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

You know, Google, the web already had this feature

blog.vrypan.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 444 posts

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#331

Post by ykaranfil »

silverbax88 wrote: post #324
freshhawk wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Something that has happened to me over the past month that I never thought would happen - I'm actively looking to use Bing and DuckDuckGo over Google. Bing, something I laughed at just a few months ago. Google's results are starting to waver and the Google+ requirement is a cancer eating their products from the inside.

I don't know if this is normal? I followed the tutorial on fixtracking.com and installed DuckDuckGo plug-in for Firefox, and later i realized by analyzing http traffic that everything i type in address bar is sent to DuckDuckGo, even it is not selected as a default search engine. I wouldn't trust DuckDuckGo

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#332

Post by lettergram »

silverbax88 wrote: post #324
freshhawk wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Something that has happened to me over the past month that I never thought would happen - I'm actively looking to use Bing and DuckDuckGo over Google. Bing, something I laughed at just a few months ago. Google's results are starting to waver and the Google+ requirement is a cancer eating their products from the inside.

>Google's results are starting to waver

I'll be honest I don't know for sure, but I highly doubt Google would intentionally hurt themselves by ruining their search results. Also,

>Google+ requirement is a cancer eating their products from the inside.

I do agree it's B.S. but using 4 different computers on a regular basis and being a student I find it more useful to use their products than not. Especially, the syncing options so basically my drive/chrome holds everything between all my computers. This would be impossible without having some way to link them (via email say, well they use Google+ to try and make more money like every company NEEDS to do to survive). Therefore I say I am alright with their changes because Bing and DuckDuckGo have significantly reduced capacities (to the point of usability is fair at best)

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#333

Post by moogleii »

rimantas wrote: post #288
krichman wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hello. I don't have any strong pro-Google feelings. I used to really like Apple. iOS is only good for people that want something which works and which they don't need to spend any effort on maintaining. It is a complete joke for people that want a powerful mobile computing device. I use an iPhone now but my next phone will be an Android. To be honest I'll probably continue to buy iPod Touches as long as they can be j…

Yes iOS is for people who want to do something on their devices, android is for people who want to do something to their devices. Like a car owner who knows how to drive, but is not a mechanic and car owner who is a mechanic and spends days in the garage tweaking the engine instead of driving. Guess which one drives more. Maybe that explains disparity between the market share and web usage stats for iOS and Android.

To me, the vocal, diehard android fan is akin to the Fast and the Furious crowd so proud that they can modify their cheaper Hondas/Scions/Dodges to be as [insert adjective of choice] as a more expensive German luxury car. When really, nobody else cares. Neither the people who want a cheap reliable car nor the people in the luxury segment.

Personally, I drive a Honda. I like it. I work on it, and I could modify it, but as I get older and busier, I'm looking forward to getting something nicer that just works.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#334

Post by moogleii »

DanBC wrote: post #273
white_devil wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fanboy is a fanboy. There's nothing wrong with pointing one out. Just be glad I didn't spell it "fanboi".

The post you replied to (with the "GooGoo Fanboy" term) was overly vociferous. But that's when it's most important to avoid words like 'fanboy' because otherwise discussion dies. People probably thought you had a good point, but you lose that when you use words like 'googoo fanboy'. And that'll do nothing to sway the person you're replying to. If anything it'll just entrench them even more.

I didn't really think so. I thought GooGoo Fanboy was apt satire myself. The hyperbole of the original poster clearly showed that he/she was already very entrenched anyway.

And considering it's possible that debating someone's strongly held points with logical counter points will only irrationally strengthen the person's original beliefs anyway, I think humor was appropriate:

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/1...

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#335

Post by metaphorm »

voyou wrote: post #294
metaphorm wrote: post #191

I'm not so fond of Google+ either, but really this is a lame post. RSS was just not that good of a technology and has been in zombie status for a couple of years now already. Its about time somebody took steps to put it out of its misery. Google+ is a shitty replacement for RSS and I don't even think its going to catch on, but at least now we have more of an opportunity to try and get open content syndication right.

