(No comment was entered for this change.)

Yeap, sharing from other websites/applications is pretty much a MUST for social networks those days.

Read-only is SO 1995.

Until write access is granted you guys are limiting the use of google+ I find myself ignoring it and sticking to facebook and twitter mostly because they both allow read and writing from within their apps. 

I need this feature so much, Please let me know when this will be implemented.

I already implemented in my android application facebook integration, and started to add the same functionality with google, and was very disappointed to find out that i am not allowed to add post in users screams.

I look forward this update
Thank you. 

Yes, plz make the api usable

As others have commented this is something that keeps me away from google plus right now because I can't post there from other apps that can post to multiple platforms such as tweetdeck, which means that a google plus post is limited to only the friends of mine which are in plus already. This one should be a high priority for google

Please don't add write access to the stream. Or at least make it similar to how Game notifications work. I love having all content be explicitly shared by the people I follow.

This would definitely be a useful feature for me as well.

From my application I'm auto posting to a dedicated Twitter account, a Facebook fan page and now I'd like to auto post to a Google+ business page. Another vote for me for this feature. 

My website uses twitter and facebook APIs to post notifications -- but alas, no go with Google+.  In short, I agree with all of the comments above, until a feature exists that allows us to send (ie: write) notifications, I see little need in using the API as it stands.  I am sure you guys are *VERY* much aware of this and I am also sure the feature will exist sooner than later.  Thanks!

I am surprised this isn't yet available.  IT is needed to properly compete with Facebook.

With the new Google+ Pages a lot of important blogs have joined to G+. Now it is a must to have a way to autopost in the G+ stream, so fans can always be updated with their favorite blogs.

Big vote to include write access in the api. 
Also I would be very happy if adding users into circles would be possible over the api...

Please let me know when this will be implemented.

This would be very useful. Is this feature under consideration to be implemented (soon)?

My vote to include write accesss

Also my vote to get write access feature!

There must be way more than a read access. The sample of the Google API for dot.net doesn't even have a sample for the read access :(

The only way to bring G+ to the public is a API with write access!!!!

Like others, I need write access and a way to sync my twitter feeds so that status updates can go into my G+ personal activity stream as well as into G+ page streams. The inability to sync with outside sites like twitter and flickr is the biggest single blocker to me actually using G+ for anything right now.

needs to be done, please. It's too much work for our company to push updates to google+ page as well as our other channels (all currently done through an API)

It really would be great to be able to post material to g+ from third party apps, allowing users to really streamline their social behaviors with it!

When is the write access about to come? Having read access only makes the api rather useless.

Why does google fear write acces so much? Abswer is simple, SPAM! But if they create write access to pages only, and manage to separate automated postings from human ones there is nothing to fear I think.

I definitely need write access, this is just a MUST HAVE in any social network's API.

after giving this some more thought, and originally being of the opinion that write access was needed, I'm starting to think differently.

opening this up could really hurt the ecosystem of google+

when i really think about it, its all those "auto" generated comments/thoughts/links people post that don't interest me. i'd like to a place to see what my friends are really thinking/up to... not what their apps have to say on their behalf.

but maybe I'm alone in thinking this?

Hopefully, they've bought in measures to stop abusive programs, like Tweet
Adder for Twitter, exploiting the service too.

@tra...@tinystudios.com: I understand your opinion, but G+ isn't just about "friends", it's also about website pages that you'll follow to have recent news about what you like. And to do that you can't ask the authors of the websites to copy each link of their articles into their G+ page. In some situation it's not even possible considering the data managing this would imply.

But, to go in your way, I'm not against giving only the write access to pages (at least at first). IMHO write access to pages is just mandatory, anything else is a plus, but it can wait.

@tra - I think you've got the wrong idea of what this is for. Many users just don't want to have to manually type in their status updates ("what your friends are really thinking/up to", etc) in multiple places. For example, I post mine to twitter. I'd like to have them appear here at G+ too but currently it's not possible, so my G+ page is empty. Write access would allow me to get my status updates to appear on G+.

