I just figured they rebranded Hangouts or Google+ myself... The number of attempts at social that Google has made over the years is somewhat mind boggling...
This is hilarious given Googles history of firing people who have attempted to have meaningful discussions at work. And as others have pointed out, how many months until they abandon this one? Why would anyone adopt anything new from Google at this point when it probably won't exist a year later?
Is work really the place for "meaningful discussions"?
To me, meaningful discussions is talking about philosophy, religion, political theory, introspecting the roots of one's own psychology, etc. That's not really what work is for. At work, one needs to focus one's discussions on the job – of course, you can talk about outside work stuff, but I'm always careful to try to keep it shallow and non-controversial. I'm not about to start debating the existence of God with my work colleagues, as much as I really love that particular debate. Nor am I going to drill into the impact my parent's divorce had on my own psychological development.
Meaning is based on context. "Meaningful" for work would be company policies, discussing a situation affecting a customer, discussing how to address a particular bug, etc. The "deep" topics you referenced usually aren't meaningful to the work place, even if they are to humanity in general.
Naming the product "Currents" definitely gives the impression that it is at least partially meant for discussing current events. There are so many other messaging and discussion platforms for organizations, it seems like Google is going with the "use this to discuss how our organization can take advantage of social trends" angle instead of just generalized discussion of projects. That's my impression anyway.
Regardless it also sounds like a great tool for company gossip and office politics.
I honestly think if a product isn't going to be interpreted in one way (basic law of affordance in design) (also for the most part, some leeway allowed) - it’s A sign for faulty affordance, and an indicator to its future success.
Having just got a new job, I'm faced with the time eternal shallow work discussions which often revolves about how bored, how demotivated, how insufferable colleague-N, why me if not them ...
Jobs seems ontologically based on a closed system of semi passive suffering.
With all due respect, I do find work - just as anywhere else - to be a place for meaningful discussions.
I usually work as an engineer and manager/mentor and prefer being vulnerable with the people I support. That leads to them often choosing to be themselves.
This only requires some honesty and sincerity. Once we and everyone else who choose to do the same connect on that level, such meaning shows itself in not only one on ones, but also in online chat.
I also find it a boost in productivity because it allows distilling work discussions into pure work because people have to worry less about what they say/write or how they express it.
One huge and rewarding benefit is also that people begin looking behind misconstruable messages, reading the discussion in positive light and helping each other communicate better, too.
I've had a similar experience from a different angle; I'm not over anyone, but I have engaged in conversations that cover politics, religion, philosophy, etc.. I avoid politicianX vs politicianY types of conversations for obvious reasons, but I think the restrictions are good for conversation - not so dissimilar from the restrictions on HN vs FB or Twitter. It forces me to find common ground, to listen to what people want and how they think things should work. I have found that people wildly diverge from party politics in this scenario. When we focus on the issue and hypothetical ways forward, we tend to agree on the big points - or agree in spirit, at least.
When we remove the labels and the expectations that come with those labels, we can have a conversation where both sides operate in good faith. Of course, we can still have those conversations with the labels, but, in practice, we tend to get distracted by them.
I had someone ask me what I thought about the riots (this was within the first couple days), and based on his background and other conversations I had with him, I knew his POV was very different from mine, but we are on friendly terms, so I engaged. Tone is important. My focus was on what we could do so that things don't reach that point, and I was empathetic toward the people he felt the worst for - business owners who lost things to the riots. And, in turn, he was empathetic to the people who suffer systematic abuses. In these scenarios, I just try to focus on understanding where the other person is coming from and to make my thoughts clear. I don't get frustrated when someone doesn't say, 'Gee, never thought of it that way, but you're absolutely right.'
I think a lot of people - all over the map on the big issues - are tired of conversations that center around your mob vs my mob. They're ready to have real conversations about real issues. The depth will depend upon what each person brings to the table, but on a basic level, depth is almost beside the point. It's enough to listen to an on-paper enemy and have them listen to you and walk away understanding that you're not enemies at all, that you both want what's best for your community, city, state, country, and world. We can disagree on how to get there, but if we trust the motivations of others, we can work together. We can't work toward progress with people we don't trust, which is one of the underlying issues with starting with labels.
