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

151–160 of 242 posts

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#151

Post by rpedroso »

jbackus wrote: post #107
Mindless2112 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the loss of historical feed data that bothers me most. Sure, I can export the links to the feeds I have subscribed to, but that's the data I could have reconstructed myself.

What exactly are you referring to? If my understanding is correct you're able to export starred content as well.

Google Reader tracked a lot of data about your feed reading habits, including but not limited to:

- Average items/day published by subscriptions - Number and percentage of items that you actually read - Number of items you actually clicked, per-subscription - Time of day items are posted / items are read - What subscriptions haven't updated in a long time?

You are right about it exporting starred content, by the way. None of this other data, however, is available for export.

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#153

Post by Shooti »

spinchange wrote: post #138
Shooti wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Seems unlikely they'll drop it given their approach to iOS so far has been to infiltrate the ecosystem with their own Google apps Yes, and syncing Calendar data with Apple's calendar App is not this strategy. Releasing a standalone "Calendar" app for iOS to keep it accessible, controlled, and branded on iOS devices after it stops working and Apple doesn't bother to request whitelisting but promotes iCloud instead, i…

Not sure why Google would block themselves server-side if they themselves wanted the current iOS 6 account-sync set up to continue. Apple doesn't really factor into it at all.

Google breaking off into their own Calendar app is a possibility, but its not clear cut that they would do this since there's a definite "stickiness" to having the Calendar sync option pre-checked as soon as the user adds his/her GMail account.

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#154

Post by Apocryphon »

mindcrime wrote: post #130
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 Oracl…

Valve? They're like the new Google in terms of being a popularly beloved company.

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#155

Post by [deleted] »

mindcrime wrote: post #130
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 Oracl…

[deleted]

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#156

Post by nmridul »

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?

Google's mission seems to have changed. Looks like their focus is now more towards organizing "Personal information" than "World Information".

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#157

Post by mindcrime »

AJ007 wrote: post #150
mindcrime wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Oracl…

I think there is a compelling case Microsoft should move in the other direction. Will they have the right leadership in the future to do this, I don't know. Microsoft is not a lost cause. I came of age as an active Slashdot reader. At that time Microsoft was seen as an arch villain that could do nothing but evil. Curiously, today Google has a far deeper and more chilling degree of influence far beyond what Microsoft…

I'd like to see it, but I have a hard time buying that this could happen. There is a lot of history and inertia at play with MS, that argues against them embracing an Open world.

I actually think Yahoo could be a bit of a dark horse here, but it's hard to guess where Marissa Mayer's head is at in this regard. Yahoo have actually done some cool stuff, in terms of Open Standards and Open Source. They were early with embracing RDFa and Microformats, for example, and some cool OSS code has come from Yahoo, including, IIRC, Hadoop. But obviously a lot has changed at Yahoo since then, so I dunno what to think about them right now.

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#158

Post by jcampbell1 »

yanw wrote: post #100
jcampbell1 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long to you have to be tired of hearing about it before you admit it is a PR mess? If the Google reader closing is mentioned in new Google product announcements a month from now, will you admit this was a PR disaster? How about a year from now? Google needs to grovel to get their hands around this. By admitting mistake, they can actually redirect the message to something positive. BTW, I agree with you completely…

Really, groveling? yeah if anyone mentions Reader in a month's time it will be an issue. It's not a main new story, and Google won't get anything back by reversing their decision, the damage is already done. Some people are being overly dramatic and hypersensitive, they'll realize that and they'll get over it, as always.

You could be correct that this will just blow over. We shall find out.

The problem is that journalists tend to follow their leader, and this was written by Om himself. If I were a gambling man, I'd bet you will be proven wrong.

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#159

Post by intended »

andyl wrote: post #146
mindcrime wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Oracl…

> This isn't looking too promising.... :-( Well, perhaps this is a market opportunity. Many people need products that embrace the OpenWeb. Google was a good champion. But Google is an advertising company after all, and their primary business is to spy on your datastream in order to sell your attention to advertisers. So now that Google seems to be abandoning the OpenWeb, perhaps this will create a void that can be fi…

I suspect "open" and "strategic reduction of a competitors advantage" are more strongly linked

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#160

Post by diminish »

nickporter wrote: post #142
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Now strategic?

Google Now is killer. The 'aha' moment for me was when I was visiting New York City: A few hours after my arrival, it told me that a favorite musician of mine was going to perform at a venue close to my location. I would have never known if I didn't have the service. I'm guessing they knew I liked that artist because of my youtube history (my phone doesn't contain any music). That's cool with me. Oh and if they want…

The turnoff switch for Reader is an inflection point for Google towards Microsoftization; where they new product launches will be skeptically seen by hackers, and geeks.

I went to my phone, and did a Google spring cleanup yesterday, by deleting all the stuff I didn't use, and thought Google would see a future;

That is good for startups, they may attack Google product segments with ease, and we shall all PR for them and enjoy using them.

Post reply on HN