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

Google Cache is fully dead

seroundtable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 249 posts

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#101

Post by _DeadFred_ »

wwweston wrote: post #38
jjbinx007 wrote: post #5

Is anyone at Google even aware how much this hurts their brand? I received an email from Google today with the subject line "Meet the new Google TV Streamer (4K)" The sender was Google Chromecast. Apparently it's some sort of streaming hardware they are selling for £99. I won't even consider buying one. How long until it's an obsolete brick? And when it's a brick, what are the chances I can wipe it and install my own…

The real question is why they'd have to be aware. It's entirely possible that those of us who pay attention to this are a vanishing minority compared to the cultural momentum of Google as the default search provider and a dominant provider of email/office SaaS. But even if dissatisfaction is growing, the institional momentum is just so huge that it's very likely Google simply doesn't have the capacity to sense any br…

Honestly, who is going to be comfortable staking their name on adopting Google's AI offerings? I have talked so many people out of wasting their effort supporting it simply by pointing to all the rug pulls Google has done.

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#102

Post by RachelF »

Sadly, not knowing what used to be, erases history.

“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.” ― George Orwell, 1984

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#103

Post by _DeadFred_ »

naet wrote: post #92
kelnos wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure people who used google's web cache comprised a tiny fraction of one percent of their entire user base, and this move doesn't even put the tiniest ding in their brand.

It adds up over time. I used and liked Google domains for a bunch of websites, and was disappointed when that was axed and all my domains moved to squarespace (and have since transferred them all out). I used the Google podcast app on my phone, and that was killed and replaced by YouTube music which is a horrible replacement. I used to buy in heavily to the Google ecosystem and trust it as a pretty solid go to option…

It became apparent they are a zombie company once I realized I no longer put any brainspace into learning new functionality/tools Google offered. They are a corporation living off the corpse of who they have been. Total zombie company that doesn't realize it's dead yet.

What was the last new Google anything you added to your daily life? Instead of adding Google Quickshare to share files from my PC to Android I use Microsoft's Phone Link. That is the first time in my life I've picked a Microsoft product over a Google one. It also just works better and doesn't require I have bluetooth enabled on both devices.

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#104

Post by 0134340 »

skybrian wrote: post #43
jjbinx007 wrote: post #5

Is anyone at Google even aware how much this hurts their brand? I received an email from Google today with the subject line "Meet the new Google TV Streamer (4K)" The sender was Google Chromecast. Apparently it's some sort of streaming hardware they are selling for £99. I won't even consider buying one. How long until it's an obsolete brick? And when it's a brick, what are the chances I can wipe it and install my own…

I have an original Chromecast and it still works, though pairing it with a new TV is a bit of a pain. The new Google TV is more like a smart TV without the TV. It has apps you install. It's much more complex and not the same thing at all. I was disappointed. But then again every company discontinues products. I don't see that as a breach of trust. It's making up a promise they never made and criticizing them for it.

I've not been so lucky. Google went into partnership with Asus years ago and released the Nexus player, which I had. An expensive streaming player that within a year bricked itself due to Google's update. Many people were upset and when asked for support on the official forums, Google said it was in Asus' hands and of course Asus said the same of Google. I checked for updates at least a year thereafter but there was no fix, the thing was hard-bricked and hundreds of people had useless hockey pucks. Never again, Google.

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#105

Post by aledalgrande »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #101
wwweston wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real question is why they'd have to be aware. It's entirely possible that those of us who pay attention to this are a vanishing minority compared to the cultural momentum of Google as the default search provider and a dominant provider of email/office SaaS. But even if dissatisfaction is growing, the institional momentum is just so huge that it's very likely Google simply doesn't have the capacity to sense any br…

Honestly, who is going to be comfortable staking their name on adopting Google's AI offerings? I have talked so many people out of wasting their effort supporting it simply by pointing to all the rug pulls Google has done.

Can you describe this more? Curious as I was looking at their offerings.

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#106

Post by karlzt »

krackers wrote: post #56
luizfelberti wrote: post #48

> Then a couple of weeks ago, added [direct] links to the Wayback Machine Hopefully they are also making substantial donations to the Internet Archive, since they will be directing a lot of traffic into it and basically using their infrastructure as a feature on their main product... EDIT: Apparently they are collaborating but there are not much details [0] [0] https://blog.archive.org/2024/09/11/new-feature-alert-ac…

It'd be absolutely foolish if the agreement wasn't contingent on funding. I assume the reason it's not explicitly stated was some sort of NDA (since IA is also involved in turmoil and Google doesn't want to be part of that).

>> NDA

Non-disclosure agreement

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#107

Post by _DeadFred_ »

adamc wrote: post #49
jjbinx007 wrote: post #5

Is anyone at Google even aware how much this hurts their brand? I received an email from Google today with the subject line "Meet the new Google TV Streamer (4K)" The sender was Google Chromecast. Apparently it's some sort of streaming hardware they are selling for £99. I won't even consider buying one. How long until it's an obsolete brick? And when it's a brick, what are the chances I can wipe it and install my own…

I don't buy google devices anymore except for Pixel phones. Everything else tends to be disappointing over time.

