Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Jan 2014 20:39 UTC
Google

You no longer need someone's email address to send them an email. At least, that will soon be the case if you want to email another Google+ user. A new Gmail "feature" will let you simply type in anyone's name into Gmail's "to" field and send them an email. Google announced the new Google+ integration on its Gmail blog today, but company representatives have clarified to The Verge that - by default - anyone on its social network will be able to send messages to your Gmail inbox.

It's opt-out; so it's enabled by default. I don't think Google has ever had a more stupid idea than this. This is just all-around bad - no ifs, no buts, nothing. You must be completely brain-dead to think that implementing this "feature" is in any way, shape, or form, a good idea.

I'll be turning this off right away - I don't want random internet people emailing me any more than they already do. Equally idiotic, when you start typing a name in Gmail's to/cc fields, it will autocomplete to Google+ usernames. I have no idea if you can turn this brain fart off.

I don't like Google+, I don't want Google+ - I just want it to go away. Please.

Thread beginning with comment 580440
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Stupid to hate Google+
by Lunitik on Sat 11th Jan 2014 02:08 UTC
Lunitik
Member since:
2005-08-07

Seriously, if you don't like it, you should just stop using Google services full stop.

Google+ IS the new Google, everyone at Google goes on telling us this. Finally, everything Google has been doing are becoming integrated, rather than a bunch of random services that have nothing in common.

This is good, it means Google is going to be even more useful to everyone.

If you don't want technology to be useful, you should just stop using it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Stupid to hate Google+
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 12th Jan 2014 19:36 in reply to "Stupid to hate Google+"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Seriously, if you don't like it, you should just stop using Google services full stop.

Google+ IS the new Google, everyone at Google goes on telling us this. Finally, everything Google has been doing are becoming integrated, rather than a bunch of random services that have nothing in common.


There's a difference between sensible integration and attempting to force an artificial halo effect. The latter approach hasn't worked very well for Microsoft and their attempts to cram Metro down everyone's throats, I can't see how it's going work any better for Google+.

This is good, it means Google is going to be even more useful to everyone.


In what ways does it make Google's services more useful? Personally, the integration with G+ has caused nothing but annoyances for, especially as it relates to youTube. E.g. if you have/manage a youtube channel, then G+ is unavoidable - unless you're OK with your channel page displaying the default generic head-and-shoulders silhouette, overlaid on top of your banner image. The way it's implemented seems particularly anti-feature-esque: instead of allowing you to upload the profile photo directly from the youtube account settings, you have to switch over to the completely separate Google+ interface.

In my opinion, that should barely even qualify as integration - it's "integration" to the same extent that OSNews is "integrated" with Gravatar. The difference being that my expectations are *little* higher with Google, given that OSNews doesn't also own/control Gravatar & isn't a technology company with thousands of developers, billions of dollars to spend, etc.

It's also worth noting that I could have just taken the lazy route by simply pointing out that since "everyone" is an absolute, the existence of even one person who doesn't find the changes useful makes your statement factually incorrect.

If you don't want technology to be useful, you should just stop using it.


False dichotomy, that suggests that technology cannot be "useful" without that type of integration. I see that as being the laziest approach to making pieces of technology work together - integration is easy when everything is built by the same vendor with end-to-end control over the specific implementations. I think that true, vendor-neutral interoperability is much more impressive - and substantially more useful in the long-term, because formally-defined, publicly-available standards and protocols can be implemented (and improved) by anyone.

Reply Parent Score: 5