"RSS was just not that good of a technology" What was wrong with it? I mean there were problems with the twenty slightly different versions, or whatever, but they were solved by Atom. What do you want in open content syndication that wouldn't naturally build on Atom?

lack of rich media support kept RSS limited to text based reader applications and therefore a less appealing option vs. just bookmarking actual websites and reading them in a browser (or mobile browser).

dependence on aggregation tools running clientside also meant that operating an RSS reader had just as much overhead for the user as just using their browser already does. if its a worse experience than reading in the browser, and is equally complicated to do then there's no good reason to prefer RSS over a browser.

a replacement technology should, in my mind, not be something that competes with the browser experience (as RSS/Atom did). at this moment I don't think there's a compelling use case for a replacement at all which is why we're not actually seeing active development of one. what I expect will happen is that more and more websites will eventually implement RESTful API's and then we'll just have the option of syndicating over REST calls instead of relying on RSS.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#336

Post by stephenr »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #82
r00fus wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One could make a very well-founded argument, for example, that Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, and even EA or Comcast are not, strictly speaking, "evil" companies. I'll venture to say this is the case. Most tech firms are small-fries when it comes to evil. Cargill, Monsanto, and pretty much any oil company - now that's serious evil. And that's just in recent history. We're not even talking the East India Trading company.…

That's exactly my point. With a directive like "don't be evil" there's so very much wiggle room. If google spends the rest of its life hovering at a level above Exxon or even the East India Trading Company it might consider its "don't be evil" goal satisfied, but that's a pretty frightening future to imagine.

"Don't be evil" is equivalent to a guy walking around with a badge tht says "not a rapist"

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#337

Post by throwawayG9 »

blhack wrote: post #121
kunai wrote: post #2

Google 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…

I stopped using all of their products about a year and a half, thank you very much. And I never looked back, I feel safer than ever, I'm not being tracked all the time, I own my data, and I will never have to fear again being banned for no reason or having a service shut down overnight and losing all of my data. I can do whatever I want.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#338

Post by jeremyjh »

white_devil wrote: post #287
krichman wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hello. I don't have any strong pro-Google feelings. I used to really like Apple. iOS is only good for people that want something which works and which they don't need to spend any effort on maintaining. It is a complete joke for people that want a powerful mobile computing device. I use an iPhone now but my next phone will be an Android. To be honest I'll probably continue to buy iPod Touches as long as they can be j…

> iOS is only good for people that want something which works I believe that already disqualifies it from being a "complete joke", and the definition of a "powerful mobile computing device" might involve something else besides "being able to install whatever software you want to".

I spent two hours with my wife's iPhone trying to figure out which app was burning all her juice. On my android it takes just a few seconds since I can run a task manager that actually reports CPU utilization. From what I can tell, that is completely forbidden on iOS. Still, her phone does not "just work".

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#339

Post by PavlovsCat »

cleis wrote: post #323
PavlovsCat wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then actually look up Godwin's law. It says something about the probability of a Nazi comparison occuring, but nothing about that loosing the argument or ending the conversation. And that's just as well, because why would it be otherwise? Because Godwin said so? What, is he Adolf Hitler or something?

The corollary to Godwin's law is that the first person to bring up the Nazis automatically loses the argument.

A law and a corollary are still two distinct things. What people like to claim Godwin's law says, it doesn't actually. And that one is just one of many corollaries (not "the corollary") many random people made up because they could, and which I reject because they have no basis in valid reasoning. After all, the only argument here is "someone said that". Why do people who believe nonsense on someone elses say-so object to Nazi comparisons? Well, well ^^

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#340

Post by BenjaminRH »

kunai wrote: post #122
blhack wrote: post #114

You 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,…

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…

> There is nothing Google Glass does that my smartphone already can't.

Can you wear your smartphone on your face?

Post reply on HN