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

Web by Google (TM)

landshark.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 496 posts

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#41

Post by nightcracker »

zpeti wrote: post #2

It does look pretty tragic at this point. But it’s worth noting that every tech business so far was talked about as if it’s taken over the world, forever, and without 5-10-20 years they were overtaken. IBM, Intel, Microsoft. I think google is overplaying their hand in many areas, and this will inevitably lead to the downfall of their dominance. Just like most other large businesses in history.

Microsoft is overtaken by who exactly?

In desktop & laptop Windows still holds a 87% market share.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#42

Post by treis »

alangibson wrote: post #12
texasbigdata wrote: post #4

AMP still makes no sense. On iOS, Android and Windows it’s completely broken and friction increasing to grab a link to send to a friend in another medium. Not only that but it seems the page slightly degrades sometimes. For what? A theoretical page load time improvement? Maybe that’s naive but we already have “request desktop mode” to allow for bifurcated experiences. Why do we need a third thats seemingly even worse…

AMP is the most transparent land grab Google has pulled. It's technically unjustifiable, is arguably value destroying, and as a bonus you can't disable it. It only makes sense in terms of trying to lock marketers and publishers into a Google-led ecosystem.

The concept of AMP makes a lot of sense. It does speed up browsing and prevents sites from being terrible. The prloblem is that the implementation isn't great and it's Google driven. But the concept is sound.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#43

Post by justinph »

texasbigdata wrote: post #4

AMP still makes no sense. On iOS, Android and Windows it’s completely broken and friction increasing to grab a link to send to a friend in another medium. Not only that but it seems the page slightly degrades sometimes. For what? A theoretical page load time improvement? Maybe that’s naive but we already have “request desktop mode” to allow for bifurcated experiences. Why do we need a third thats seemingly even worse…

> how do you turn the damn AMP off?

Use DuckDuckGo.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#44

Post by tomschwiha »

FridgeSeal wrote: post #27
tomschwiha wrote: post #3

You can blame Google for a lot - however I believe if it wasn't about Google someone else would dictate the game. In the past it was Yahoo, MSN, ICQ, XFire, .. I mean those companys were so big (e. g. XFire for gaming streaming) but they failed to stay ahead of time - lets see whats up with Google or Facebook or Amazon in 15 years.

So what, we just sit around passively and wait for something to happen to Google and friends? Doesn’t that strike you as a poor move? I don’t see why we should be relegated to put up with another x-number of years of these companies behaving (arguably) badly, just so things can change and they can be replaced with another company that will do the same thing.

What do you think could be actively done to "stop Google"?

Dont use AMP? Well you will lose money / power.

Dont use search? Maybe miss out opportunities. How can I as marketeer convince my clients as Google traffic is 90% source of income?

I get your point but I'm not sure what could be done without harming economy (aka people).

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#45

Post by liveoneggs »

mnd999 wrote: post #8

I think we’re in a real low point right now. Gmail, AMP, Chrome, Android. So many peoples internet experience is from one place. With Amazon dominating retail, and Facebook under its various brands dominating social media, there isn’t much scope for other players. I don’t see another option than breaking theses companies up at this point.

QUIC/HTTP3

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#46

Post by alangibson »

treis wrote: post #42
alangibson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP is the most transparent land grab Google has pulled. It's technically unjustifiable, is arguably value destroying, and as a bonus you can't disable it. It only makes sense in terms of trying to lock marketers and publishers into a Google-led ecosystem.

The concept of AMP makes a lot of sense. It does speed up browsing and prevents sites from being terrible. The prloblem is that the implementation isn't great and it's Google driven. But the concept is sound.

If by 'the concept' you mean 'be faster', then yea. But that's not much of an endorsement of AMP.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#47

Post by Spivak »

alangibson wrote: post #15
andai wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that kinda like saying that the electric companies do the same thing, though?

They kind of do, which is why alot of big tech should be highly regulated like utilities.

I feel like saying that AWS should be regulated like a utility because lots of businesses use their products is a little sill. They have heavy competition in basically all of their markets, their moat is their breadth of services and they’re constantly at risk of being unbundled by a competitor that has more time to devote to a single product segment. They have persistent natural competition with colo-ing that keeps their prices from straying too far from commodity hardware and an ops person.

Like if you’re looking to regulate a market this seems like one of the last you’d peg as not being healthy.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#48

Post by walrus01 »

I would be very interested in seeing HN commenters' theories on the following scenarios:

A) what happens if Google decides to stop funneling money to Mozilla? What becomes of Firefox?

B) at what point do you think the $350+ million/year cash flow to Firefox will get cut off?

C) do you think Mozilla has a reasonable chance of success of replacing that amount of money with a deal with Microsoft/bing?

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#50

Post by mrweasel »

tomschwiha wrote: post #3

You can blame Google for a lot - however I believe if it wasn't about Google someone else would dictate the game. In the past it was Yahoo, MSN, ICQ, XFire, .. I mean those companys were so big (e. g. XFire for gaming streaming) but they failed to stay ahead of time - lets see whats up with Google or Facebook or Amazon in 15 years.

It’s also not 100% Google fault. Chrome was needed to move the web forward when it was launched. And are they now suppose to make a less good browser to help competitors emerge?

I’m not happy with the current situation and would hate to see Mozilla fail, but I can’t fault Google for the current situation.

Post reply on HN