-restricted or living with any other disability. When software -- or idea-ware for that matter -- fails to be accessible to anyone for any reason, it is the fault of the software or of the messaging of the idea. It is an Accessibility failure.

Like anything else big and important in life, Accessibility has an evil twin who, jilted by the unbalanced affection displayed by their parents in their youth, has grown into an equally powerful Arch-Nemesis (yes, there's more than one nemesis to accessibility) named Security. And boy howdy are the two ever at odds.

But I'll argue that Accessibility is actually more important than Security because dialing Accessibility to zero means you have no product at all, whereas dialing Security to zero can still get you a reasonably successful product such as the Playstation Network.

So yeah. In case you hadn't noticed, I could actually write a book on this topic. A fat one, filled with amusing anecdotes about ants and rubber mallets at companies I've worked at. But I will never get this little rant published, and you'll never get it read, unless I start to wrap up.

That one last thing that Google doesn't do well is Platforms. We don't understand platforms. We don't "get" platforms. Some of you do, but you are the minority. This has become painfully clear to me over the past six years. I was kind of hoping that competitive pressure from Microsoft and Amazon and more recently Facebook would make us wake up collectively and start doing universal services. Not in some sort of ad-hoc, half-assed way, but in more or less the same way Amazon did it: all at once, for real, no cheating, and treating it as our top priority from now on.

But no. No, it's like our tenth or eleventh priority. Or fifteenth, I don't know. It's pretty low. There are a few teams who treat the idea very seriously, but most teams either don't think about it all, ever, or only a small percentage of them think about it in a very small way.

It's a big stretch even to get most teams to offer a stubby service to get programmatic access to their data and computations. Most of them think they're building products. And a stubby service is a pretty pathetic service. Go back and look at that partial list of learnings from Amazon, and tell me which ones Stubby gives you out of the box. As far as I'm concerned, it's none of them. Stubby's great, but it's like parts when you need a car.

A product is useless without a platform, or more precisely and accurately, a platform-less product will always be replaced by an equivalent platform-ized product.

Google+ is a prime example of our complete failure to understand platforms from the very highest levels of executive leadership (hi Larry, Sergey, Eric, Vic, howdy howdy) down to the very lowest leaf workers (hey yo). We all don't get it. The Golden Rule of platforms is that you Eat Your Own Dogfood. The Google+ platform is a pathetic afterthought. We had no API at all at launch, and last I checked, we had one measly API call. One of the team members marched in and told me about it when they launched, and I asked: "So is it the Stalker API?" She got all glum and said "Yeah." I mean, I was joking, but no... the only API call we offer is to get someone's stream. So I guess the joke was on me.

Microsoft has known about the Dogfood rule for at least twenty years. It's been part of their culture for a whole generation now. You don't eat People Food and give your developers Dog Food. Doing that is simply robbing your long-term platform value for short-term successes. Platforms are all about long-term thinking.

Google+ is a knee-jerk reaction, a study in short-term thinking, predicated on the incorrect notion that Facebook is successful because they built a great product. But that's not why they are successful. Facebook is successful because they built an entire constellation of products by allowing other people to do the work. So Facebook is different for everyone. Some people spend all their time on Mafia Wars. Some spend all their time on Farmville. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of different high-quality time sinks available, so there's something there for everyone.

Our Google+ team took a look at the aftermarket and said: "Gosh, it looks like we need some games. Let's go contract someone to, um, write some games for us." Do you begin to see how incredibly wrong that thinking is now? The problem is that we are trying to predict what people want and deliver it for them.

You can't do that. Not really. Not reliably. There have been precious few people in the world, over the entire history of computing, who have been able to do it reliably. Steve Jobs was one of them. We don't have a Steve Jobs here. I'm sorry, but we don't.

Larry Tesler may have convinced Bezos that he was no Steve Jobs, but Bezos realized that he didn't need to be a Steve Jobs in order to provide everyone with the right products: interfaces and workflows that they liked and felt at ease with. He just needed to enable third-party developers to do it, and it would happen automatically.