You can always go the other way and post on Google+ and have a service post to Facebook/Twitter/etc.

The problem with opening up write access is it significantly reduces the work/cost to post spam. 

So what? Twitter/Facebook/etc can do it so G+ don't have to?

At this rate more and more developers will abandon G+, which is not a good move for Google.

At the very least Google could put out a statement if there (ever) will be write access or not, just going silent is just putting of developers.

Just my 2cts.

I agree with the last commenter. I love pretty much all Google products and am a heavy user, yet if there is one negative thing to mention it would be their inability to communicate with individuals or small groups. At the very least acknowledge that we exist, and let us know whether this feature is planned. If it's planned I'm sure people are happy and willing to wait, if it's not planned, its still better knowing that than keeping us in the dark. 

I should add that I am glad that G+ is not rushed, and that Google takes the time to think the design through rather than copying the failures of other networks. Still, this does not remove the need to communicate.

There is a way to automate posting through G+ Mobile: https://m.google.com/app/plus/x/?v=compose&content=blahblahblah Which will give you a non-js-required form back that looks like it might be postable with curl.

This form is submitting this POST data:
ie=UTF-8&at=7DuVOlfPKIcNQHyO23o-xez93ik%3A1326922743738&newcontent=Test&post=Post
to https://m.google.com/app/plus/x/nzoqevzygu2m/?v=compose&group=b0&hideloc=1&a=post
I suppose "at" variable is some kind of a token.

The lack of this API is one important reason why G+ isn't exploding in popularity. Facebook and Twitter have it. This is mediocre.

As usual it is pretty silent on the google front. If they know something then its, can't give any ETA but etc etc. The status of this bug report is "new". Go figure ETA would be like 2014 before it is real. Actually we would need something like the Wave Sandbox where we can test out stuff and not harm the normal google+ environment. Always wondered why there wasn't a thing like GAE DEV or something that would allow use to experiment during software developemtn. Just my ton of gold ;]

My company develops Facebook apps full-time.  We won't even look at Google+ until the API offers write access.

I vote for write access too. I need it for an android app that is already interfacing to Facebook and Twitter.

At least for a Business page this is a *must have*, as others have said.  I cannot afford to add yet another manual task for a person simply to update our Google+ Business page, while we use automated posting via APIs to other social network Business pages!

WHAT'S THE BLOCK HERE?!

I vote for write access and get limit feed by API!

Enable writing access to the activities can share posts to other platforms like Facebook and Twitter, which can share messages to more people, and this is why we use social network -- share, share and share.

Writing access is very important. Please do it!

 Issue 160  has been merged into this issue.

 Issue 130  has been merged into this issue.

 Issue 131  has been merged into this issue.

 Issue 97  has been merged into this issue.

Another vote for this. Our application, and our users need to post to business pages, and to their stream. Without this functionality (which has unfairly been given to some, but not released publicly)the rest of us can't get much done here.

I vote for this! This functionality  is a "must have", to make the usage of google+ more popular

Please Add this functionality...

Without this functionality this API is nothing to me...indeed

(No comment was entered for this change.)

Let me know when the Page post is getting enable through API calls as in Facebook

Priority: medium?! You get a flame from one of your employees, 142 stars and the priority is medium?!

I want something like Facebook API, with Automatic Posting function and Automatic "Post in My Page as the Page" function!
Please Hurry ;))))

It is a tragedy :
Some hackers now try to sell a write api for $49 bucks :
http://nextscripts.com

How can this comply with google TOS ?

For the past 2 days I've been looking for information regarding an API like Facebook to retrieve album/photo information for Google+.  I cannot believe they don't have anything yet.  I've tried to use all their API's with no success.  Does anyone know if they have something or are planning on releasing something.  A statement from Google would be so helpful so developers like myself can either plan on integrating with Google+ or to bypass it 

@ #60 : Surely you can use the Picassa API for that?

We know providing such API is not a child's work. But this must be of High priority. Not Medium. I couldn't bring many of my old facebook account to Google+ because of the lack of such feature.
one can start with a simple API that enables writing on one's personal Stream and/or receiving stream notifications with advanced previewing. Example of Clients: Gwibber, Hotot...

