Bwahaha! =) Not surprising - imagine Chrome advertising Skype plugins? Same thing here - you don't allow your business to be compromised by competitors' ads.
While I don't mind Google+ at all (end-user has to have choices!), I'm very upset with many of my friends who'd rant about how bad and stupid FB is, yet happily jumped on Google+ once it came out... as if it's different. Am I missing something?
[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom] I'm very upset with many of my friends who'd rant about how bad and stupid FB is, yet happily jumped on Google+ once it came out... as if it's different. Am I missing something?[/citation]
It is different. The privacy issues are not the same and the way you interact with others is been revolutionized in my opinion. Not to mention, IMHO, Google as a company is much easier to get behind than facebook and zuckerberg.
Mostly, the ability to seperate people into circles and decide what people see is awesome. Could easily be replicated by facebook I assume, but for now, Google is doing better than Facebook in the social arena, as far as software goes anyway.
Yes it is different, instead of orkut (which was a facebook clone) it's a hub to all your other google services including Picasa, Talk, Latitude, Places, Documents, etc.
Unlike the Facebook a person doesn't spend years adjusting their security settings to limit what is shared with who and vice versa. Instead one only shares what they want with who they want when they post it.
Currently people don't annoy everyone in the world with what browser based game they're wasting your time with, or whatever app or advertisement they accidently? clicked on. They Post, chat or group chat with the individuals and only the individuals they want to, and leave all the other annoying stuff back on that other web site.
"Unfortunately we cannot provide you with the specific violations that have been deemed abusive."
the act was not really abusive, he was paying facebook money to promote another website, exactly how every other ad works. This just proves that according to the EULA facebook can consider anything they want as abusive and ban anyone they want for no reason.
Imagine if it was found-out that Google was blocking a competitors advertisements. Believe it or not, Facebook is also in the business of advertising company. Yes, they make money off of Facebook points, but how do you think they really keep afloat? They use Facebook.com as a directed advertising research tool. Google offers you search, email, android, docs, etc.. all as platforms for their advertising business, that's how they make money. Facebook does the same thing, from a different angle. They offer you social networking, casual gaming, etc.., all for advertising research. You don't think they run Facebook.com out of the goodness of their hearts do you? Hell, Zuckerberg conceived of the whole idea solely to get information on other people to sell it. Remember when he got in trouble when an old converstation of his was brought up and he talked about how stupid people [at harvard] were for using facebook and just giving him their information of their own free will? There is a difference between marketing (commericals, ads, etc..) and marketing research (surveys, Nielsen boxes, etc...). Google runs an ad network. Facebook runs a marketing research firm. Facebook gathers all the information (trends, likes, dislikes), and sells that to advertisers, who can then refine their product and refocus their advertising. So yeah, Facebook blocking a competitors ads reeks of anti-competitive behavior, but then again, so did hiring an advertising firm to lie about Google in their advertising, and people only seemed to care about that for a couple days as it was.
[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]I'm very upset with many of my friends who'd rant about how bad and stupid FB is, yet happily jumped on Google+ once it came out... as if it's different. Am I missing something?[/citation]
It's not meant to be a Facebook competitor, it's about laying the groundwork for Google's plans to overtake Microsoft and Apple. Read on here: What G+ is really about (pst!!! it's not social)
[citation][nom]tomrippity02[/nom]Could easily be replicated by facebook I assume, but for now, Google is doing better than Facebook in the social arena, as far as software goes anyway.[/citation]
Facebook doesn't need to replicate it -- this feature already exists! When updating your status there's a little drop down next to the post button. Clicking on it brings up a list of your groups (if you have any) and a 'customize' option that lets you post to one, two, any number of specific people, even if they're not assigned to groups. No one else but the selected groups/people will see that status update/link/photo/whatever. This can also be done for photo albums, tagged photos... Sadly, Facebook introduced groups and the ability to post to selected individuals years after the site launched. The fact that these were introduced way after people joined and as optional 'if you want!' features means FB users just ignore them (for the most part). Facebook didn't force them to organise all of their friends into different groups, nor does Facebook insist on the user specifying who they want to see each post before it can be posted.
[citation][nom]aaron88_7[/nom]If you want a Google+ account try this before they close it:Or just google for an invite....or if your super lazy post your email and I'll do it...sheesh[/citation]
when i read about how to get an invite, it seams i need to know someone with a google+ already, something i don't have.