Google is also starting to screw with the search results ... personalized search results for example... Maybe Mozilla should start a search engine
Why Mozilla?
You know, Google, the web already had this feature
181–190 of 444 posts
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#182Google is also starting to screw with the search results ... personalized search results for example... Maybe Mozilla should start a search engine
Why Mozilla?
Because we're the godzilla of search engines, apparently. Looking forward to the IPO!
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4578856/mozilla-ceo-on-the-la...
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, he/she didn't really "make a case". Read it again -- the OP doesn't actually say anything in the grandparent post besides "they used to be great, but now I hate them". Why does the OP hate them? Who knows! The fact that such a contentless diatribe is at #1 is depressing. That too should be beneath HN's standards.
> Why does the OP hate them? Who knows! I quite clearly stated this in my post. Everything that isn't research-based, or what is user-oriented, like Google+, YouTube, etc. has been milked to death and ruined in the process. Other things, like how they consistently buy off startups and kill them, also annoy the hell out of me. > The fact that such a contentless diatribe is at #1 is depressing. That too should be benea…
I'm sympathetic to your post (and more sympathetic to the blog post), but Google has overstayed the web's welcome. is just emo bullshit.
The guy that replied to you is right, and hopefully I'll start following that advice too, because I'm not a big fan of Google practices these days either. For me it started with Schmidt's comments about privacy. There's some comments that clown has said, which should have gotten him fired immediately.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#184Google 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…
>Google has overstayed the web's welcome. Then stop using their products. Switch to bing, switch to Internet Explorer, get an iPhone and shut up about it. No, google has not "overstayed the web's welcome", google has overstayed the welcome of a few entitled silicon valley golddiggers who will continue feeling wronged for the next 10 minutes until they realize what wonderful things google has created in the world for…
> has overstayed the welcome of a few entitled silicon valley golddiggers
Is the web a bunch of people posting pictures of their cats, and commenting on "news" stories; or the people who are building it?
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#185Chrome never implemented RSS auto discovery. Everyone else has a "walled garden" why must Google be different? and why should they - arguably the least “walled” of said gardens - suffer the "openness" brunt? The fact that they are not investing in RSS tools doesn't mean they're against them, it's just not in their interest anymore, and so I come to the conclusion that this is yet another Google Reader lament, and I t…
>Everyone else has a "walled garden" why must Google be different?
The FSF would beg to differ. Google does contribute to open source, claimed android to be open source, prescribed to the notion of "don't be evil", and seems to be enthusiastic about computer science in general. Suddenly having a walled garden makes their image not only the exact opposite of what their users thought they were, but now we can add deceitful.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest problem with Google has been that they've been a "benevolent monarch", more or less. Meaning, much of the reason why google has been good for the web has been due to specific choices that google leadership has made and the ways that google has chosen to wield its power. This contrasts to strict limits on power and strong external forces from competition, etc. As long as the monarch is benevolent this is g…
Google's character was obvious to me when they insisted their slogan was "don't be evil" and not "do no evil". A "do no evil" pledge is something that can be judged. Did they do evil by sabotaging the local 'yellow pages' in Africa? Was using their position on the board of competitors for their own advantage evil? This phrase refers to events and actions and facts, things that accountability is based on. Something ca…
And your character was obvious to me the minute you said that "do no evil" is a more useful standard than "don't be evil".
"Do no evil" is an impossible and therefore pointless standard. How many people do you know that have done no evil in their life? Have you? I've certainly made my share of arguably evil mistakes.
Now consider a company with tens of thousands of employees. Even if 1% of their employees (intentionally or not, per your standard) committed evil at work 1% of the time, that's still (on average) multiple incidents a day. Exactly how many days do you think "do no evil" would last before it was drowned in noise?
Yes, "don't be evil" is a more complicated and ambiguous judgement. But at least it is one that can meaningfully be made rather than an unreachable standard that's trotted out when it's convenient and ignored when it isn't.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
The web of the 90s was an awesome exclusive subculture. The web google has been promoting is inclusive and egalitarian. It isn't just for nerds, and cares about things other than Star Wars.
I think the word you're looking for is "corporate". It's not google's fault, of course. It's just the way the world works when money is involved. Large organizations that stood to make a profit were going to change it significantly to raise their margins, no matter what. The web of the 1990s was far more open to participation outside of the walled gardens. It may have been more difficult to get started with, but it w…
[deleted]
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Google has overstayed the web's welcome. Then stop using their products. Switch to bing, switch to Internet Explorer, get an iPhone and shut up about it. No, google has not "overstayed the web's welcome", google has overstayed the welcome of a few entitled silicon valley golddiggers who will continue feeling wronged for the next 10 minutes until they realize what wonderful things google has created in the world for…
> Then stop using their products. Switch to bing, switch to Internet Explorer, get an iPhone and shut up about it. And who exactly are you to tell him to "shut up about it"? He made his case. You might disagree. State your case and let the discussion continue. Anything else --like telling him to "shup up"-- should be beneath HN standards. For one, people do use alternative products. It's not as if Chrome is the ultim…
> The only real Google stronghold is search.
I've experimented with switching away from Google products and I found search easiest to replace (I went with DuckDuckGo personally). YouTube, Gmail and Google Talk are what I've had difficulties replacing.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#189I 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…
> His answer was that there were a lot of unknowns facing Google and the only insurance they had for dealing with them was to have a lot of capital.
Waaaat? I was at that TGIF and I do not recall any response remotely resembling the one you recount here.
And: as far as I can figure, it's basically impossible that your $30 million figure is accurate. This is not based on internal knowledge, just a quick product search that finds water bottles available to consumers for 10c a bottle. The number you mentioned would mean that Google was supplying 15k water bottles per employee per year (300 million water bottles among 20k permanent employees; remember, there were much fewer Googlers in 2007). I would guess, again, based on no special internal knowledge, that the amount was closer to 3M. If anyone believes that 2007 Google cared about 3M in the bank, I have a bridge to sell them.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chrome never implemented RSS auto discovery. Chrome has an official extension for RSS auto-discovery: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/rss-subscription-e... The Chrome team argues that not enough people use RSS to justify having an icon in the URL bar by default. I personally think this is somewhat circular reasoning ("People don't use RSS, so we won't show an icon letting them know about RSS"), but sadly…
> sadly other browsers such as Firefox have followed their lead and removed RSS notifications by default. ? I am on Firefox, no addons, and I have a menu item Bookmarks->Subscribe to this page which detects RSS/Atom.
THe RSS button is still available. Just click Nightly -> Options -> Toolbar Layout and drag the RSS button onto the toolbar.