I believe that google wait for a increased number of users on G + before releasing an API for writing. They are reminiscent of Buzz flop where everyone could import their own feed from the beginning ... everyone has connected his twitter account and then they are back on twitter ...

I vote for this feature. It'll be a seamless integration with other social networks.

Not sure how you are going to spark developer interest in a read-only API. Nobody is trying to build a better web site to go to and read your own profile (are they?). Anyways, I added my vote to the issue, and cannot wait to start integrating our site with Google+ once write functionality has been established in the API.

Really, what is the holdup with this? I use the Google+ App on my phone, so a write API of some sort must already exist. So I really do not understand the delay.

Surely if you're looking to increase the exposure of Google+ you would be allowing more people/clients to use it. Unless this is just another half hearted stab the same as Buzz et al. 

Sure people may post more from Twitter/TweetDeck, or other social network tool, but realistically, how many Google+ post do you personally read that are 140 chars? I might post a comment on a Google+ post that is 140 chars, but generally I find that Google+ posts are much more in depth.

With an open API for posting "stories" to Google+ we could be looking at the demise of Blogspot ?!?!?

I was amazed that GOOGLE+ API doesnt have a post method , twitter,linkedin and facebook all support this , what gives? 

This puts Google+ at a disadvantage for app developers wanting to integrate.

Is there a roadmap to implementing post from the API? Whats the time frame?

Wanna write access!!!

This app is using google post feature. Its free to download. How did they do it?
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/sxsw-go-official-2012-mobile/id418450665?mt=8

They might have a private access to a write API, but they also could simply doing it by scraping the Google+ website...

It says "Social - You can also keep an eye on all the SXSW Twitter, Google+, Facebook and YouTube posts " So that would be read only. when it comes to sharing it says "Share - Post about your favorite events via Twitter or Facebook, or send via Email or SMS." that suggests no posting to G+

There are a couple of php scripts out there which are spoofing the mobile
login/post forms, but they need your Google Account username and password.

Bad idea.

You can try http://plus.google.com/share?url=
it works only on some domains

@frederico "You can try http://plus.google.com/share?url=" this isn't a programmatic API and still requires user interaction. The resulting page is full of dynamic stuff and can't easily bye auto-posted.

Google has to get their act together.

How do services like HootSuit do it? Hard to tell, as their Google+ support beta program was closed. Did they just give up because it was too complicated?

Any insights?

My understanding was Hootsuite was given an API privately...

@david

Well that sounds unfair. And being unfair is evil. And Google isn't supposed to be evil.

If HootSuite gets an API then I demand getting the same API!

It's a BETA API and like any beta it's not open to anyone

I don't think they had a proper special API given to them. They were
probably proxying through a server using something like this
http://www.nextscripts.com/google-plus-automated-posting

>It's a BETA API and like any beta it's not open to anyone
I think I've seen a few Google Beta projects open to more than a few users :-)

@frederico it was HootSuite who had a beta, not Google.

@kosso I bet you're right. That's how I would do it if I was forced to. But you know how unreliable this can be.

http://mashable.com/2011/11/15/google-plus-pages-third-party-apps/ 6 companies were given the unfair advantage over the rest of us....

@david "6 companies were given the unfair advantage over the rest of us"

I'll be damned.  (Which I am.)

Google, what do you have to say in your defence?

That they are smart and know what they are doing?

They can't win either way... If they gave us all access to the API and it changed at any point or didn't work correctly, everyone would complain about it not working and having to change things...

interesting link. thanks.

Evil Google. Very unfair.

I do not want to see a Write API until Google works out how to handle the noise issue of large numbers of automated posts from all kinds of services. This was extremely annoying in Buzz and it would be extremely annoying in G+ unless its handled. I think this is the real issue about a Write API.

Meanwhile giving an invite only, beta write API to a small handful of selected partners   is just really irritating to the rest of us.

