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

191–200 of 496 posts

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#191

Post by nqzero »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #23

The issue is not the fact that Google owns the web. It is that the web itself has become decimated to the point where a company like Mozilla does not have a future. Facebook, Uber, TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Whatsapp, etc. None of them are optimized for Google index. Most top consumer internet applications don't take place in your browser.

This

And I'd argue that google's about the only thing propping up the internet. Chromium's a reasonably open platform (certainly more so than internet explorer, which not that long ago looked destined to become the dominant platform), gmail has kept email viable, android is somewhat open (and without it, apple might own that space entirely), etc

Every other player that's gotten traction has set up a walled garden

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#192

Post by chris_f »

searchableguy wrote: post #121
andromeduck wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO one if the biggest blunders of Moz was not having had the vision to champion the open web by becoming an alternative monitization platform like Patreon. The biggest reason why the open web failed and will continue to fail is not because of aggregators like Google, Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter but rather because there's simply no way for people to vote with their wallets. Moz was uniquely positioned to drive such…

https://webmonetization.org/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/introducing-our-exper... https://hacks.mozilla.org/2020/03/web-monetization-coil-and-...

I came across the Web Monetization standard a couple months ago when I was looking for alternative ways to fund my website [0], but I couldn't find a lot of information on actual implementations, so I decided to add it myself as an experiment.

It's actually pretty cool, and earnings from web monetized users now cover ~3% of the operation of the site during the first month of having it implemented.

You basically just have to add a meta tag to the site that directs to a payment pointer (you also have to sign up with one of the wallets for the payment pointer).

Definitely not getting rich from the implementation, and the earnings are much lower than if I just ran ads, but it is a nice feeling to have the users of the site directly contribute to supporting the product. Plus it is such a low barrier to set it up that there is very little downside to having it added to the site.

[0] https://www.runnaroo.com

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#193

Post by andromeduck »

chrisco255 wrote: post #141
huffmsa wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly not sure. Walmart is still 2x the size of Amazon in terms of revenue, and like Bezos said in his congressional briefing, it's easier and cheaper to build and online platform than it is to build out Walmart's existing physical retail presence.

Really, then why are there plausible competitors for Wal-Mart (Target, Costco, etc) but no other Amazons for general purpose online shopping?

What is Shopify, Instacart, Walmart and the thousand other businesses you can buy from directly.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#194

Post by GuB-42 »

alangibson wrote: post #46
treis wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is not just faster. It also encourages sensible design and cuts down on the most annoying ad practices.

I always say there are two parts in AMP, a very sensible set of guidelines for good design, enforced by code, and Google services. The first ones benefit users, the second benefit Google.

The unfortunate thing is that when I hear complaints, it is more often about the former than the latter. Something about "creative freedom", like the freedom to put up annoying pop-up ads and mess up with the "back" button and scrolling I guess.

As a user, I am very happy with AMP. Now we just need someone to take all the good bits, remove all Google crap, and make websites that are even better. AMP is open source, at least the good bits are.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#195

Post by alangibson »

kristopolous wrote: post #165
alangibson wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I'm not saying there were no issues driving AMP. But there are many possible solutions that did not require Google hijacking your urls.

Ok I'll bite, there's a number of other pre-amp sites that basically scraped the content and then displayed it in a nice form for reading. Those did the same solution. The only way around a centralized solution is a magical "disable garbage" ad block extension in the browser, and those also exist, and are maintained once again, by a centralized group. Ok so another solution, just stop indexing or boosting the garbage…

None of the options you mentioned force sites to spend money maintaining a second version of their site, so they're all better than AMP.

I also think you have an exotic definition centralization.

> sites

Sites is plural, so this is not a centralized solution. There are multiple competing options.

> just stop indexing or boosting the garbage sites forcing them to change, that's what amp does yet again.

No it doesn't. AMP is faster, so AMP sites get boosted based on being faster. It's an indirect effect, at least according to Google. Google could have stopped at applying a big penalty to dog slow sites. No lock-in promoting tech required.

There was a huge missed opportunity for Firefox here to do some aggressive garbage removal in these sorts of pages. They'd probably have a much bigger share now if they had

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#196

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

"Looking at Mozilla's finances, it's reasonable to conclude that Google is keeping them on life support to keep the anti-trust hounds at bay."

There seems to be an implicit assumption by those commenting on Mozilla's downsizing that the antitrust case against Google is going to take the same path as the case against Microsoft.

Google's anti-competitive conduct under examination will not be focused on Chrome, it will be focused on the markets for search and advertising.

Mozilla does not provide any potential competition in those markets.

The case against Microsoft focused on the software industry. Today, the focus is on the onlilne advertising industry.

Netscape was a software company, like Microsoft. Mozilla however is not an online advertising services company like Google.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#197

Post by alangibson »

andromeduck wrote: post #189
alangibson wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a huge opportunity for Shopify to launch a slick shopping service that puts a (much nicer looking) Amazon-style interface in front of all the various shops. Combine that with Etsy's marketplace and you'd really have a contender.

They already do that.

Not well. I've never seen it and I spend way too much with Amazon (meaning I'm an ideal customer).

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#198

Post by huffmsa »

chrisco255 wrote: post #141
huffmsa wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly not sure. Walmart is still 2x the size of Amazon in terms of revenue, and like Bezos said in his congressional briefing, it's easier and cheaper to build and online platform than it is to build out Walmart's existing physical retail presence.

Really, then why are there plausible competitors for Wal-Mart (Target, Costco, etc) but no other Amazons for general purpose online shopping?

I can order online from all of those stores, and get it faster than if I ordered from Amazon because they all have better last mile infrastructure.

Walmart supports 3rd parties as well I think.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#199

Post by onion2k »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #103

A lot of talk in this article about Google capturing the whole web, all valid points, but I find the Facebook walled garden even more terrifying. I see people now, often in online school parent groups I'm a part of, etc. who cannot even use email anymore, who don't use web pages at all, they get all their information through Facebook groups and Facebook, and only talk through Facebook messenger or sometimes SMS. E-ma…

Something we (people who work in tech) should be acutely aware of is causing unnecessary distractions from important issues. When there's a discussion about the Google very often the first few comments are about how some other tech company also does something unsavory. This is a thread about how Google's engineers are actively working to take over the web as we know it and become the gatekeepers to all the benefit (not to mention profit) the web has to offer, and now the top comment isn't about what Google are doing.

While your point is valid and reasonable in it's own right, posting it in a discussion about Google isn't really the right place.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#200

Post by guerrilla »

simias wrote: post #84

The problem is that, IMO, centralization of the internet is simply the natural course. Especially when people seem to care so little. Centralization is cheaper, easier to monetize, easier to control, easier to update and upgrade. That's why people prefer Discord to IRC, that's why people prefer Slack to SMTP or Jabber, that's why for many people these days the distinction between git and GitHub is blurry. I suspect t…

> The problem is that, IMO, centralization of the internet is simply the natural course.

> I suspect that if you broke those companies up you'd only win in the short term, then it would consolidate again.

The natural course of humans is to walk around on the ground too, yet we fly. Regardless of whether it takes energy to do, it's something we should obviously do anyway because the alternative is worse. Sorry for the bad analogy but "it's natural" and "hard" isn't a valid argument against doing something about something.

I don't really buy your story anyway though. It assumes it was a fair fight and I simply don't think that's true in the case of the web.

Post reply on HN