Of course, there are people to distrust for various reasons, but if I find people who are willing to honesty discuss why they believe what they do about anything (and what they know and don't, etc.), I want to hear what they have to say. And even as I cringe at a conclusion, I want to show them respect and that I took the time to understand how they arrived. Just like anything, angle/perspective makes all the difference.
This is just where I'm at - not meant to tell people how they should behave or how well my perspective meshes with their personality and experiences.
Is debating the existence of god really a meaningful discussion? That’s not exactly the type of debate that people react to with “oh shit, you’re right!”
It sounds like intellectual masturbation, which is fun sometimes to feel “very smart” but it’s not really meaningful.
As others have suggested, this is the replacement for Google+. I literally just got this email: "Currents will replace Google+ for G Suite customers on July 6, 2020"
Hah, this finally hammers the nail in the coffin that Google has truly lost its way under Sundar. Any bets as to how long it’ll be before this is shuttered like Wave? Meanwhile Slack, Zoom etc have whizzed past Google. Heck, even Microsoft has been a lot more proactive in this space with teams
Then I'll be calling you a liar because it's not. I jest, I'm sure it's great for you however my gripes are that it is sluggish, especially on mobile, and whilst slack suffers drowning-in-noise syndrome because of how difficult it can be to find the channels you want, Teams has the polar opposite problem. I also particularly dislike the auto-away feature. I'm not away, I'm mobile goddammit.
I totally agree. The video meeting feature of it is really good mostly on pair with Zoom. The slack part of teams is not as good but good enough and much faster on windows machines which is their main market.
What Teams does get right over Slack is the 'threads by default' thng in Team channels. It makes it much easier to come back after a week and see what was being discussed and only read the relevant things.
Meh? This is a rebrand of Google+, which turns out to be nice to have for an internal social network. Just without the huge maintenance cost of keeping an actual social network. It has been up for 9 years, might as well be for another,
Many Enterprises have a want (hesitantly, need) for a social media platform. Walmart for example uses Workplace by Facebook. This is Google's competitor to such solutions, as well as a successor to Google+ for Business.
Disclaimer: Google Employee, close but not directly involved with GSuite.
Curious why basic bugs with Google’s spreadsheet are not fixed (or acknowledged) for months. Feel like Google just don’t compete very hard on some of these products even when they actually have some advantage over MS. Do people not use these tools internally? Or is it just broken for some versions?
I get it. Google wants their own Yammer, am I right? That's interesting because I am not sure how many tools would we want to switch context as employees.
I hate Yammer but some salespeople in a previous company "lived" in it. I always thought of this obsession with having a company-wide social network as horrible and creepy. Teams or Slack are just about the most I can tolerate: flexible working groups. Anything beyond that is oversharing. I honestly don't want to hear about the party you had after this or that big win, particularly when I know how much those drinks cost compared to my non-rising salary.
Then again, I don't like anything that resembles instagram culture, so I'm probably in a minority.
> Who has access to Currents? Can I interact with people outside of my organization?
> How do I manage and moderate the use of Currents?
> How much does Currents cost?
Really? There are already questions and they are this lame? I seriously doubt it. And of course it's 3 questions so it can fit that un-creative 3 column marketing site format.
To be fair, it's just a FAQ under a different name. FAQ aren't really questions that people ask, it's just a company being too lazy to come up with real documentation.
It's not like anyone has been burned by a Google product that is a name of something that occurs in the ocean before either.
Amen! Google’s well established track record of experiment and kill with these sorts of collaboration products just is not worth the risk to buy in. Certainly not early. It’s kind of like maybe not getting involved in season 1 of a Netflix show until these proof it’s going to survive (at least to season 2).
Quote from The Verge on Currents: "This is not the first time Google has rolled out a product called Currents; it was previously a magazine app that went through a few iterations before becoming Google News."
I find Google utterly confusing. It's a constant stream of, rename this product here, make two products that do almost the same thing there, merge these two products but without combining the key features of both. A total mess.
It's not just retiring old products, but creations like the Google Nest Home Hub Plus Max Whatever.