I apologize to those (many) of you for whom all this stuff I'm saying is incredibly obvious, because yeah. It's incredibly frigging obvious. Except we're not doing it. We don't get Platforms, and we don't get Accessibility. The two are basically the same thing, because platforms solve accessibility. A platform is accessibility.

So yeah, Microsoft gets it. And you know as well as I do how surprising that is, because they don't "get" much of anything, really. But they understand platforms as a purely accidental outgrowth of having started life in the business of providing platforms. So they have thirty-plus years of learning in this space. And if you go to msdn.com, and spend some time browsing, and you've never seen it before, prepare to be amazed. Because it's staggeringly huge. They have thousands, and thousands, and THOUSANDS of API calls. They have a HUGE platform. Too big in fact, because they can't design for squat, but at least they're doing it.

Amazon gets it. Amazon's AWS (aws.amazon.com) is incredible. Just go look at it. Click around. It's embarrassing. We don't have any of that stuff.

Apple gets it, obviously. They've made some fundamentally non-open choices, particularly around their mobile platform. But they understand accessibility and they understand the power of third-party development and they eat their dogfood. And you know what? They make pretty good dogfood. Their APIs are a hell of a lot cleaner than Microsoft's, and have been since time immemorial.

Facebook gets it. That's what really worries me. That's what got me off my lazy butt to write this thing. I hate blogging. I hate... plussing, or whatever it's called when you do a massive rant in Google+ even though it's a terrible venue for it but you do it anyway because in the end you really do want Google to be successful. And I do! I mean, Facebook wants me there, and it'd be pretty easy to just go. But Google is home, so I'm insisting that we have this little family intervention, uncomfortable as it might be.

After you've marveled at the platform offerings of Microsoft and Amazon, and Facebook I guess (I didn't look because I didn't want to get too depressed), head over to developers.google.com and browse a little. Pretty big difference, eh? It's like what your fifth-grade nephew might mock up if he were doing an assignment to demonstrate what a big powerful platform company might be building if all they had, resource-wise, was one fifth grader.

Please don't get me wrong here -- I know for a fact that the dev-rel team has had to FIGHT to get even this much available externally. They're kicking ass as far as I'm concerned, because they DO get platforms, and they are struggling heroically to try to create one in an environment that is at best platform-apathetic, and at worst often openly hostile to the idea.

I'm just frankly describing what developers.google.com looks like to an outsider. It looks childish. Where's the Maps APIs in there for Christ's sake? Some of the things in there are labs projects. And the APIs for everything I clicked were... they were paltry. They were obviously dog food. Not even good organic stuff. Compared to our internal APIs it's all snouts and horse hooves.

And also don't get me wrong about Google+. They're far from the only offenders. This is a cultural thing. What we have going on internally is basically a war, with the underdog minority Platformers fighting a more or less losing battle against the Mighty Funded Confident Producters.

Any teams that have successfully internalized the notion that they should be externally programmable platforms from the ground up are underdogs -- Maps and Docs come to mind, and I know GMail is making overtures in that direction. But it's hard for them to get funding for it because it's not part of our culture. Maestro's funding is a feeble thing compared to the gargantuan Microsoft Office programming platform: it's a fluffy rabbit versus a T-Rex. The Docs team knows they'll never be competitive with Office until they can match its scripting facilities, but they're not getting any resource love. I mean, I assume they're not, given that Apps Script only works in Spreadsheet right now, and it doesn't even have keyboard shortcuts as part of its API. That team looks pretty unloved to me.

Ironically enough, Wave was a great platform, may they rest in peace. But making something a platform is not going to make you an instant success. A platform needs a killer app. Facebook -- that is, the stock service they offer with walls and friends and such -- is the killer app for the Facebook Platform. And it is a very serious mistake to conclude that the Facebook App could have been anywhere near as successful without the Facebook Platform.