It's not only writing posts or updates, but to programmatically edit and maintain groups of followers or send notifications back and forth between users who both use your product (or game service). There's much more at play then automated posts.

I wondered if they could use a slider, as they do for circles, where you
can dial down the noisy circles from the stream and apply this to posts
from different (authorized) applications

They said they didn't want to annoy developers by changing things, if the
opened up an API. But since they're giving some clients preferential
treatment and advantage, that's going to annoy us even more.

Integrating G+ on third party apps should be a must for enhace the use of the network.

This currently appears to be the highest voted issue for G+ API on the issue tracker. Probably due for some resolution?

Note that Vic Gundotra has stated that he has made a personal executive decision to prevent implementing this in order to control spam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdD5cscEDoA Because I have not seen any reason to believe that uncircling and reporting can not control spam more effectively than preventing popular publishers from automating their posting, I strongly suggest that additional stars or comments here are pointless, and people who want this should be asking Vic on his G+ posts instead.

I don't know what policy is behind this - not giving an API for publishing bit for now, apart from Badge and Google+ button there is no sens to use API in any way.

Instead of adding more comments here, please ask +Vic Gundotra on G+ to add a per-circle checkbox option such as "[√] Show API postings from this circle" to allay his spam and noise concerns.

Anyone complaining about the lack of a POST API really needs to answer these objections constructively.

Post about this
https://plus.google.com/105037104815911535953/posts/cg8S5VD8vxw

Discussion about this
http://www.hackerne.ws/item?id=3854776

Example of why this would be a bad idea
https://plus.google.com/107158560758466172135/posts

Some friendly advice
http://unlinkyourfeeds.tumblr.com/post/387644253/a-manifesto

IMHO comment 94 is not sufficient. As we discovered with Buzz, we need killfile control per person, per source, and per combinations of those. Because there are plenty of instances of people (like say Vic G) who post good manual posts but also swamp their streams with Twitter (facebook, foursquare and all the rest) imports.

I suspect we're going to need those anyway to deal with people who post a mix of photos, posts and videos. I should be able to choose to only see the posts.

"Move fast and break things" would be my constructive answer to the objections.  That approach is worth something like $100 billion now. Your biggest competitor in this space has been learning the real life issues by actually getting into the game, while you fail to act seemingly based on the fear of getting it wrong, remaining safely in debate land.  Ship SOMETHING!  It doesn't have to be perfect.  Then tweak it based on real user engagement metrics, not on theoretical discussions about the perfect API or blogs complaining about too much noise. Some folks actually love a constant stream of interruptions, no matter what the source. But they probably aren't engineers solving really cool problems or busy bloggers. Lots of people have boring jobs. The right answer to the perfect POST API won't come from answering objections in a white tower debate, unless you're building a social network that's perfect for engineers. It will come from crowd-sourcing the answer by using actual engagement metrics and A / B testing.  Never trust what users say they want, trust the real choices they make when presented with 2 alternatives.  

Just to answer one of your objections, Charlie Kindel's posts look really interesting to me.  I would engage and comment.  Uh, I just did.  But I'm never on G+ because all my friends are on Facebook, many of them playing games that use a POST API.  While seeking out those friends, I come across interesting posts like Charlie's posts, and no matter what the source, I engage.  Interesting is interesting.

Please let's get out of debate land and ship something.  I've built 3 major apps now on Facebook while having to skip over G+ due to lack of POST API.  Onto my 4th one this month and my savy client didn't even mention G+...  the clock is ticking.

"Anyone complaining about the lack of a POST API really needs to answer these objections constructively..."

Well, I'd say that I would agree that in a *perfect* world, contributors would hand-craft high quality posts optimized per network. It's better for engagement, its less spammy and better for overall quality.

We don't live in that world. We're only one person, not 4. What we say on one network will be the same on the other. It doesn't make sense to manually copy and paste into multiple networks, might as well automate it. If you think it's not done to socialize that way, fine, that leaves only one place with the maximum reach: Facebook. 

So you're right, we shouldn't socialize that way, but there simply is no other way. Unless of course you feel people shouldn't cross post at all (manual or automatic). And if you feel that way, again there is only one network: Facebook.