> I find Google utterly confusing. It's a constant stream of, rename this product here, make two products that do almost the same thing there, merge these two products but without combining the key features of both. A total mess.
Just a few months ago, they had Google Hangouts and Google Hangsout Meet (now just called Google Meet).
I don't know how it works inside Google, but they really should centralise branding for anything public.
And Google Meet, which is supposedly replacing Hangouts, is missing some features. If you want to hold a quick video call with somebody, you can't have Google Meet ring their devices. Instead, you have to send them an email and hope they're looking. I just switched to Slack instead.
I'm trying hard to imagine the dysfunction going on in the product organization. Maybe the Google Meet PM looks at their user numbers and touts that they're rising (from zero), even while the sum total of people using Google's video call products falls. Google Meet PM gets a promotion and then finds another product to kill and replace with a less featureful product that shows large user growth from zero.
In addition to not trusting that this platform will be supported by google for any extended amount of time (if you can consider google’s “support” track record support at all) I have zero interest in feeding all the “meaningful discussions” of my company into the google data surveillance/harvesting complex. Hard pass.
Does anyone have a sense of what problem Google is solving with Currents?
The site copy includes these value props:
Core: Engage employees. Have meaningful discussions. Stay current — together.
- Share ideas with employees and gather input through meaningful, focused discussions on topics that matter to your organization.
- Find previously siloed content and resources that are relevant to your work with customized help from Currents.
- Discuss key topics with employees across your organization through posts and comments that stay accessible on Currents so you can refer back to them over time.
- See the most important content first, using Current’s home stream, which is ranked by relevance for each user. Follow tags on topics, search for specific information, and find what interests you.
- Manage and moderate content faster with help from Currents. Key metrics help admins and users measure engagement and find valuable insights.
Adopting new tools/products within a company is no small feat and nothing here seems like it'd move the needle for my business.
75 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] threadhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Wave
I guess that is one (inaccurate) way of describing them.
Web page also seems unfinished (showing many placeholder texts like "arrow_forward" at least on Firefox)
To me, meaningful discussions is talking about philosophy, religion, political theory, introspecting the roots of one's own psychology, etc. That's not really what work is for. At work, one needs to focus one's discussions on the job – of course, you can talk about outside work stuff, but I'm always careful to try to keep it shallow and non-controversial. I'm not about to start debating the existence of God with my work colleagues, as much as I really love that particular debate. Nor am I going to drill into the impact my parent's divorce had on my own psychological development.
Regardless it also sounds like a great tool for company gossip and office politics.
Jobs seems ontologically based on a closed system of semi passive suffering.
I usually work as an engineer and manager/mentor and prefer being vulnerable with the people I support. That leads to them often choosing to be themselves.
This only requires some honesty and sincerity. Once we and everyone else who choose to do the same connect on that level, such meaning shows itself in not only one on ones, but also in online chat.
I also find it a boost in productivity because it allows distilling work discussions into pure work because people have to worry less about what they say/write or how they express it.
One huge and rewarding benefit is also that people begin looking behind misconstruable messages, reading the discussion in positive light and helping each other communicate better, too.
When we remove the labels and the expectations that come with those labels, we can have a conversation where both sides operate in good faith. Of course, we can still have those conversations with the labels, but, in practice, we tend to get distracted by them.
I had someone ask me what I thought about the riots (this was within the first couple days), and based on his background and other conversations I had with him, I knew his POV was very different from mine, but we are on friendly terms, so I engaged. Tone is important. My focus was on what we could do so that things don't reach that point, and I was empathetic toward the people he felt the worst for - business owners who lost things to the riots. And, in turn, he was empathetic to the people who suffer systematic abuses. In these scenarios, I just try to focus on understanding where the other person is coming from and to make my thoughts clear. I don't get frustrated when someone doesn't say, 'Gee, never thought of it that way, but you're absolutely right.'