You know how people are always saying Google is arrogant? I'm a Googler, so I get as irritated as you do when people say that. We're not arrogant, by and large. We're, like, 99% Arrogance-Free. I did start this post -- if you'll reach back into distant memory -- by describing Google as "doing everything right". We do mean well, and for the most part when people say we're arrogant it's because we didn't hire them, or they're unhappy with our policies, or something along those lines. They're inferring arrogance because it makes them feel better.

But when we take the stance that we know how to design the perfect product for everyone, and believe you me, I hear that a lot, then we're being fools. You can attribute it to arrogance, or naivete, or whatever -- it doesn't matter in the end, because it's foolishness. There IS no perfect product for everyone.

And so we wind up with a browser that doesn't let you set the default font size. Talk about an affront to Accessibility. I mean, as I get older I'm actually going blind. For real. I've been nearsighted all my life, and once you hit 40 years old you stop being able to see things up close. So font selection becomes this life-or-death thing: it can lock you out of the product completely. But the Chrome team is flat-out arrogant here: they want to build a zero-configuration product, and they're quite brazen about it, and Fuck You if you're blind or deaf or whatever. Hit Ctrl-+ on every single page visit for the rest of your life.

It's not just them. It's everyone. The problem is that we're a Product Company through and through. We built a successful product with broad appeal -- our search, that is -- and that wild success has biased us.

Amazon was a product company too, so it took an out-of-band force to make Bezos understand the need for a platform. That force was their evaporating margins; he was cornered and had to think of a way out. But all he had was a bunch of engineers and all these computers... if only they could be monetized somehow... you can see how he arrived at AWS, in hindsight.

Microsoft started out as a platform, so they've just had lots of practice at it.

Facebook, though: they worry me. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure they started off as a Product and they rode that success pretty far. So I'm not sure exactly how they made the transition to a platform. It was a relatively long time ago, since they had to be a platform before (now very old) things like Mafia Wars could come along.

Maybe they just looked at us and asked: "How can we beat Google? What are they missing?"

The problem we face is pretty huge, because it will take a dramatic cultural change in order for us to start catching up. We don't do internal service-oriented platforms, and we just as equally don't do external ones. This means that the "not getting it" is endemic across the company: the PMs don't get it, the engineers don't get it, the product teams don't get it, nobody gets it. Even if individuals do, even if YOU do, it doesn't matter one bit unless we're treating it as an all-hands-on-deck emergency. We can't keep launching products and pretending we'll turn them into magical beautiful extensible platforms later. We've tried that and it's not working.

The Golden Rule of Platforms, "Eat Your Own Dogfood", can be rephrased as "Start with a Platform, and Then Use it for Everything." You can't just bolt it on later. Certainly not easily at any rate -- ask anyone who worked on platformizing MS Office. Or anyone who worked on platformizing Amazon. If you delay it, it'll be ten times as much work as just doing it correctly up front. You can't cheat. You can't have secret back doors for internal apps to get special priority access, not for ANY reason. You need to solve the hard problems up front.

I'm not saying it's too late for us, but the longer we wait, the closer we get to being Too Late.

I honestly don't know how to wrap this up. I've said pretty much everything I came here to say today. This post has been six years in the making. I'm sorry if I wasn't gentle enough, or if I misrepresented some product or team or person, or if we're actually doing LOTS of platform stuff and it just so happens that I and everyone I ever talk to has just never heard about it. I'm sorry.

But we've gotta start doing this right.

They tried building a platform first with Wave and it was a disaster.

This time they built a minimal feature set before working on the API. I think it was the right move.

watching youtube videos.

totally useless.

...can respond in the same "thread" and share, flirt or whatever. After interacting, they can add each other to circles, so if they are in the same circle, they can see the same posts. Basically what FB does.

The way she explains sounds like okp tho'.

however, since then, g+ has added the ability to share your circles, so keeping it in sync would be easier. it would still be dumb however.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

handicap it for ever competing for facebook's userbase.

and its fucking nice

http://www.youtube.com/WHITEHOUSE?feature=inp-lt-SOU
Hangin' out.

.

5 others whose name I can't read.