yanw

It's way too early to tell, ask again when it's visible to all users and integrated into all of Google's products and have the basic features of search and even decent (vanity) urls, not to mention not requiring an invite.

It's Google's social play, something it must have, a list of people you know and interact with over Google products. It's a work in progress and will yet unfold for some time.

And by the way, if any other startup got the numbers they have it would be dubbed a huge success, it's just that people like to speculate about everything Google as it gets them clicks.

Coupons, reviews, social networks and aggregation are hardly novel ideas. They've existed long before computation, and even were implemented in software before those you mention.

It's always buy v build, the rest of your comment doesn't make sense.

I do. And I haven't published even one post that wasn't targeted to a specific circle (non public).

I think maybe the author should wait for G+ to be visible to all users and integrated over all Google's products, have a search feature and not to mentioned easier to sign up to before he starts echoing unreliable and meaningless stats.

They specify what they mean by "evil": http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/googevil

It's an obvious next step then. Their hotel search tool is US only as well: http://www.google.com/hotelfinder

I guess when they are combined into /travel they will be internationalized.

First iteration.

"Plotted"?! why make it sound so nefarious? they choose an OEM and release the code after the first device hits market.

Florian Mueller is spinning this as news and people are echoing him unthinkingly. There is nothing new here nor is it any sort of foul play just the spins of interested parties.

Of course it will. It's a bottleneck, and once it's unrestricted and there is no friction to joining they will market it to the non-techies. And regardless even a techie exclusive user-base is far from worthless.

It will stop being invite only eventually, and I don't think Google is going to kill the project it's along term play that they are investing a lot in, and as integrates with all of Google's other services it'll become more valuable and get exposed to the millions using those services.

I'm not sure how telling any of this is, usage and traffic are going to rise and fall after the initial launch I'm sure it was expected mainly because the market for social networks is already saturated. Keeping and eye on traffic in this initial stage is as useless as watching stock prices go up and down everyday.

The service will have at least another launch as it gets out of beta and offers an API and so forth and traffic will probably rise then.

As for having a mostly techie userbase it's just where it's market penetration starts, and techies are the most likely to adopt a new invite only app. I'm sure other demographics will take notice when everyone has the +Name on the navigation bar and the app's features are integrated with most of Google's services.

A profile is too static to be a service, and yes the insistence is on the name in the profile.

To add some context: he was asked by a war reporter (Andy Carvin) about people living under totalitarian regimes and their correlation with the G+ real name policy.

So basically the answer is that if you are endangered by reveling your real name, you shouldn't use it, at least not at this stage which is prudent advice.

Be that as it may, do think the primary reason for insisting on real names is to target ads better? they first need a sufficient critical mass to implement that, their reasons are different, at least in this early stage.

I'm not sure how much of that is improvisation on Eric's part or how much of his original meaning was preserved in the paraphrase, either way I doubt he is involved with the development of G+.

Not that there was much wrong with what was said, but if you're after some real insight here is a recent interview with Bradley Horowitz were he touches on psuedonyms, and basically says that the service will be more inclusive as it matures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5sRC67s9fg#t=26m25s

Here is their rational:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5sRC67s9fg#t=26m25s

I don't see how it is an "evil concept", I think what he means by identity service is a platform on which they can build social apps, it's same as social network.

And I'm quite annoyed by claims that associate a real identity requirement with selling data or ad targeting and such, they can target well enough using interests, not sure your name improves much on it.

Also instead of speculating read the service's privacy policy and be certain about it.

No it isn't: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20096313-264/what-happens-...

I'm all for pseudonymous actually, and I've never argued against them. I use them where allowed and don't where they are not (or not participate at all).

What gets on my nerves however are those comparing their grievances with a project not yet mature to those currently struggling in freedom struggles around the world.

Other services aren't affected. Period.

That is just a vicious rumor. They explicitly said the no other service of theirs will be affected.

The knowledge that it is still a beta product should soften your anger, it's a matter of tweaking the system it's nothing to be offended by.

Any anger here is manufactured. It's just a way for social-media types to publicize their social web theories.

I don't think there has to be an ulterior motive to this sort of policy, they have decided upon a set of rules to build their community and that is it.

And persons with theories about how socializing on the web should be, start chiming-in as they chose this pseudonym topic to publicize and unfold their theories and criticisms. They can go elsewhere to be as pseudo-anonymous as they like, I recognize that pseudonyms have legitimate purpose but all this self entitled rhetoric is just trolling.

I'm not saying that pseudonyms are without legitimate purpose, I'm saying that Google has decided to enforce certain rules to build their community and this response is deafening and unnecessary.

It's nowhere near the big issue that the self-described activists think it is.

I'm certain the data suggests that using real names isn't a problem for the vast majority of people but merely the obsession of the very loud and self-righteous few, besides it's still a closed beta product and any such criticisms don't apply until they say that it's ready and open for all.

More Than Two-Thirds of Google+ Activity Is Private: http://allthingsd.com/20110721/more-than-two-thirds-of-googl...

It's designed mainly for private sharing hence the circles.

This is madness.

I'm merely guessing, but seeing how the law takes a backseat when security and anti-terror are involved I suppose that EU governments and the US have reached some sort of agreement about which set of laws to enforce in certain cases.

I'm sure that a secret agreement between EU governments and the US have been reached, as is the case when security is involved.