And let us not forget valid cross posting from a business perspective. Example: I may have a database of product deals, for which a process posts these across networks. The G+ way is to do this manually? For what purpose? It leads to the deal not being posted at all, or it leads to manual posting of the exact same content. Again, a person is a person, a company is a company. They do not differ per social network. 

And the solution to the major spam worry is for people to simply uncircle when a stream gets too verbose.

There's no point in (continueing) to develop for G+, I'm taking it out of our current projects.  And yes, we could complain Vic,but there's no response from him either, I've mentioned it countless times and he seems to like ignoring all the +1 that mention write access.

If G+ wants to compete with FB and Twitter they need to get their act together, just web access isn't enough, there needs to be a decent api, if they have no clue to go about it they maybe they should hire some people away from FB & Twitter..

I won't take G+ seriously until someone from Google actually responds to this feed and takes us 3rd party developers seriously.

I'm the creator of socialpublish.io and I get quite a few questions from users why Google+ is not available. I can't wait until the post to stream API is going to be public. But if Google wants to compete with Facebook, they'd have to implement the feature. No one is going to post a story on 3 social networks automated (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn), and on Google+ manually...

Yes, make this available soon!

Comments 96 and 97 hit the nail on the head. Ship _something_. It's ludicrous that we can't post to the G+ stream. You're losing developers and ground every day this isn't available. If you're a company that "makes the extraordinary ordinary," Vic, then you should be able to outperform a bunch of PHP hackers, right? Worse yet, they've _already_ solved a lot of this problem. Timeline rolls up notifications nicely, activity stream adds a level of information you can opt into or out of, and people cross-post twitter and facebook and it doesn't break anything. Do _something_.

I sent Vic a message with a link to this discussion some time ago, no response at all.. for me G+ is dead, not going to use it in any application nor do i see the need for it.

I have a custom built CMS for which I integrated some Facebook and LinkedIn post notification features. This allows my users to click on a Facebook icon button, or on a LinkedIn icon button, to publish a message on their Facebook page or on their LinkedIn page.
The user chooses which one he wants to publish too. Of course, he can click on the two buttons and publish on the two social networks if he so chooses.
Now I'm trying to add the Google+ icon button to this. But I see all these forums and threads about the feature not being available on Google+ as the management is not willing to allow it.
I understand the Google management wants the users to manually post on their social network, forcing them to go to the website of the social network. To me, the value of a social network does not really increase by having people visiting the website of the social network. The website of the social network is just one way to access the social network. As long as there is traffic flowing in and out, then the social network is doing its job for a marketing company like Google. If the Google management feels like forcing the users to manually go to the website of the social network, then that tells me they have a hard time exposing its content to the users. They may want to find ways to engage the users, and herd them to the website of their social network. But my understanding of a social network is that it is a background fabric that can be plugged into the existing end user handles of the web we call websites. I'm not sure preventing programmatic posting is helping.

There really is no valid argument to not have a working write API at this point. 

You cannot force people to use technology a certain way. People either use technology the way they want to use it or they do not use it at all. It is like selling a car that will only work when it is dry because you think it is safer that way. 

Well guess what, we can drive facebook any way we want to. Not being able to talk to google+ from outside Google+ only makes facebook the preferred social network and Google+ the looser (again).

I for one do not have something different to say -nor the time to say it manually- to x different networks. I say verry little but if I say something I want to post it once (from my CMS) and go out to whatever network people use to follow me on. I certainly do not expect people to follow me on x different networks (so cross posting is no argument). I post to different networks so people can choose whatever network they want to follow me on. 

I can use social media this way (my way) for Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, etc. except Google+. What, pray tell, will I use?

Oh, and one more thing...

I could post to Google+ (even from my CMS with just the Google+ share button) and have Google+ post to my other networks (mail). This actually might be what Google+ hopes I end up doing but I still would not be able to schedule posts to go out at a specific date and time. This is something I can do (without changing anything I already have working) with Twitter. 

