They gain a bunch of people with an easy and painless upgrade path to G+ usage if/when their friends start using it. It reduces the technical friction, which is always the biggest blocker for early adopters.

Like most people, all of my friends use Facebook more or less exclusively. But I know if I have a photo in my G+ account (the Android app syncs all photos to the G+ cloud by default) I can send people a link and have a pretty reasonable assurance they can see it.

> They gain a bunch of people with an easy and painless upgrade path to G+ usage

Do they, or do they just piss people off and result in them using their services less? When Google mandated migrating youtube accounts to G+, I just let mine rot.

Normal users don't get "pissed off" like that. There's no requirement to "use" G+ to have a youtube account. They just click "OK" and continue using youtube as before. You (and the author of the linked blog) have a bone to pick with Google, which is fine. Just recognize that most people don't care. There's nothing objectively more difficult about youtube now that it's linked to G+, ditto gmail, etc...

> There's no requirement to "use" G+ to have a youtube account.

There is no way to have a youtube account anymore, Google required creating a Google account years ago.

> They just click "OK" and continue using youtube as before.

Not really, since with this new change it won't be possible to "dislike" videos (at all) and won't be possible to "like" them without splattering your watching of lolcats onto your G+ by default.

> You have a bone to pick with Google

I "have a bone to pick with Google" because I don't like the way they go about their business and scummily attempt to force me into a service I have no interest whatsoever in?

On what do you base that astounding assertion?

Uh... masklinn was self-admittedly "pissed off", Will Wheaton "made a rageface" and posted "go fuck yourself, Google"., I paraphrased those both to "bone to pick" because I thought it sounded better.

What is "astounding" about that? They sound like synonyms to me. Do you have an argument with the substance of what I wrote (regarding average users' reacions to youtube merging accounts with G+)?

The assertion I found astounding was 'Normal users don't get "pissed off" like that.' In my experience, that isn't true. There are a range of reasonably common behaviors, but getting pissed off is surely among them.

A "bone to pick" implies a preexisting grudge, which is different from simply being displeased with one decision or other.

Good grief. No, it doesn't. "I have a bone to pick with you" is a statement of immediate annoyance. Here's a thefreedictionary reference that matches my understanding. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+a+bone+to+pick+with

This UK source isn't quite the connotation, though the reference to the Irish usage matches the American English one pretty well: http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/30/messages/2182.ht...

Given that two of you now have gone out of your way to deliberately (and uncharitably) misinterpret me: are you sure that I am the one with a preexisting grudge?

I don't know you from Adam. Thanks for the correction though; I was genuinely mistaken, not "deliberately and uncharitably misinterpreting" you.

If you extend this thinking far enough, they have a lot to gain. It's an extra dimension that Google can use to further refine their ad inventory against your interests. The theory is that you will see more relevant ads and Google will earn more because of it. i.e. if you like this video, and someone else liked this video, and they clicked on that ad, then maybe you'll click on that ad.

Perhaps on its own this single dimension doesn't add all that much value, but in aggregate and with a mass number of participants, it should.

They already have a ton of people who have G+ accounts and do nothing. Automatically sharing youtube likes to your G+ stream would an explosion of activity for the majority of users.

It's all about baby steps. The chicken and egg problem sometimes needs coercion in the beginning

Apart from anything else, under the 'real name' policy, it means they now attach your real name to your likes / dislikes, which presumably means they can increase the value of information they give to advertisers for targeting (I'm not saying they sell the names, but the fact they can cross reference you to a real person means they dramatically increase the value of the portfolio of other info they have).

NB: I haven't done the upgrade, but I'm presuming that when you opt into it you come to a page that exhorts you to give them your profile with your 'real' name on there instead of whatever you might have had previously in your Google account.