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

In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users

computerworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 352 posts

Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users

#331

Post by lsc »

comboy wrote: post #260
lsc wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it seems so weird to me how many companies seem okay with choosing just one cloud vendor, when operating across two isn't that much extra overhead, if you limit yourself to products that two companies provide, and gets you a lot of negotiation and business continuity options.

I would argue that there's a huge overhead. At least if you make use of tools that these companies provide. And if you don't, then just go with dedicated boxes which you can get cheaper than cloud solutions.

I thought most people used wrappers. sort of like SQL in the '90s, and then you limited yourself to features that both of the providers used

Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users

#332

Post by jsjohnst »

freehunter wrote: post #318
jsjohnst wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s literally not double the price. Office 365 is $5-15 depending on edition (Business Essentials, Business, and Business Premier) and if you do an annual commitment. That’s the same price range as GSuite which is $5 to $25 depending on version (Basic, Business, Enterprise). Sources: https://products.office.com/en-us/business/office-365-busine... https://products.office.com/en-us/business/office-365-busine... https:…

That's small business pricing. Their enterprise pricing is higher: https://products.office.com/en-us/business/compare-more-offi...

Ok, since you won’t give up even in the face of obvious facts:

O365 Enterprise E1 is $8/month

O365 Enterprise E3 is $20/month

O365 Enterprise E5 is $35/month

GSuite Enterprise is $25/month

So none of O365’s Enterprise editions are double the price and in fact all but one edition is cheaper than GSuite Enterprise.

Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users

#334

Post by llampx »

snaky wrote: post #265
gonyea wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t get this. Features complicate products and require maintenance. By your logic, features would never get built because they’d carry a lifelong burden.

It's not linear. GCD haven't got traction (and billions of revenue) it might have now because of shutdown of some products like Reader. And that's oversimplified example actually. People's minds are not linear, especially when they make decisions. The only market when you can do well with raw numbers only is cheapest 10%, when all competition is about price, and customers have zero loyalty whatsoever.

Chalk one up to exactly that. I recommend against GCP exactly because of the Reader SNAFU (among others).

Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users

#335

Post by llampx »

coldtea wrote: post #292
sumeno wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering Facebook owns Instagram this sounds like great news for Facebook. Facebook the company owning the product teens are using instead of Facebook the product seems like a good long term strategy.

Yeah, not so great news for Facebook the company I'm afraid. Being a social media user is age-independent, whereas one's teens is something they grow out of. So, not only existing teens grow out of being teens (and eventually Snapchat users), but new teens won't necessarily grow into it to replace them. Unlike older people, who value utility and what they already know more, new teens are just entering the social medi…

Good point. To that, I'd add that Facebook needs "cool" users. Grandmas may use Facebook a ton and be very loyal, but they're not a cool, inspiring user group others want to follow and emulate.

Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users

#336

Post by llampx »

UncleMeat wrote: post #143
andrewstuart wrote: post #7

Google's shutdown of products and APIs seems to have led to critical level of trust loss amongst developers and influencers. It's time for Google to either fix this or get out of providing services and APIs to developers. Google doesn't seem to put any weight at all on the outcry every time its shutters another service/API. The trust must be restored. Google doesn't seem to understand that when they shut service X, t…

This is bizarre to me. Pivoting is seen as a tremendously good thing in the startup community. If you have a product that isn't working and isn't getting users, you do something different or your company dies. You simply cannot keep throwing developer time at such a product. Google has a lot more money than a startup and can afford to waste developer time, but it still isn't good. "We tried this thing out and it didn…

Nobody misses products that aren't working, or that aren't satisfying anyone's needs. In the very article you are commenting on, the author says "Good riddance" to the Chrome extension that has been superceded by Gmail's offline capability.

Killing a thriving service is not the same as pulling the plug on one that no one uses.

Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users

#337

Post by llampx »

Moru wrote: post #242
twblalock wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like the incentives for employees at Google are the problem here. People are rewarded for successfully completing projects, not for maintaining existing ones, so rational employees will maximize their compensation by moving on from a project after it launches and trying to launch a new one. There seems to be nobody at the top enforcing a consistent product vision. This is how Android ended up having several…

Microsoft however used to pay developers per lines of code... Not sure what is better in this case :-)

I thought it was Bill Gates that said that paying developers by lines of code is like paying aircraft engineers by the ton.

Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users

#338

Post by llampx »

sseth wrote: post #213

Those (like me) who like using Google products know the bargain. Until a product reaches critical mass, it could get canceled. Wave died. G Suite has succeeded. Chrome succeeded. Reader died. Google+ is in a coma. Hangouts and Google Photos which came out of the ashes looks like they will stay, though what they are doing with their chat tools is a real mystery. In hardware, Chromecast succeeded, Nexus faded away as d…

Look at every success here, you'll find a pattern.

Hint: they steal your data

Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users

#339

Post by llampx »

sjg007 wrote: post #139
GeorgeTirebiter wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. What google doesn't seem to 'get' is that email + searchable database = life. I email stuff to myself, or bcc: myself, all the time. If all emails were in a searchable database, perhaps with automatic clustering to group associations, all very fast -- that's killer sticky. The emails, plus stuff on gdocs, gdrive, etc, all fully searchable? Gold. (Yes, non-trivial privacy concern, but no personal data should…

Facebook’s search is bad too... so nobody has mastered personal search.

No money in that. They'd rather show you some relevant results interspersed with ads and irrelevant results.

Re: In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users

#340

Post by dragonwriter »

mbrumlow wrote: post #130
smt88 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My company switched from AWS to Azure without considering Google's Cloud at all, and the loss of trust is the reason.

Should have switched to bare metal, things like AWS cost a ton more than you realize, it just looks like a good deal because you have smaller cost up front. But in the long run managing your own systems at places like Softlayer can save you a bundle. EDIT: I don't care about downvotes, but if you are going to do it at least leave a comment of why you think I am wrong.

> EDIT: I don't care about downvotes, but if you are going to do it at least leave a comment of why you think I am wrong.

That would defeat the entire purpose of using voting to manage the signal to noise ratio; in general, if a comment is worthy responding to, it shouldn't be downvoted, and vice versa.

Post reply on HN