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

401–410 of 444 posts

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

#401

Post by coldtea »

sshumaker wrote: post #170
coldtea wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think you're fixating on Google+ as a social network, when that's not really the point. Google+ is meant to serve as an identity layer for Google, so you don't have a bunch of different logins / passwords to silo-ed properties, which makes a frustrating user experience. No, it's not meant like that at all. Google didn't create Google+ to have a single sign on. It created it specifically to compete with Facebook.…

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57413309-93/larry-page-goog... "[Larry Page] ... called [G+] the "social spine," reminding listeners that the service isn't just a destination, but a unifying social framework for all Google's products." First off, Google allows you to have multiple identities with SSO. And I find it hard to argue that it's not a good thing for 99% of the user base. Managing multiple accounts sucks, a…

>A genuine question: Why don't you want your YouTube account linked to your Gmail?

For one: because.

Second: I don't want people from work etc to know I'm the same guy writing the cheerleading comments on Insane Clown Posse videos.

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

#402

Post by scott_s »

white_devil wrote: post #271
iand wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be an equivalent of Godwin's law for the word fanboy and its derivatives. When I see it I immediately know rational conversation is over.

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

It adds to the noise, so, yes, there is something wrong with pointing it out.

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

#403

Post by coldtea »

crucifiction wrote: post #232
sshumaker wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57413309-93/larry-page-goog... "[Larry Page] ... called [G+] the "social spine," reminding listeners that the service isn't just a destination, but a unifying social framework for all Google's products." First off, Google allows you to have multiple identities with SSO. And I find it hard to argue that it's not a good thing for 99% of the user base. Managing multiple accounts sucks, a…

how else are you going to use the youtube comments as they are meant to be? I can't make half-witted, nonsensical, semi-racist comments if they are linked to my own name!

I find the "half-witted, nonsensical, semi-racist" YouTube comments are the only real democracy on the Internet.

It's the only one place were you can say anything, there are people of all ages, religions, creeds, sexes etc, from the most progressive to hardcore KKK members, and they can freely discuss anything, with no censorship and no moderation from a higher source of power.

Only the whole community can vote and "hide" a message they deem bad.

YouTube comments, which some "intelligent" people don't like, are the closed thing we have to a truly free discussion.

People don't like them because they like to flock with their own and only exchange mild agreement and trivialities, and abhor any contact with the true Other, be him a black gay Latin American or a white, protestant Bible Belter. To put it simply: some supposedly progressive people hate talking to other people with different ideas even more than bigots.

Learning to co-exist and talk on YouTube, I believe, really makes you a better person.

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

#404

Post by myko »

dornab wrote: post #380
silverbax88 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did you ever try the google vs bing comparison site? ( http://www.bingiton.com/ ). I tried it and google won 5-0, it wasn't even close! But I agree that google is not what it used to be. They have a weird hunger for our data. But it's not just them, all web companies have become very aggressive in getting our data, it feels like we're being watched the whole time. It's exactly the opposite of what the internet was ea…

I like to imagine someday Microsoft is going to come out and say the results which they said Google won Bing won and vice versa. This is the only thing that makes sense given Microsoft's marketing speak on that site (suggesting Bing wins in the majority of cases) as I've never known someone to actually have Bing come out on top.

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

#405

Post by coldtea »

turing wrote: post #173
coldtea wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think you're fixating on Google+ as a social network, when that's not really the point. Google+ is meant to serve as an identity layer for Google, so you don't have a bunch of different logins / passwords to silo-ed properties, which makes a frustrating user experience. No, it's not meant like that at all. Google didn't create Google+ to have a single sign on. It created it specifically to compete with Facebook.…

"No, it's not meant like that at all." Cool, so it's your baseless opinion vs Google's public stance on their motivations. How productive. "I, for one, never wanted my YouTube account linked to my Gmail account etc." I'm sorry that you feel entitled to have Google bend to your will with regards to their high-quality services for which you pay nothing.

>Cool, so it's your baseless opinion vs Google's public stance on their motivations. How productive.

Yes, "baseless". You only ignored the other part of my comment, where, you know, I argue about it. How productive (and what an honor in Turing's name).

The reason Google created Google+ are well known, stated officially and have nothing to do with having a single sign on. They could have a single sign on system without Google+.

Nothing necessitates a social forum as a part of a SSO system.

So, there, you have. Feel more productive now?

>for which you pay nothing

Em, I'd hate to break it to you, but Google makes lots of money selling ads targeted to me and other users.

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

#406

Post by coldtea »

RestlessMind wrote: post #247
kunai wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 h…

>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"?

I can.

For one, being able to purchase/rent is irrelevant to the original YouTube idea. It wasn't a movie marketplace -- it was about sharing videos. People can purchase/rent content from 10000 sources, it's not what made YT useful originally.

Second, it has been ruined by:

1) Constant ads, from "skip in 4 seconds" to "you have to watch all 30s, sucka".

2) Taking off videos, or taking off their audio content, when some media company decides the music is theirs.

3) Forced G+ integration.

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

#407

Post by coldtea »

nilkn wrote: post #188
coldtea wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Huh?

1) There are tons of decent email services out there.

2) GoogleTalk, who uses that?

3) YouTube I agree. Though that's an acquired company, so it's not all to Google's credit. If it was up to Google, we'd only have the shitty Google Video.

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

#408

Post by adamisen »

Helianthus wrote: post #249
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'…

Google glass and cars are the vestiges of the old Google. The travesty is that they are subservient to G+.

Google Glass is new Google. It's a walled garden that requires a Google server to function. It's more of a greenhouse, really...

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

#409

Post by bruceb »

So google tells business hey setup a google+ account for your business to show yourself off...accept if a person is on their iPhone and comes to your google+ page they have to have google+ installed. How many are not going to bother installing the app and not come back to your google+ page?

There is a difference between highly suggesting consumers use your product which google used to do and requiring they use your product. Sadly google has crossed that line.

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

#410

Post by adamisen »

cyborgx7 wrote: post #298
rimantas wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 > hardest against openness on the internet. What a bunch of nonsense. Even the first iPhone had a browser which supported more of HTML5/CSS3 than desktop browsers at the time. It was not Google, it was Apple who brought canvas, css transforms, css animations to…

>Even the first iPhone had a browser which supported more of HTML5/CSS3 than desktop browsers at the time. Except for the feature that most people mainly use plugins for: audio/video-playback. Only supporting proprietary codecs can hardly be considered open web support. >How about 60 000 apps ditched by Google? I don't think you can compare a curated marketplace with a walled garden. There is a difference between jai…

Apple's early support for HTML5 audio/video tags is worlds better than the contemporary alternative. It seems plausible to me that without Apple's refusal to support Flash the audio and video tags would never have taken off.

Isn't the open video codec problem still unresolved?

Post reply on HN