

Google: Read/Write API for Google+ Not Coming Anytime Soon - flardinois
http://siliconfilter.com/googles-vic-gundotra-majority-of-content-shared-on-google-is-not-public-readwrite-api-not-coming-anytime-soon/

======
mindcrime
One of _the_ biggest (and best) ways Google could differentiate G+ from
Facebook would be by moving away from the "walled garden" approach. Having
comprehensive APIs for interacting with their service is an important part of
that. Utilizing semantic web technologies to provide "smart data" instead of
dumb data would be an important move as well. But Google don't seem to have
much interest in going down this path, and I - for one - think that's a huge
mistake.

I mean, yeah, I like G+ and I use it a fair amount... and that's partly
because there are places where it's legitimately superior to Facebook in my
estimation. But the failure to truly open up is something I look at as a
_huge_ disappointment and it is really killing a lot of my enthusiasm for G+.

IOW: "Damnit Google, jump on the federated social network bandwagon, implement
comprehensive APIs and TEAR DOWN THOSE WALLS."

~~~
SkyMarshal
+1,000,000. It was cool at launch, and true there are some areas where it's
legitimately superior to FB and Twitter, but overall it's only marginally
better at best, not enough to get most people to switch.

Worse, since launch they don't seem to have rolled out many improvements,
despite the clamor among its users for solutions to various problems.

 _> Asked about what Google+ actually is, Gundotra answered that, at its
simplest, it is a social layer across all of Google's services. For Gundotra,
what was missing on Google before Google+ was its ability to really understand
its users and their connections. The challenge, in Gundotra's view, is that
most people don't actually quite understand this._

Actually, people don't care. They're not using G+ in order to help Google
understand them and their connections, they're using it to connect, learn,
grow, and enjoy themselves. But as good as the idea of circles is, there are
still shortcomings in the service that impede this, and which Google hasn't
addressed (hopefully they're in the process of learning from their copious
amounts user feedback and fixing it all, but no idea what's going on behind
the scenes).

 _> The general feeling one got from watching Gundotra was that in his view,
those who don't quite get Google+ are probably not using it right and not
looking at it in the right way._

That's unfortunate. The right way is what is natural, intuitive, and emergent.
If Google didn't quite predict all of that exactly, G+ needs to adapt, not the
other way around. Again, maybe they're doing exactly that behind the scenes,
and just aren't done yet. I hope so, it's a great service with a lot of
potential if they can just nail the remaining issues.

 _> As for a full read/write API that would give developers access to the
stream and allow them to post to it, Gundotra noted that he doesn't quite want
to do it yet. In his view, just opening up an API would pollute the stream._

I grok his concerns, but what they really need to do is provide the tools for
users to micro-manage their own streams. Hashtag filtering for circles would
be a _huge_ step in that direction, and give users complete granular control
over what they see and from whom. For example, if I want to see Sergey Brin's
posts on computer science but not his skydiving vacations or pictures of
dinner, hashtag filtering on my CS circle would facilitate that.

Side note - amusing article in the sidebar: _"Study: Two-Thirds of Search
Engine Users Don’t Want Personalized Results"_. Yup. I tend to use DDG or
Google in Chromium Incognito these days.

------
NameNickHN
> opening up an API would pollute the stream

Although an API for Google+ would be very useful, I can see the sense in the
above statement. Having only human generated content in Google+ adds a certain
quality to it. That being said, there are other ways than an API to post
content to Google+, I'm sure.

~~~
tfm
> Having only human generated content in Google+ adds a certain quality to it.

Very good point. There is a slightly weird aspect though to the divide between
the personal posts being poured into G+, and the purely algorithmic results
being pumped out the other end by Google Plus Your World et al.

Certainly, a "cohesive strategy" would be to give a more human feel to the
search results (or, easier -- Kill All Humans) but in the meantime it
certainly doesn't feel like different aspects of a single magical piece of
huggy software. Perhaps five or ten years down the track it may seem more
organic, meanwhile it has this disjointed feeling which may be contributing to
the lack of love for the Googles at the moment. I pour my heart into you,
robot. Why do you give me nothing but cold metal?

Sure would love for an API though so that enterprising developers could hack
up some interfaces other than the one-size-feels-itchy-on-all.

------
patrickaljord
The problem with having a write API is that it could turn into Buzz where
everyone's time line was just a mirror of their twitter timeline.

------
zmmmmm
I don't see why they don't just provide the API and ban cross posting if that
is their concern. If they are willing to go on witch hunts searching for users
whose names aren't real then I'm sure they can do the same for apps that are
facilitating cross posting and retract keys.

Personally a big minus for me at the moment for G+ is the lack of a decent
tablet app for it. The tablet apps are just the phone apps scaled up and they
completely fail at it. This would be solved for them in about 5 minutes if
Google would just open up an API.

------
currywurst
I hear this "polluting the stream" argument a lot .. but what is really so bad
about someone cross-posting from Twitter ?

Wouldn't that be a great way for Google to capture some of the Twitter content
(which would be more valuable IMHO) ?

~~~
cdcarter
I update tumblr, which posts a to my facebook and twitter. The twitter update
posts itself to G+, and facebook again. ~70% of my friends see that post at
least two times, if not four.

It sucks.

