I wish Google would charge me for Reader. I'd be willing to pay up to $50/year.
You know, Google, the web already had this feature
241–250 of 444 posts
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you missed it, but searching here in Hacker News, you'll find it creeping along. PLENTY of complaints In my personal case: Android - bugs that stay open for years (my own post from a year ago is unresolved, and it affects all Spanish-speaking Android users https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4532596 ) Chrome: other than it displaying advertising, I haven't heard much bad about Chrome https://news.ycombinator.c…
tl;dr 'i'm mad and can name at least one thing i don't like about every Google product' one could make a similar list about every popular product - online or offline. nothing pleases everybody all the time at scale.
That's not exactly true. People don't get in such a hissy fit over microsoft's online applications, like hotmail or the office web apps. Microsoft isn't 'better' than google, though i would argue they're no worse either.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
tl;dr 'i'm mad and can name at least one thing i don't like about every Google product' one could make a similar list about every popular product - online or offline. nothing pleases everybody all the time at scale.
That's not exactly true. People don't get in such a hissy fit over microsoft's online applications, like hotmail or the office web apps. Microsoft isn't 'better' than google, though i would argue they're no worse either.
You really don't think such a list could be created finding at least one subjective flaw in everything Microsoft has ever created? I'd do it myself if it wouldn't be such an absurd waste of time.
I'm not saying Microsoft products suck, just reiterating my earlier point that nothing done at scale is going to be perfect to everybody.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, the web of the 90s was really awesome. I remember one of the first things I did when I got online was look up Star Wars websites (using Webcrawler). There were dozens of sites, all made by fans, all amateur, all full of cheesy graphics, .wav sounds, but all unique. Here's the Google results for "Star wars". Tell me when you get to a result that wasn't created by a corporation: https://www.google.com/q=sta…
I never thought I'd ever say this; but I miss Geocities. And i miss WebRings. There were so many unusual sites out there. In the 90's the web was fun, artsy and mysterious. Now it's all MTV.
Maybe there's a startup opportunity in creating a successor to webrings that isn't Facebook.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have so far avoided combining my YouTube and Google Plus account. They keep annoying me with random overlay asking me to combine them but so far I've been saying not now. One way I've minimized exposure to this is using the android app instead of the desktop browser version but it may not be for everyone. I probably don't need to tell you this but just in case: If you have a concern about a Play Store, please conta…
They started pulling that nonsense on me too. About every tenth video has an overlay and there is no "just leave me alone" option. I end up using an incognito tab instead. For the life of me I can't tell what choice they are trying to force me to make and what is wrong with how things are at the moment.
The overlay has changed a couple of times, when they've combined or relabeled the options. The last time I got it, they had removed the "go away" option, so I gave them one of the answers they accepted - "I don't want to use my g+ profile, because X".
Of course, about 30 seconds afterwards, I noticed that the option that actually was most accurate for my situation was Y, but I hadn't clicked on that, so whatever.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#246It's the 2013 version of Netscape's "What's New" and "What's Cool" buttons. Holy shit, nothing HAS changed. It just has a different skin on it.
What did those buttons do? I was always curious, but not curious enough to press them.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#247Earlier 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…
> YouTube, etc. has been milked to death and ruined in the process.
Youtube, in fact, is much better in 2013 than what it was in 2007. eg. I have seamless integration with other products I use (eg. uploading a video from my android phone) or I can purchase/rent content which I couldn't earlier. Can you explain how Youtube has been "ruined"?
> like how they consistently buy off startups and kill them, also annoy the hell out of me.
Then do you also hate the founders who sell their companies to Google (or any other big company)?
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#248Google tracking codes are on a majority of sites anyway, and you probably find the sites using Google. They already know which URLs you go to.
Exactly. Only a few sites don't already notify your visit to Google. And if you already use Chrome every keypress in the address bar is already sent to Google. In some old times Google didn't get a notification about what you clicked after search. Now they do.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#249You guys in this thread whining about google: It isn't google that has changed, it is the whole world which has changed. Look at the things that some of you champion; the iPhone, the iPad...anything running iOS, anything made by apple computer, the company that is pushing the hardest against openness on the internet. Oh, you want some basic browser functionality like uploading files? Spend time learning objective C,…
I really agree with you, except for one minor point: You are still thinking of google as if it's the "old google". Definitely before Google+ and probably even before the adwords division started calling all the shots. That's when google could have been called "one of the coolest companies in the world". Now they are heavily invested in building their own walled garden. Maybe it's not even anyone being "evil", and it'…
Google glass and cars are the vestiges of the old Google. The travesty is that they are subservient to G+.
Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing Google Glass does that my smartphone already can't. And how is Apple waging war against openness? WebKit is open-source. They're pushing HTML5 against Flash (open vs proprietary). Darwin (OS X without Quartz and DPS) is open source. A few of the apps included with OS X are open-source. Google cars? Driverless car research has been going on for years, both before and alongside Google. Look, I'm not ba…
HTML5 is not standard, certainly not open. Everyone abandoned WebKit for some unknown reason having to do with Apple. Please list these OSS Apps, I would love to know since Google and Wikpedia say nothing like that.
>HTML5 is not standard, certainly not open
What, because some vendors take liberty with codec choices? HTML5, while not officially ratified as an RFC, has an agreed-upon standard version, and the implementations of it are far more standardized than HTML4 ever was. As for openness, it's a markup language, there's nothing that CANT be open about it. The only possible thing about html5 that isn't open is the popular choice of video codec, h264, in which case: whoop de doo.