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

Expunging Google

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 175 posts

Re: Expunging Google

#91

Post by lobster_johnson »

lobster_johnson wrote: post #11
ok_craig wrote: post #8

I still think this is all ridiculous. Stopping support for a product that uses a certain standard doesn't mean you're against that standard, unless you're a conspiracy theorist. You can argue that they're against certain open standards if you want, but the canceling of Reader isn't actually evidence of that. Simultaneously putting effort into G+ is also not evidence of that. It's not even symbolic of that. It is only…

The main problem with Google at the moment is the centralization of many popular services into one corporate entity. Video, search, email etc. are all now in the hands of, mostly, Google. With so few viable competitors, you get a de-factory monopoly as well as insane growth. The centralization itself is the problem. Success like this does not breed innovation. Aside from some novel extra-Internet projects like Glass…

> de-factory

One of the more amusing typos I have written while sleep-deprived. Sorry.

Re: Expunging Google

#92

Post by lobster_johnson »

ok_craig wrote: post #15
lobster_johnson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main problem with Google at the moment is the centralization of many popular services into one corporate entity. Video, search, email etc. are all now in the hands of, mostly, Google. With so few viable competitors, you get a de-factory monopoly as well as insane growth. The centralization itself is the problem. Success like this does not breed innovation. Aside from some novel extra-Internet projects like Glass…

I can get behind your first paragraph, which is basically just saying that as a consumer you like to support variety and a dynamic market by using services from multiple providers. If that's you're goal, that's a reasonable enough justification for me. However, that's not a reaction that would come as a direct result of one product cancellation (because it is a proactive, not re active perspective), and my comment is…

Yes, as a consumer I would like variety and a dynamic market. But regarding the second point (proactive/reactive), I would also like an ecosystem of businesses that are engaged in some level of technological cooperation towards common goals. This over-reliance on Reader, for example, is an example of a bad ecosystem. It's not entirely Google's fault; it's also our fault as users for not seeing the single-provider trap until too late, and it's the entire ecosystem's fault for marginalizing feed technology in favour of intrusive ad-infested web sites.

As for the second paragraph: My point is that once you have a certain amount of dominance, and a certain amount of traction in the market (of the kind that it's hard to switch from, such as Gmail or Reader or Docs/Drive), it's no longer important prioritize openness or sharing or standards compliance. Those things don't matter in the short run to your user base, many of whom are loyal by necessity (switching is hard) or inertia (don't really care, it's the default choice), or who just don't know or care. It doesn't really matter to your bottom line if you piss of a minor percentage (eg., Reader, or the recent post about Google not providing any kind of support), and the competition is so small that they don't matter much either.

Re: Expunging Google

#93

Post by lobster_johnson »

rattray wrote: post #54
lobster_johnson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main problem with Google at the moment is the centralization of many popular services into one corporate entity. Video, search, email etc. are all now in the hands of, mostly, Google. With so few viable competitors, you get a de-factory monopoly as well as insane growth. The centralization itself is the problem. Success like this does not breed innovation. Aside from some novel extra-Internet projects like Glass…

I'd have to disagree on the innovation point. Google continues to make dramatic improvements (imo) to many of their apps and services. As a developer building on Docs/Drive, I've seen that service continuously grow and expand, though much of the work remains below the waterline. Similarly, Maps, Now, Voice Search, Chrome, App Engine continue to be improved at a rate that outstrips what I'm used to at most other compa…

Google does iterate their products, but I don't see much innovation. Granted, I haven't tried Now, as I don't have an Android phone, but it does sound like real innovation.

I just don't see much happening with other products. Chrome? Just getting slower and more bloated. App Engine? Does nothing for me that Heroku doesn't. Docs, while impressive, came out years ago, and Drive is basically a Dropbox/iCloud clone.

Google actually made a huge reverse-innovation with Google+, which is essentially just Facebook rewritten for the Google ecosystem. It's pretty much as invasive as Facebook in how it attempts to smear the contents of your private life across an impersonal surface, and it seems to belong to another era of walled-garden services that don't integrate with anything other than itself (posts doesn't even support formatting other than bold and italic, how's that for retrograde?).

Re: Expunging Google

#94

Post by lobster_johnson »

dalks wrote: post #26
lobster_johnson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main problem with Google at the moment is the centralization of many popular services into one corporate entity. Video, search, email etc. are all now in the hands of, mostly, Google. With so few viable competitors, you get a de-factory monopoly as well as insane growth. The centralization itself is the problem. Success like this does not breed innovation. Aside from some novel extra-Internet projects like Glass…

> de-factory monopoly Not really: - Video: Till Oct '12, youtube's market share peaked at ~52%. [1] - Email: Gmail surpassed Outlook in market share only in Oct '12. [2] - Search: Google Search 67.5% as of March 15, 2013. [3] > many of these services have stagnated And when they attempt to get out of markets so that other new companies can perform better, we get Reader like response. > Google does not seem to care mu…

Would love to see some market-share breakdowns. Still, that's pretty huge. I expected them to bigger at video, but I guess there is a pretty long tail of smaller providers such as Vimeo and Liveleak and what not?

> And when they attempt to get out of markets so that other new companies can perform better

I really doubt that they canceled Reader for such altruistic reasons.

> And how are you sure that FastMail and Vimeo (Alternatives suggested in the OP) are any better?

I don't know what their market share is, but I bet it's very small compared to Google's. In other words, they have to care about standards because they are nowhere near in control.

