capo

The feature is no longer available by client, it's available via web: https://mail.google.com/mail/#chats

http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-interface-for-g...

I've addressed the "facts".

I think I've attacked both.

http://readwrite.com/2013/05/09/microsoft-youtube-app-rule-b...

They built an unauthorized app and now they are complaining that the app is unauthorized.

There is no "discussion" going on, you are just repeating fact-free Microsoft press statements.

If you're not getting paid you should be.

Nope. You just joined to ask me that?

You don't think it's relevant? Microsoft is paying millions to run anti-Google attack ads and smear campaigns everywhere, it's not unthinkable that they would hire astroturf to roam sites like HN, so for the sake of the health of this community they ought to be pointed out.

GTalk is still as is.

As for YouTube it is and always have been available on the web for windows phone.

Microsoft in clear violation of Google's TOS used undocumented APIs and stripped ads from YouTube and now they have the audacity to say that they would have complied by the TOS if it suited them better.

Please take your anti-Google (probably Microsoft sponsored astroturf) elsewhere:

https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=recoiledsnake

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=recoiledsnake

These submission are a honeypot for your sort.

It's probably due to the new Hangouts history search feature touted today.

Same as every other “cloud provider”, yet somehow Google is the one subjected to these overwritten accounts and the almost mandatory pseudo law/policy musings that follow.

You might want to take a look at some policies from others in the industry to get a more accurate picture of this landscape.

These policies are constructed as such to mitigate litigation, which the author concedes. Regardless I'm glad this instance had a happy ending.

It’s also worth mentioning the the paid tier of Google Apps operates under completely different TOS: http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/premier_terms.html

I was honestly just trying to help. I tested the only way I know how, via my own Gmail account.

It does not do that, I just double checked, even when the focus is on the "Send" button a dialog box pops with "Send (Ctrl-Enter)" and no sending happens. Maybe what you encountered was the work of a browser extension or a labs feature left enabled, or most likely you just tapped return at the wrong moment.

You shouldn't throw stones, one clould as easily accuse you of shilling: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ecopoesis

So HN has to be the consumer service?! that's not what this place is about.

Why is this sort of post even on HN, not to mention the front page? and why is this thread dominated by idiotic language about "evil" and "kings" and incoherent babbling about politics and democratic representation?! and suddenly everyone is a law scholar.

I blame Matt Cutts' occasional appearances for the subsequent flocking of SEO sorts here. This post doesn't belong on HN, certainly not on the front page.

I doubt anything will change your opinions about Google:

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=anon1385

https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=anon1385

Carry on, I guess.

Careful, you might mistakenly be accused of being an "astroturfer": https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=andyl

Google's blogpost about vendor compatability: http://officialandroid.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-benefits-imp...

Yeah, no shit! I’m not quite sure what is the point of that article, because it’s fairly obvious that the main reason for which Plus was conceived is to be the uniform identity provider for commenting, reviewing, and overall communicating throughout Google’s services.

At the time Google lacked the pictured user profiles that every other app seemed to have and so Google Plus was born.

I think that the discrete social network is secondary and the competition with Facebook is constantly being overplayed by the media as the reason for this social play.

The author just seems oddly surprised that G+ is doing what it’s supposed to do.

mailto:security@google.com

"Filtering spam for us and showing ads for them" doesn't quite sum all the benefits of a parse-able inbox, what about when Google Now notifies you about flight and delivery updates by scanning your inbox, and stuff like this: https://www.google.com/experimental/gmailfieldtrial

End-to-end encryption could be offered as a premium feature though.

OP ought to restore the original title because it better represents the content of that study seeing as it's clearly about the mechanism for verifying side-loaded apps (introduced in 4.2) and not the Play store bouncer.

So it's being dealt with then. Not sure when wording an attention seeking post and submitting it to HN became standard operating procedure in these situations. Patience remains a virtue when this stuff happens.

Yeah that's what I mean by the "free tier".

That's a bit of an overreaction. Unless I'm reading the post incorrectly there aren't any bad news in it really: existing accounts stay free, now you have two tiers, paid and free, and with the paid you get real support for the money (and custom email etc).

My guess is that after it's rolled fully they will log interactions and iterate accordingly. And I'm sure they care about the health of their ecosystem at least as much as you do. Remember that creating a Google account now also creates a G+ profile, account and profile go in tandem now.

It’s kinda silly asking them not to use their identity system that was meant precisely for this sort of thing. A user doesn't have to “use” g+ to have a g+ account, and the review process is straightforward when you already have a profile set up on the account you're using to access the Play store with. Perhaps some refinements are in order but as mentioned it doesn't seem to be fully rolled out yet.

And reviews have somewhat more authoritative looking profiles behind them now, for example: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.etsy.andro...

Also I'm not sure that the boilerplate G+ bashing is necessary.

If the update hasn't propagated your way still and you're getting an error try deleting it then reinstall using this link: https://itunes.apple.com/app/gmail/id422689480?mt=8

To recap: In order to receive support from a human being for Google Apps the account holder needs her account associated PIN, but since this guy was locked out of his account he didn't have it available to take advantage of the phone support. So after a week and by using some trickery he got hold of someone on the phone and the issue was resolved.

I’d argues that Google Apps has reasonable support (bigger accounts, I assume, have direct support lines) and these occurrences are relatively rare considering the user base, but they get amplified rather loudly, especially when there are plenty of cloud haters, and Google haters (and competitors) ready to pounce.

There might be some risks or trade-offs involved but they’re much less pronounced than some of the comments on any “Google support sux” thread lead you to believe. I haven't had an issue with my personal Apps account but my case is statistically insignificant, same as the case discussed here.

Or just store the account PIN outside the affected service.