My Pixel keeps getting worse. The only thing I can count on assistant for is setting a timer (as long as I don't interact with the phone before it takes a pause then says 'starting now', because if I don't wait then apparently I didn't actually want the timer I just requested and it doesn't get set). So, I guess it's 50% on the timer thing too.

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#108

Post by nomilk »

Can someone ELI5 what google cache was and why it was important? Was it essentially a wayback machine alternative? People are upset about its removal; curious to understand why.

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#109

Post by ssl-3 »

skybrian wrote: post #81
Tijdreiziger wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you can just ignore the apps and cast like you’re used to, if you don’t care about the extra functionality. (But in that case, I don’t see why you bought one in the first place.)

Yes, casting from your phone still works. However, it requires a Google login to set up and automatically downloads a bunch of apps you probably don't want if all you care about is playing movies and YouTube videos from your phone. I suppose you could create an account just for this, but you really shouldn't need an account at all. It was a gift for a relative: a "Chromecast with Google TV." I didn't know what it rea…

The original concept was great for some things, sure.

I bought an OG Chromecast over a decade ago. It was a one-trick pony: Push "cast" button on pocket computer, and whatever I was doing there would show up on the BFT.

Which is great, you know, for a person who lives alone and never has visitors: One can select an item from the slick interface provided by the service they subscribe to on their amazing personal computing device and it appears magically on the big screen. The control buttons are there on the pocket computer, too. It Just Works.

However, it is an awful experience for someone who wishes to watch a film together with others: My personal pocket computer is not really set up to be shared with others (and the live screencast function of Chromecast, while functional, has really high latency for interactive tasks).

And if someone else wants to pick something to watch using their own personal pocket computer, then they can of course do so -- but theirs is also not meant to be a shared experience, and they won't be able to use the services that I pay to use in my home.

So fine. A film is selected, however that is done, and it is playing. But it's time to pause it so someone can use the bathroom. Do I use my phone for my Chromecast for the movie my friend picked on their phone? I already had to hide the buttons from showing up in the notification area of everyone's pocket computer on the LAN, since my roommate kept being a dick and stopping my shit.

Or do I have my friend fumble around with this potentially-unfamiliar interface on their own (locked) pocket computer to pause it? What if they stepped away? Do I find the Home app on my own pocket computer, open it, find the devices page, find the appropriate Chromecast device, and then finally fucking pause it? (Fuck you. I just want to go take a fucking piss.)

Back then, it was a much better experience in my household to use a PS3 for streaming: It had a regular remote control that -- as a design intent -- anyone could pick up and operate. Browsing possible selections was done on the BFT that was visible to all interested parties. My roommate didn't get a notification on their phone that encouraged them fuck with me from a different area of the house. It was a much better experience for those who didn't live a life of absolute solitude.

Today, it's still that way -- except nowadays I have [what is sometimes referred to as] a GCWGTV. It can behave like an OG Chromecast (what UI???), or it can behave like a human-centric streaming device with its own GUI and dedicated physical remote control that anyone can pick up and use, browsing Netflix or Plex or whatever in a manner very similar to what we were doing on a PS3 back in the day.

This works fine.

Re: Google Cache is fully dead

#110

Post by manquer »

wwweston wrote: post #38
jjbinx007 wrote: post #5

Is anyone at Google even aware how much this hurts their brand? I received an email from Google today with the subject line "Meet the new Google TV Streamer (4K)" The sender was Google Chromecast. Apparently it's some sort of streaming hardware they are selling for £99. I won't even consider buying one. How long until it's an obsolete brick? And when it's a brick, what are the chances I can wipe it and install my own…

The real question is why they'd have to be aware. It's entirely possible that those of us who pay attention to this are a vanishing minority compared to the cultural momentum of Google as the default search provider and a dominant provider of email/office SaaS. But even if dissatisfaction is growing, the institional momentum is just so huge that it's very likely Google simply doesn't have the capacity to sense any br…

It matters because the HN crowd maybe small when it comes consumer products , but is a dominant factor for cloud purchases.

Having been burnt too many times with Google products[1] I try not use their offerings on the cloud many decision makers are here who will worry about similar issues.

If Google wants to be serious about Cloud then they need to be serious about long term support.

Microsoft in the win 3 /9x days till even win 7 was exceptionally consistent about ABI support even adding specific behaviors to support a single binary to make sure upgrades just worked. That kind of culture was a key factor that made developers want to develop on their platforms

—-

[1] just this week having to start work on upcoming firebase dynamic link deprecation.

While google had given a long lead time and announced the sunsetting years ahead , I still don’t have to worry about similar issues on AWS nearly as often.

Post reply on HN