I think a lot of people - all over the map on the big issues - are tired of conversations that center around your mob vs my mob. They're ready to have real conversations about real issues. The depth will depend upon what each person brings to the table, but on a basic level, depth is almost beside the point. It's enough to listen to an on-paper enemy and have them listen to you and walk away understanding that you're not enemies at all, that you both want what's best for your community, city, state, country, and world. We can disagree on how to get there, but if we trust the motivations of others, we can work together. We can't work toward progress with people we don't trust, which is one of the underlying issues with starting with labels.
Of course, there are people to distrust for various reasons, but if I find people who are willing to honesty discuss why they believe what they do about anything (and what they know and don't, etc.), I want to hear what they have to say. And even as I cringe at a conclusion, I want to show them respect and that I took the time to understand how they arrived. Just like anything, angle/perspective makes all the difference.
This is just where I'm at - not meant to tell people how they should behave or how well my perspective meshes with their personality and experiences.
This.
It removes boundaries, barriers even. Holding on to empathy is hard work, but it does pay off.
It sounds like intellectual masturbation, which is fun sometimes to feel “very smart” but it’s not really meaningful.
Well, tonight I just saw the next ex-Google product, just a few short years away from being sunsetted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Currents_(2011%E2%80%93...
(very different product, but still...)
The previous one was not exactly outstanding, but I found it tasteful and pretty functional.
Are these big product looks done by dispassionate design committees?
I was under the belief Google+ is dead. What is happening?
Also, if you roll into currents you can't roll out.
Disclaimer: Google Employee, close but not directly involved with GSuite.
Curious why basic bugs with Google’s spreadsheet are not fixed (or acknowledged) for months. Feel like Google just don’t compete very hard on some of these products even when they actually have some advantage over MS. Do people not use these tools internally? Or is it just broken for some versions?
Slack? Email? Currents?
In a few years, Google will do it all?
Then again, I don't like anything that resembles instagram culture, so I'm probably in a minority.
> Top questions about Currents
> Who has access to Currents? Can I interact with people outside of my organization?
> How do I manage and moderate the use of Currents?
> How much does Currents cost?
Really? There are already questions and they are this lame? I seriously doubt it. And of course it's 3 questions so it can fit that un-creative 3 column marketing site format.
To be fair, it's just a FAQ under a different name. FAQ aren't really questions that people ask, it's just a company being too lazy to come up with real documentation.
It's not like anyone has been burned by a Google product that is a name of something that occurs in the ocean before either.
Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on you; But fool me a third time?
I find Google utterly confusing. It's a constant stream of, rename this product here, make two products that do almost the same thing there, merge these two products but without combining the key features of both. A total mess.
It's not just retiring old products, but creations like the Google Nest Home Hub Plus Max Whatever.
Just a few months ago, they had Google Hangouts and Google Hangsout Meet (now just called Google Meet).
I don't know how it works inside Google, but they really should centralise branding for anything public.
I'm trying hard to imagine the dysfunction going on in the product organization. Maybe the Google Meet PM looks at their user numbers and touts that they're rising (from zero), even while the sum total of people using Google's video call products falls. Google Meet PM gets a promotion and then finds another product to kill and replace with a less featureful product that shows large user growth from zero.
Not aware of anything exciting from Alphabet altogether, in fact.
What works? Whats deprecited? Is anyone behind the controls out there?
- Google Meet (~Zoom)
- Google Chat (~Slack)
- Google Currents (~Yammer)
For consumers:
- Google Duo (~Facetime, but cross-platform)
- Google Messages (~iMessage, but non proprietary: SMS, MMS > RCS)
Everything else is on the retirement schedule.
Didn't Google Chat become Hangouts? Did they rename it back, or is this a different new product?
Google is branding this as the replacement for Google+ (and sending out emails to Gsuite admins re: content migration from Google+ to Currents)
Here was the announcement of the beta last April: https://gsuiteupdates.googleblog.com/2019/04/currents-for-gs...
In addition to not trusting that this platform will be supported by google for any extended amount of time (if you can consider google’s “support” track record support at all) I have zero interest in feeding all the “meaningful discussions” of my company into the google data surveillance/harvesting complex. Hard pass.
The site copy includes these value props:
Adopting new tools/products within a company is no small feat and nothing here seems like it'd move the needle for my business.What am I missing?