On: Bradley Horowitz Is Now Running Google+

> combining photos with social MAKES SENSE

I'm not sure this makes sense for everyone. There are so many different uses for photos/social, that I don't think there's any single way that `makes sense`. All services have a slightly different way of sharing, but I'd say there are some specific themes here:

- photos as messages (like instagram)

- photos as art (like old flickr)

- photos as galleries (g+, new flickr)

- photos as... memories? current events? sharable stuff? (like facebook, twitter)

I think galleries are the ones that make the least sense with social. People share galleries with family / friends - many of who aren't even on the same platform and don't want to be.

> I think galleries are the ones that make the least sense with social.

They make very much sense with social as long as social doesn't have to mean "share publicly".

For photos, you need a story for how to do something that's equivalent to "share publicly" without the implications that that usually comes with on a social network.

There are photos on G+ that I'd like to show my family. This is "public" from G+'s point of view, because I'm not going to make them log into G+.

Nothing goes wrong if other people see these photos too; however, I don't want people who have me in their G+ circles to get notified that I'm now "sharing" these photos that they have no interest in, and I don't want some boring photos to represent me on my "feed".

This use case worked on Picasa, but G+ broke it.

Right now I find the extremely concealed download link and e-mail them. This is not how a photo product should work.

Totally agree with you.

What I meant isn't that any product gets it right ATM but rather that there isn't a good technical or, I guess, social reason for why galleries couldn't be a killer social feature. It seem there are a few economic/marketshare etc reasons though.