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

Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

gigaom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 242 posts

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#121

Post by anigbrowl »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #108
anigbrowl wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be the Google Now that doesn't run on my Nexus One? :-)

I guess? The fact that the CM team doesn't even generate 10.1 builds for the Passion is a pretty good indicator that it's too weak. Or HTC won't upgrade the graphics drivers.

That's probably the case, although I'm a bit lost on the distinction between what GN does and the regular reminders from my calendar/mail client etc. It's powerful enough to run maps with little 3d buildings and stuff, so I've never been wholly clear on why it's stuck on Android 2.3.

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#122

Post by brian_cloutier »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #16
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It ties into Google Now. It's already super convenient for me. Swipe up "Google, note to self, pick up milk". Now I have a TODO. Combine that with what Google already knows (that I leave work at 5 and drive within half a mile of a grocery store), think about the intelligence they could bring to my Todo list. (I know lots of people aren't going to like the privacy implications, my comment isn't meant to apologize or t…

How is Now strategic?

Google's corporate mission is to organize the world's information.

Taken from http://www.google.com/landing/now/

> Google Now gets you just the right information at just the right time.

Google Now extends the mission to include personal information. The plan is to eventually know what you want before you know you want it.

How could that be any more strategic?

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#124

Post by DigitalTurk »

Shooti wrote: post #118
DigitalTurk wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it's not a given since AFAICT Apple software doesn't sync with Google Calendar over CalDav by default. Particularly on iOS you have to go out of your way to enable it—viz. you have to select 'Exchange account' instead of 'Google account'. In any case, if they're committed to preserving this feature then why are they implementing screening?

CalDav is what the iOS Add Account option for Google uses to sync: http://support.google.com/calendar/bin/answer.py?hl=en&a... Seems unlikely they'll drop it given their approach to iOS so far has been to infiltrate the ecosystem with their own Google apps, though never say never I suppose. As for why they're pushing people towards their own Calendar API, presumably so they can add/promote new features specific to Ca…

I see.

Thanks for sharing. What a confusing mess!

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#125

Post by tadfisher »

donall wrote: post #110
niggler wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increases appeal of Android devices and provides another advertising opportunity ("find place to eat" -> bam! hyperlocal recommendation. Restaurants would pay significant amounts of money for that type of targeted advertising)

The parent observation is really on the money. Hyperlocal recommendations are very interesting, but _paid_ recommendations are a potential gold mine that I think people are only now starting to catch on to. What I find particularly interesting about it is the potential to produce genuinely relevant advertising. As a simple example, imagine I ask my smartphone where I can find the nearest fast food joint and it tells…

For things like that, such a service makes complete sense. But for things that I spend real money on, I've already developed a filter in my brain to weed out anything that looks like paid shilling. This is why I stopped using Google Shopping after it went paid-only, and why I skip the first page of Google Search when researching products.

Now if they could make this a social thing, where real, authenticated, non-paid people recommend a good place to eat or get my suit tailored, I would be on board. Sadly, there is no money in that sort of service, as Yelp found out pretty quickly.

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#126

Post by fpgeek »

taligent wrote: post #5
psbp wrote: post #3

Is this also a warning to Evernote to never remove features? I'd hate to be a company that makes products that Om uses.

I don't know any company who would remove features that millions of people use every single day.

Yes, you only know a company that would remove a feature hundreds of millions of people use every day, from a product they've paid for to boot (see: Apple Maps).

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#127

Post by dombili »

curiousfiddler wrote: post #55

If at this point Google reinstates Reader, I can tell you they will win many hearts and goodwill. I don't remember a product being brought back from grave and if they were to do it, they will be viewed as a genuinely considerate company (IMO).

I'd be extremely surprised if they reinstate Reader. They'd only reinstate it if they genuinely didn't expect this much of an outcry, but I'm sure they did. Google knew that Reader was a product mostly used by tech savvy people and it was obvious that people were gonna criticize Google over this decision (rightly so). Hard part is almost over for them anyway. There are some people who lost respect to Google and some of them always gonna be skeptical before using any of Google's products (I'm one of them), but they'll be in the minority and I'm sure Google doesn't give a fuck about them anyway.

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#128

Post by DigitalTurk »

taligent wrote: post #103
jseliger wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Reader had an easy and clear migration path to export your data. It's not just about the data: it's about the habits and familiarity surrounding the process of using the data. In RSS, I've been using NetNewsWire for years, even though it's basically abandon-ware and has really fallen behind. Why do I keep using it? Because it works okay, and when I've tried to switch—most recently to DevonTHINK PRO—I've gone b…

Reader is a desktop RSS app and it has been pretty popular app for OSX and iOS.

You probably mean Reeder instead of Reader. It's my favorite RSS app. FWIW, the author has stated the app will continue working after Google Reader disappears. I don't know about the details.

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#129

Post by tlrobinson »

brian_cloutier wrote: post #122
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Now strategic?

Google's corporate mission is to organize the world's information. Taken from http://www.google.com/landing/now/ > Google Now gets you just the right information at just the right time. Google Now extends the mission to include personal information. The plan is to eventually know what you want before you know you want it. How could that be any more strategic?

One could argue Reader organized information as well.

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#130

Post by mindcrime »

andyl wrote: post #123

Before Google+ came along, Google had many great products and embraced the OpenWeb. Now Google has abandoned Open Standards like RSS and CalDAV, and I think Google is more interested in building their own walled garden.

Bingo. It's very unfortunate too, as Google were uniquely positioned to be great defenders of the Open Web. Who else has the clout to do it now, as well as the motivation? Does anybody see Marissa moving Yahoo that way? I'm guessing "no" but would love to be proven wrong. It won't be Microsoft, you can bet on that. Red Hat are a moderately powerful company, but they aren't that big and could wind up acquired by Oracle tomorrow for all we know. And they aren't that into services and web-apps. Mozilla have a lot of clout on the browser side, but arguably much less so than in years past, as their market share has slipped.

Amazon? Nope, don't see them stepping up to defend the Open Web.

Facebook? Hell no.

LinkedIn? No.

Sun? Maybe if they hadn't been acquired by Oracle.

IBM? Maybe not totally ridiculous, but history doesn't paint the best picture of IBM in this regard. And they also don't really offer services over the web, like a search engine. Maybe they could scale Watson up to webscale and make that the new Google?

Wolfram? No.

DuckDuckGo? Right spirit, but I don't think they are influential enough.

Opera? Not influential enough.

Canonical? No.

Novell? Eh, no.

HP? No.

This isn't looking too promising.... :-(

Edit: Duh, I missed a big one! The Wikimedia Foundation! They are probably one of the strongest backers of the Open Web, and definitely have a little bit of influence, thanks to WIkipedia and related projects.

Post reply on HN