Re: Expunging Google

#95

Post by dalks »

onemorepassword wrote: post #76
ok_craig wrote: post #8

I still think this is all ridiculous. Stopping support for a product that uses a certain standard doesn't mean you're against that standard, unless you're a conspiracy theorist. You can argue that they're against certain open standards if you want, but the canceling of Reader isn't actually evidence of that. Simultaneously putting effort into G+ is also not evidence of that. It's not even symbolic of that. It is only…

You must have not been paying attention. A long list of evidence has been posted here on HN on several occassionas, including dropping CalDAV, of Google turning against the open web. It's nothing new either, it has been going on for years. They've even dropped their support for net neutrality years ago. In the mean time Google has been heavily pushing the Google+ walled garden, their anti-privacy and anti-anonymity a…

> HN on several occassionas

3 if I count correctly: Reader closedown (which, in my opinion, not a hit to open web at all), XMPP Federation issue (It's fixed now) and CalDAV whitelist (Not closedown, whitelist).

Re: Expunging Google

#96

Post by gnur »

lobster_johnson wrote: post #84
dannyr wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you saying that if we don't count the innovation that Google has been doing, Google is not innovative at all. Btw, here are some Google products that it continues to iterate: Google Maps YouTube Android Wallet Google+ Go AngularJS Shopping However, if you don't want to count these ones, I guess you're right that most of Google's services have stagnated. #sarcasm

No, I'm saying that Google is innovating very little. Indeed, it's primarily innovating in areas not related to the web (which the article is about). Search, Maps,YouTube have not evolved much the last few years; the last true innovation was Street View, and the last truly useful addition to Search was the fact database integration. Android is basically just following in Apple's footsteps. Wallet I don't know anythin…

Too bad you are so hard trying to make your point you lose connection with reality.

Android, in its core, is so entirely different then iOS that saying "following in Apple's footsteps" is just wrong. What has changed in recent major (!!) iOS updates? Twitter & Facebook integration.. Seriously? While Android 4 revamped the entire user interface, streamlined ui & ux and allowed for buttonless phones (apart from power).

Also, Google Maps recently added vector based maps, a great addition to the previous bitmap based maps. Search has added countless quick results like instant currency conversion, quick answers to questions and instant results. Gmail has litteraly changed web based mail and still continues to do so. I do agree on youtube & go. Go isn't a revolution, it is one of the most boring languages ever. Which is one of it major plusses over "exciting" languages like ruby & python. Also, it isn't an offcial Google product, so stomping Go to the ground really shows how you are just bashing away.

Please don't say innovation has stopped when it clearly hasn't.

Re: Expunging Google

#97

Post by dalks »

vidarh wrote: post #88
ok_craig wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can get behind your first paragraph, which is basically just saying that as a consumer you like to support variety and a dynamic market by using services from multiple providers. If that's you're goal, that's a reasonable enough justification for me. However, that's not a reaction that would come as a direct result of one product cancellation (because it is a proactive, not re active perspective), and my comment is…

He is not claiming an opposition to open standards, but that open standards are secondary , and will get thrown under bus if it conflicts with the primary goal of making money, and that it seems Google believes social in general and Google+ is the way to make more money, and that this puts open standards at risk. Reducing your dependency on Google's support for open standards then becomes prudent. Personally I'm stic…

No he is arguing that because Google closed down Reader, using any other service offered by Google is poor judgement while also stating that they don't innovate in many if not all product areas.

Re: Expunging Google

#98

Post by mehrdada »

bdowney wrote: post #86
ok_craig wrote: post #8

I still think this is all ridiculous. Stopping support for a product that uses a certain standard doesn't mean you're against that standard, unless you're a conspiracy theorist. You can argue that they're against certain open standards if you want, but the canceling of Reader isn't actually evidence of that. Simultaneously putting effort into G+ is also not evidence of that. It's not even symbolic of that. It is only…

Google has made several mistakes re social products but it's definitely not against the open web. There's a lot of internal criticism every time one of these decisions is made but, at the end of the day, upper management gets to do whatever they want. I've never met anybody at Google how was happy with the way G+ is being handled or liked Vic Gundotra. A lot of us rather he'd go back to Microsoft.

When I think about it, I can completely agree with your last paragraph. Not a single Googler that I have met disagrees with that.

Re: Expunging Google

#99

Post by exterm »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #68
cageface wrote: post #47

I understand why people are reluctant to trust a single corporation with so much control over their personal information, particularly when, as they say, the user is as much the product as the customer. I'm generally a big defender of Google but even I am disquieted by their maneuvering around Google+. However, I also doubt it's possible to build services as sophisticated as GMail on direct payments from users. I str…

> I strongly suspect that very few people would be willing to > pay what it would cost to build and run a service like > GMail without ads. What do you think the problem would be? I'm using Fastmail now, and not missing anything from Gmail. All for $50 / month.

Personal account costs 4.95$ / year. What kind of premium account do you have to pay 50$ / month for?

Re: Expunging Google

#100

Post by mtgx »

dalks wrote: post #26
lobster_johnson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main problem with Google at the moment is the centralization of many popular services into one corporate entity. Video, search, email etc. are all now in the hands of, mostly, Google. With so few viable competitors, you get a de-factory monopoly as well as insane growth. The centralization itself is the problem. Success like this does not breed innovation. Aside from some novel extra-Internet projects like Glass…

> de-factory monopoly Not really: - Video: Till Oct '12, youtube's market share peaked at ~52%. [1] - Email: Gmail surpassed Outlook in market share only in Oct '12. [2] - Search: Google Search 67.5% as of March 15, 2013. [3] > many of these services have stagnated And when they attempt to get out of markets so that other new companies can perform better, we get Reader like response. > Google does not seem to care mu…

>Email: Gmail surpassed Outlook in market share only in Oct '12.

Sorry, you can't say "Outlook" when it's actually "Hotmail". Just because Hotmail had 400 million accounts, doesn't mean Outlook will have, too. Outlook only had 10 million accounts last I checked.

Post reply on HN