I pretty much agree with comment 96. Due to the lack of POST API my current application will only support Facebook and Twitter. It's a shame that Google don't understand the clock is ticking and it's loosing the momentum.

Please add API access to g+, there is no point without it.

Thank you.


–
cordialmente,

tiziano solignani, da  Mac
http://blog.solignani.it

Argh, just finding out about this now. Our app was going to post to Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Now we are replacing Google+ with LinkedIn. Google, please look into this.

Well, I've requested this on G+ in my business pages and personal page and through Hootsuite and now here.  I would like to be able to manage my personal and business pages with API supporting the ability to write to G+, from Twitter, from my WordPress blogs and also from Pinterest.  The clunkiness currently experienced is a detriment in my opinion. 

I am also concerned about enabling the API would result in my business page posts landing on my personal profile, which I don't want to do.  I would like some way to separately link the business pages with their own profiles and ability to write to them.  Currently the twitter feed doesn't work that way which makes me not use that at all.  I would be happy with creating separate profiles for each of my business pages/email addresses and having them linked together similarly as the gmail one sign in and multiple account management.  It appears to be feasible.

Thanks so much!

Jan

limited ability to write to the stream would be usefull.
maybe limit number of posts by number of receivers by day, increase the limit over time if there are posts and receivers who have the sender in their circles, unlimited access/post to public at least for verified g+ members.
block/throttle api access (temporally) for spammers.  

As a user, I am NEVER starting to use properly G+ if I cannot integrate it with Hootsuite, Tweetdeck, tumblr and the likes of it. I like the idea, I would REALLY like to use it, but not while I keep limited only to G+ page and G+ official clients.

I need this big time!!!

add this please!

I'm totally for this.  And just to echo some of the other posters replies, I really think that this should be available as it's become common practise now on social networks... I mean, if LinkedIn can do it then surely Google+ should be able to....  You're running the risk of alienating your network guys.

Looking forward to seeing this up and running soon! :)

integration whit hootsuite

I would like to use Google+ to automatically notify members of my circles about my blog articles.  In fact, it would be great to be able to do that and eliminate the need for comments sections on my blogs, I could just automatically create a public Google+ post about my article, and embed a link to the Google+ post at the foot of my article for anyone who might wish to discuss it.

Anyone think we'll hear something at I/O this week? the closest I heard was developer Ade Oshineye answer a question from the audience where some asked about updating hours on a G+ local page programmatically. His answer was features from Google Places would be migrating over in the future. At least some mention of write and G+ in the same breath. At this point G+ is an afterthought for me when I post, and I hesitate to launch my business page until my app can publish too it. I can't maintain content on Facebook LinkedIn Twitter and YouTube with one app (Ours) and then make an exception for G+

The History API that launched in preview the first day of I/O allows you to write content to Google+ accounts so they can be shared to their stream manually.

https://developers.google.com/+/history/learn-more

Our questions got through to the fireside chat the final answer after around 14 minutes of "we are figuring it out" was along the lines of "we like what we have seen with our 5 partners are will look to make that public sometime...."

I would like to add my google+ account asap so please hurry google!

Hi, does anybody know how Flipboard did it? 

Hi, does anybody know how Flipboard did it? 

Flipboard has a custom deal with Google to get access to the write APIs.

When you guys are realeasing this feature!!!!!! it's a must!!!

If G+ ever wants to compete with facebook in application variety and quality as well as developer support, you really need to enable write access to streams. I was very suprised when I started searching for this functionality and found out it isn't already available.

Google you are playing a very unfair game by providing limited access to your Write API. It is clearly an unfair competitive advantage you are giving to a small number of companies, and you are only hurting yourselves more than you are hurting the rest of us. 

Who reads the Google+ stream anyway? Our customers are seeking Google+ connectivity only because they feel it is a "check list" item. We tell them - don't bother. Just another place like MySpace to post the same content as everywhere else. So Google perhaps you should buy MySpace and create a mashup of epic proportions :-). Oh wait ... nevermind, MySpace already has a write API. No need for Google + then. 

Yes, please provide write access soon.

