Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Google obliterated my 4 year old Chrome extension featuring 24k+ users

by.graffino.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 252 posts

Re: How Google obliterated my 4 year old Chrome extension featuring 24k+ users

#71

Post by pyvpx »

edent wrote: post #22

Not providing any meaningful support is Google's business model - you can see them talk about it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU0Z_HAzO3I > Google estimates that they would need to hire over 20,000 customer service people to deal with 1 query every three years from each customer. So it has decided - as far as possible - to employ zero people and rely on algorithms. https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2013/02/googles-custo…

so then hire 200 customer service people to handle the queries when the algorithms go awry? surely there is an algorithm they can devise that will identify when the other algorithms have made mistakes.

right? :-)

Re: How Google obliterated my 4 year old Chrome extension featuring 24k+ users

#72

Post by pyvpx »

adamc wrote: post #67
edent wrote: post #22

Not providing any meaningful support is Google's business model - you can see them talk about it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU0Z_HAzO3I > Google estimates that they would need to hire over 20,000 customer service people to deal with 1 query every three years from each customer. So it has decided - as far as possible - to employ zero people and rely on algorithms. https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2013/02/googles-custo…

Which is a really good argument for never developing for the Google eco-system. Because you can't afford to invest in a platform where if something goes wrong you're just f*cked.

to be fair, for some parts of the eco-system, and for some values of investment, you can pay for support.

Re: How Google obliterated my 4 year old Chrome extension featuring 24k+ users

#73

Post by coldpie »

geomark wrote: post #69
chiefalchemist wrote: post #16

What's that? Google? Poor support? Poor service? Say it isn't so. To be clear, #Sarcasm :) Google's genius, isn't so much what they do. It's also that they've lowered the bar when it comes to expectations. They understand that designing and building products is relatively easy. The unknowns are in time knowable. On the other hand , reality-based humans drive Google crazy. They are, evidently, to be avoided at all cos…

"They are, evidently, to be avoided at all costs." It's as if Google embodies the attidue of millenials.

>> "They are, evidently, to be avoided at all costs."

> It's as if Google embodies the attidue of millenials.

Fuck you.

Re: How Google obliterated my 4 year old Chrome extension featuring 24k+ users

#74

Post by fauigerzigerk »

red_admiral wrote: post #24
majewsky wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a larger pattern here. Is there any large B2C web service that's not monetized by selling the users' data (for advertisement targeting etc.)? For example, I would absolutely love to pay a monthly fee to Twitter (say, 3-5€) in exchange for an ad-free, unmodified, chronological timeline. And I would also consider paying something (say, 10€ a month) to Google in exchange for an ad-free search site that does not…

My guess here is that the subset of users who would be willing to pay a monthly subscription is strongly correlated with the subset that advertisers are interested in targeting most. If a site got say 10% of users to pay a subscription, their value to advertisers - and hence their advertising revenue - might drop a lot more than 10%, leaving them with a net loss.

That's a very interesting point. I never thought of that and I think you're right.

Re: How Google obliterated my 4 year old Chrome extension featuring 24k+ users

#75

Post by njloof »

revelation wrote: post #50

You use "Facebook" in the name of your extension to lure users into installing it. Google tells you you can't use the trademark. You again use the trademark. Google gives up on your spammy ways. They seem to have done everything right here.

Register it as "for FB" -- users will know what it stands for.

Re: How Google obliterated my 4 year old Chrome extension featuring 24k+ users

#76

Post by dordoka »

FussyZeus wrote: post #34
dordoka wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do agree that any service might honor the takedown request for the registered trademark infringement. But what the author refers to is completely another issue: the complete lack of support from Google. The extension author complied with the request. Tried to contact several times an only got canned responses. I guess Google doesn't care much about people that develop for their platform. At least that's what I got…

Additionally, how the hell is this trademark infringement? We've been using the "Software Name for X" formula for decades to refer to programs that operate in conjunction with other systems. In this case this extension only works with Facebook, therefore the Facebook name is more or less required to describe the function of the product with any accuracy. It's not like he's written a third party app for Facebook or we…

I was just reproducing the term trademark infringement from the article.

I also do agree that FB here is somehow taking advantage of said laws to send to /dev/null the extension that renders one of their revenue streams ineffective.

I'm no expert in US trademark laws by any means, maybe they're entitled to leverage it for these kind of cases.

Re: How Google obliterated my 4 year old Chrome extension featuring 24k+ users

#77

Post by aembleton »

gvurrdon wrote: post #53
majewsky wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a larger pattern here. Is there any large B2C web service that's not monetized by selling the users' data (for advertisement targeting etc.)? For example, I would absolutely love to pay a monthly fee to Twitter (say, 3-5€) in exchange for an ad-free, unmodified, chronological timeline. And I would also consider paying something (say, 10€ a month) to Google in exchange for an ad-free search site that does not…

I too would very much like those things. But, how would we know that they were telling the truth about not collecting the data?

You could compare your search results to a fresh browser on a new IP address.

Re: How Google obliterated my 4 year old Chrome extension featuring 24k+ users

#78

Post by ajanuary »

nerdponx wrote: post #27
firasd wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's at least two reasons. With Twitter or Facebook the problem is that they're dependent on network effects so asking for payments from users is out of the question, they would never get to 100s of millions of users that way. With Google search, you may have more of a point, but I guess in the end Procter and Gamble has more money to spend on individual search transactions for ads than the other parties i…

Don't have to charge everybody. There can be a free tier ("pay with your data") and a paid tier ("pay with your wallet")

It can be complicated. For example, now you're not advertising to your most engaged users, so advertising on the service becomes less valuable.

Re: How Google obliterated my 4 year old Chrome extension featuring 24k+ users

#79

Post by eloisant »

edent wrote: post #22

Not providing any meaningful support is Google's business model - you can see them talk about it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU0Z_HAzO3I > Google estimates that they would need to hire over 20,000 customer service people to deal with 1 query every three years from each customer. So it has decided - as far as possible - to employ zero people and rely on algorithms. https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2013/02/googles-custo…

It makes sense not to have humans responding about how their site is indexed or removed, because that's pretty much everyone.

However, they should really consider hiring support staff for:

* Their paying customers

* The partners bringing value to their products, typically extension developers and Android app developers

Re: How Google obliterated my 4 year old Chrome extension featuring 24k+ users

#80

Post by tobltobs »

piyush_soni wrote: post #35

The exact same thing happened to me. I have a fairly successful Firefox add-on named 'Yahoo Mail Hide Ad Panel'[0], and it is one of the top-rated extensions on Mozilla's Add-on store. When I wrote it for Chrome, they removed it apparently after a complaint from Yahoo. Understandable, but I asked them how are the other extensions containing the same name not removed? No answer. I asked if "Hide Ad Panel for Yahoo Mai…

I guess it is not using "Facebook" or in your case "Yahoo" in your extension name, but changing the content for a user of a Facebook or Yahoo page is what is triggering the remove of the extension. If it is against the TOS (or Platform Policy) I don't see how else they are supposed to react if the get a complain.
Post reply on HN