Live data from Hacker News

Google is about to learn a tough lesson

blog.calbucci.com

151–160 of 242 posts

Re: Google is about to learn a tough lesson

#151

So, what's going to happen, exactly? "Influencers" who liked Google Reader, now jilted, are going to use their magic influence beam to halt the growth of Android, to erode the dominance of Google in search, and prevent the regulatory approval of self-driving cars? Google has quite a few heavy responsibilities on their hands. They have to manage growth and competition in hugely complex, emerging fields. The lesson the…

Google's biggest risk from the press might be regulatory. Politicians and political appointees still pay close attention to the press, and Microsoft is always agitating in the background for an antitrust proceeding against Google. A pissed-off press corps might decide to "take a closer look" at the power Google wields in the online marketplace. This could help provide political cover to move against them.

Re: Google is about to learn a tough lesson

#152
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is more a combination of the small and vocal user base and the message it sends to them about Google being open to cutting any product that has a usage they don't think is significant. Those people who see Google cut a product that they have adopted into a regular usage will probably add an asterisk to any recommendation for adopting a new Google product. There is no certainty that the lifespan of that Google is d…

> cutting any product that has a usage they don't think is significant. Curiously, some products that are moribund for more time still alive (e.g. Orkut).

Orkut is big in Brazil and India, so it makes sense that Google wouldn't kill the only social media platform they own with an actual mainstream userbase (modulo YouTube).

Re: Google is about to learn a tough lesson

#153
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is more a combination of the small and vocal user base and the message it sends to them about Google being open to cutting any product that has a usage they don't think is significant. Those people who see Google cut a product that they have adopted into a regular usage will probably add an asterisk to any recommendation for adopting a new Google product. There is no certainty that the lifespan of that Google is d…

> cutting any product that has a usage they don't think is significant. Curiously, some products that are moribund for more time still alive (e.g. Orkut).

LOL, check out http://www.bonkersworld.net/usual-suspects/ by a googler.

Re: Google is about to learn a tough lesson

#154

I sympathize with Google Reader users. I find it occasionally tiresome to be half-foot in an ecosystem. But I've come to accept that this is just the way that Google does things. I love Gmail/Calendar/Maps/DamnNearEverything. I love Groups, which they've recently taken pains to hide[1] so I suspect its up soon for the chopping block. Heck I even love Google+. All that said, at least they had the gall to kill it. One…

I really wish Github would fill the Groups niche because they would do it 100x better and most of the groups I'm in are coding related anyways. Especially if they really are trying to do collaboration in general...

Agreed about finance too. It's too bad it's so crappy.

Re: Google is about to learn a tough lesson

#155
post #3

> Google made a big mistake cancelling Google Reader that will have severe ripple effects to its empire. Oh come on: enough already. Obviously there was a /vocal/ user base which is very loudly now upset that the product is being sunset. Guess what, Google didn't see it as a large enough set of people to make it worth monetizing. Such is life. Move on. It's certainly not the end of Google if that's what this article…

They came for the...

etc.

Re: Google is about to learn a tough lesson

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google did that to websites too: first they penalized a slew of sites such as local search, travel, finance, shopping comparison for having "shallow content," and then they introduced the Google versions of said sites, on top of everyone else on search results.

Google's mission is to organize the world's information, to be a Search Engine, not specifically a "Web Search Engine". People come looking for answers, not just sites. When I search for "Samsung TV", I don't want a link to another vertical crawler as the top answer, I want links to where I can read reviews and buy it. Vertical search is getting rolled up into search, not just by Google, but by Microsoft too, because…

Google's mission is to organize the world's information, to be a Search Engine, not specifically a "Web Search Engine". People come looking for answers, not just sites.

Their mission changes based on their revenue needs. First it was no ads on top, then send users as fast as possible to other sites, now it's almost all ads and keep users at Google at any cost. Even if what Google provides is sub-standard, very typical of companies that gain a monopoly in a field. You can argue that they might have a right to do it, not that it is the right thing to do. If major websites go out of business, how is the web better off? Google produces no content and now wants to send no clicks to the producers.

>> When I search for "Samsung TV", I don't want a link to another vertical crawler as the top answer, I want links to where I can read reviews and buy it.

Yes, but Google decided that they have the best reviews and best price. Either way, they gained share by being nice and now they are on top, with lots of money to buy off protection from politicians. http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/google-accumulat...

What's arguably evil is using a lossleader to kill another product, and then jack up the price once you have a monopoly.

Google clones everything and when those cloned go out of business, consumers lose. Any hope that they may charge $1 /month vanishes when Google clones their app /features.

Is Mozilla evil because a free open source browser "killed the market" for commercial-for-pay browsers? That ship has already sailed.

Mozilla is one company, Google clones a product and uses it's billion users to have it adopted. Imagine if Microsoft used that muscle to have users adopt Bing or IE, by showing ads for them virtually each time you went online.

Re: Google is about to learn a tough lesson

#157
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, looking at OGinparadise's comment history, OGinparadise is the one who posted that Expedia has lowest prices, despite it's problems (I basically just ignore him now): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4965868

I used search twice and couldn't find I said that, point me to that comment . https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4965868 Not that there is anything wrong on that, it could have been an opinion on anecdotal evidence. No one expects someone to check prices for 4-5 years first.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5186387

Re: Google is about to learn a tough lesson

#158
post #3

> Google made a big mistake cancelling Google Reader that will have severe ripple effects to its empire. Oh come on: enough already. Obviously there was a /vocal/ user base which is very loudly now upset that the product is being sunset. Guess what, Google didn't see it as a large enough set of people to make it worth monetizing. Such is life. Move on. It's certainly not the end of Google if that's what this article…

I don't think people who use RSS realize what a small minority they are. I don't use RSS or Google Reader, I've never even seen it, but this week my Facebook has been filled by a tiny slice of my friends who are incredibly upset. The vast majority are just shrugging and not caring one bit. Only Google has the actual numbers on how many people are using their Reader, and they simply did the math. End of story. It's no…

Facebook users are also a small minority, if you want to go there.

The problem is that some minorities count more than others, because they are influential (vocal, if you prefer).

Re: Google is about to learn a tough lesson

#159
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used search twice and couldn't find I said that, point me to that comment . https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4965868 Not that there is anything wrong on that, it could have been an opinion on anecdotal evidence. No one expects someone to check prices for 4-5 years first.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5186387

You accused me of saying "Expedia has lowest prices, despite it's problems" when I actually said "In case you didn't know, aggregators like Expedia often have the lowest price" and it's 100% true. What's false about it? Booking directly is in many cases more expensive than booking through a third party that has special pricing power.

You either post the full quote next time or drop it, you're wasting time and not achieving your goal, other than irritating people.

Post reply on HN