It is disappointing that after being the first question at the fireside chat at I/O, and taking up the first 20 minutes of discussion, the team has gone silent on this. 

Google really do seem to be kidding themselves now.

The reason for why very little has been done with Google+ has always been along the lines of "this is how its supposed to be". Who the heck are you trying to convince?

We have Google+, which is effectively DEAD, then we have Twitter ,which due to the countless apps out there, makes it simple to choose your app, and post/read as you like.

With G+, sure we can read our stream from an app, but what the hell's the point if we have to open a browser to go and post?!

Get your act together Google, you're embarrassing your staff. You may as well have just kept Buzz going, or Wave, or any of the countless abandoned projects you've taken on.  A write API is a hell of a lot more important than Vic Gundotra realises. 

Google, provide feedback to developers. Are you going to ever support this?

Wow, this is amazing.  Clearly I am not the only one that wants write access to the Google + API.  

Google peoples, please realize that you have a HUGE opportunity here. Twitter is starting to really piss off developers with the changes in their policies and you can capitalize on that and turn G+ into a powerhouse by embracing developers, opening up the API and allowing for growth on the platform. 

Now, I would think the hesitation comes from the fact that it is fairly expensive to maintain a truly open API for a platform like G+.  In my opinion, you should open it up with certain limits for the general public and then put some sort of reasonable set of fees for usage above that limit.

Hi Google, this is NOT the meaning of OPEN!

http://googleblog.blogspot.jp/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html

This is ridiculous. it makes no sense. if google wants people to use google+ more than why not allow them to post from more places?

I can't use g+ from third party applications. That's why g+ is nothing against Twitter or Facebook

WTF, Google! Do you really think that all app developers are going to require their users to post in your sh*tty social media "atmosphere" by forcing them to your website. Get your sh*t together, Google.

please fix this

I would really prefer to use G+ over FB. However, the network effect means I need to use FB, at least for now. But it is simply a pain to post everything both place manually. So I default to the one with more current value for me (FB). Which leaves my G+ barren and does not give my friends any incentive at all to switch over. Not that they necessarily would, but at least the would have some slight reason to consider it - namely that there is content to be had there.

What are you waiting for this feature is extremely necessary.

Is GooglePlus going to make same mistake as Orkut? will be completely dead in under 24 months if not implemented.
Why is this still medium prioritised after 300 star votes?
Extremely necessary feature.   

This missing features is extremely important for professional users. I can't explain why Google doesn't understand it. Maybe Google developers are now on different projects, because in 2012 a well-supported social network MUST have this feature.

Please implement this feature it's a must

Wow, I am stunned that this API does not exist.  Please implement this feature for the many reasons listed already in this thread.

High priority, please. K thx bai.

I need write access please.

Need some urgent access for my Project, one its implemented let me know.. ASAP

I appreciate the desire to reduce spam, and I see a lot of ways to redue spam without eliminating the write-back API.  Like it or not, the ability to post from other apps is a non-optional feature of a modern social network.

I am a huge fan of Google+.  I mean, my FB profile pic is the G+ logo.  Please make it easy for me to keep promoting the G+ service.

Agreed. This is a must-have feature for modern social networks. 

(No comment was entered for this change.)

Flipboard isn't the only app that somehow is able to post to G+. The IOS app Jift can do it, and their description claims they are the only one. Also there was an update to the Shazam app today and one of the changes is that it can now post to G+.

Waiting for this

Can we get a public statement as to what the status is until you /may release post ability to the api? 

Wow, the Google+ API seriously only has read access? Mind blown.

This is ridiculous. I *really* want to switch from Facebook to Google+ as my main social network, but lack of this feature means I simply cannot.

If I could make a single cross-post to Twitter, Facebook and Google+, then I could make a gradual switch to G+ instead of Facebook. As it is, because I have to make one post to my other social networks and then a second to G+, the end result is that I simply DON'T USE Google+.

Stupid move on Google's part, please fix this so I can switch from FB to G+.

Thanks!

http://www.friendsplus.me may temporarily solve your problem.