I used to be a Google fan as well. Not a BIG fan but a fan.
In late 2010 I decided it was time to move on from Google. It took a while but I already went back to Firefox (nightly), started moving my emails to fasmail.fm (with my own domain so I'm not tied to anyone), I'm trying to use only DuckDuckGo (it's difficult... I have to admit that Google is unbeatable yet), stopped using google+ and Google Reader (since 2011), avoiding Google Talk, Analytics and Web Master Tools, etc. I think I'll make it to the end of this year. They are evil.
You know, Google, the web already had this feature
21–30 of 444 posts
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
"So don't install the extension then." So if a crack house opens up in your neighborhood the proper response is not invite them to the barbecue? Shouldn't we also use our voices to call attention to things we want changed? "Who are these low karma users who keep submitting these Google bashing/feigned indignation post?!" If you think HN is a haven for Google bashing you are hilariously off base.
How is that analogy valid?! why install a browser extension when you're not interested in its functionality?
Because he talks about more than just this browser extension. Spoilers, I read to the end:
My personal stream was my RSS feed, you want me to replace it with a Google+ profile. My news aggregator was the RSS aggregator of my choice, you want me to use a semi-read-only version called Google+. My browser would auto-discover the stream related to any page I visited and would allow me to subscribe to it, now you want me to use a Google+ chrome plugin which in addition kills my privacy.
Everyting worked quite well, and you could pick our side and help us make it better -that’s what you’d do back in the “don’t be evil” days.
Oh, right, I forgot: You killed RSS auto-discovery in chrome, Google reader is dead, and Feedburner is a living dead. I get it.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that analogy valid?! why install a browser extension when you're not interested in its functionality?
Because he talks about more than just this browser extension. Spoilers, I read to the end: My personal stream was my RSS feed, you want me to replace it with a Google+ profile. My news aggregator was the RSS aggregator of my choice, you want me to use a semi-read-only version called Google+. My browser would auto-discover the stream related to any page I visited and would allow me to subscribe to it, now you want me…
No one is forcing him or you to use any of these things. It's just another Google Reader lament.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#24I feel the author's pain. I don't hold it against Google for looking at the way RSS is (was?) used and re-implementing it in a way that they can more easily make money off it, while simultaneously removing any traction they are offering for the old non monetizable way of doing things. They are a business after all and no amount of money in the bank is enough [1]. But I find the whining a bit distracting since the sam…
>"There is no "patent" on... creating a more durable (and by that I mean self sustainable) service which has the same capability." I'd love to hear why you believe going from a decentralized open shared system like RSS to a centralized proprietary system controlled by one corporation (Google+) is even conceivably more "durable." I'd bet $100 that Google+ sharing will be dead and buried long before RSS goes anywhere.
I'm sorry you inverted my point. My point was that RSS was created by the community (and Dave Winer :-) and FeedBurner was created by two guys as I recall, its not impossible to make such systems so they will survive. Hence the whining about Google's action is misplaced.
BTW, I'll take that bet on Google+ if we can agree on a future date :-) I think Google is in to Google+ for the long haul, killing it will take a long long time.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because he talks about more than just this browser extension. Spoilers, I read to the end: My personal stream was my RSS feed, you want me to replace it with a Google+ profile. My news aggregator was the RSS aggregator of my choice, you want me to use a semi-read-only version called Google+. My browser would auto-discover the stream related to any page I visited and would allow me to subscribe to it, now you want me…
No one is forcing him or you to use any of these things. It's just another Google Reader lament.
It's the latest in a string of moves that show a clear shift at Google away from supporting the open web. Thank god for Mozilla.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#26Google has overstayed the web's welcome. What started out as a quirky, innovative company that bucked all of the suit-and-tie trends (see Microsoft, HP, even Apple in some regards) of Silicon Valley, has now turned into a monstrous calamity with no regard for its users. Up until 2009, it was breezy and beautiful, but right now, at this moment, it's a different story altogether. Don't be evil? Pfeh. The only thing lef…
What I specially hate about Google+ is the fact that Google can't stop spamming me to join it.
Now even Google Play comments need to be part of Google+.
You know what, Google? Fuck you. No. Fuck you twice. I won't join that fucking horrid place. I don't even have Facebook, why would I join a crappy social network?
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that analogy valid?! why install a browser extension when you're not interested in its functionality?
Because he talks about more than just this browser extension. Spoilers, I read to the end: My personal stream was my RSS feed, you want me to replace it with a Google+ profile. My news aggregator was the RSS aggregator of my choice, you want me to use a semi-read-only version called Google+. My browser would auto-discover the stream related to any page I visited and would allow me to subscribe to it, now you want me…
This is from the article and not you, but Chrome has never had RSS auto discovery. It has always been via extension.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is forcing him or you to use any of these things. It's just another Google Reader lament.
It's the latest in a string of moves that show a clear shift at Google away from supporting the open web. Thank god for Mozilla.
Spare me. Name 3 companies that do more for the web than Google.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#29Honestly: Google isn't that bad. This article mentions a few things, and specifically mentions Google. But really many other companies and websites are doing similar things.
I've been railing against anything other than pure HTML, CSS, and perhaps Javascript for years. I've obviously lost that argument a long time ago. But it's not Google who killed that model of the web. If anything Google is helping by helping to kill Flash.
Sites have been blocking based on browser type for years. They've even used sneaky tricks to avoid users changing the agentid string. (https://groups.google.com/group/alt.sysadmin.recovery/msg/7e...) - that website (the Argos website) worked perfectly well in Opera.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#30The author is reaching here. Us nerds need to remember the web isn't just for us, at least not for B2C businesses. Google isn't doing this to squash competing technologies and take over the web... on purpose. What's going on is that only nerds like us give a damn about RSS. Everyone else wants to just point and click around and have stuff work. Google+ and some pointing and clicking around = a lot of happy normal people. Seriously, meta tags? Again, who's gonna do that except me and everyone else in this thread? Techie folks like us tend to really overestimate our importance and how many of us there are. There's a lot but we're nothing compared non-technical folks.
Google isn't for us. It's for your parents. But that's alright because there's a whole world wide web out there without Google and Google really can't do much to actually kill any technology. RSS exists guys, there's just no Google Reader anymore. The cool thing is that if you actually care about this stuff then you're probably in a position to know how to build it. Google caters to those who don't know or care to build stuff. Why would you blame a company for catering to its customers?