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

101–110 of 444 posts

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

#101

Post by skeletonjelly »

BariumBlue wrote: post #88
BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #84

I have always been somewhat of a Google fanboy except for a few misgivings about their worrisome breadth of infiltration into people's live and things like the iGoogle shutdown but the Reader situation has been a huge slap in the face that made me lose a lot of faith in them. There is a huge war between Facebook and Google for global control of the most popular social graph and as much as I like Zuckerberg as a perso…

>I think there should be a third option in the form of a decentralized social protocol. You mean something like diaspora? https://joindiaspora.com/

Sure it's an option, but without the users it's at the same time, not an option. Catch 22 of course.

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

#102

Post by [deleted] »

jrajav wrote: post #96
kaoD wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried commenting on Google Play? You need Google+. I have an Android phone but I shouldn't need a Google+ account when I have my regular Google account which actually works on Google Play. And it wasn't like this when I bought my phone. I can't "opt out" of my phone. I already bought it before they required Google+ for Play's comments. Have you tried using YouTube? They keep nagging you to open a profile. et…

Just to play the devil's advocate here, it's not like Google Play is necessary for an Android device to work. That's already an extreme improvement over Apple's store, which is even less free, open, and modular and also requires you to create an Apple ID (though thankfully Apple hasn't tried fumbling with a tied-in social network or similar web services).

[deleted]

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

#103

Post by GFischer »

lawdawg wrote: post #67
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…

I must have missed all of this outrage over Android, Chrome, GMail, Docs + Drive, Adwords, Analytics, etc, etc. To be honest, I'm really glad Google finally pulled the plug on Reader instead of letting it rot to death. It's opened up the market for companies who will really focus on it. The same with iGoogle, which will be replaced by a much better "Google Now"-ish product.

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.com/item?id=5218153

GMail: if you have a problem with GMail, you're SCREWED. My mother still hasn't got her account back, and mine was hacked some time ago (I now have 2-factor auth, which still has some bugs - for example someone reported a bug with Android auth even if you revoke the keys)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3839726

Adwords: don't get me started. The rules for an Adwords account are really opaque. I think there's a post on the frontpage right now. Ahh, here it is:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5523992

I've had my run-ins with Adwords too.

While I still depend way too much on my GMail account, I have my personal email somewhere else, and I won't consider it for business use (and they probably are going to lose millions of dollars because of that).

There's still not a strong challenger to AdWords, but I'll definitely look forward to it.

Even Google search is starting to degrade somewhat, it's still not Altavista-level.

To be fair, Google still produces some amazing products which they give away for free, but they generate a lot of ill will by not giving even paid support.

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

#104

Post by mapgrep »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #24
mapgrep wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"There is no "patent" on... creating a more durable (and by that I mean self sustainable) service which has the same capability." I'd love to hear why you believe going from a decentralized open shared system like RSS to a centralized proprietary system controlled by one corporation (Google+) is even conceivably more "durable." I'd bet $100 that Google+ sharing will be dead and buried long before RSS goes anywhere.

I'm sorry you inverted my point. My point was that RSS was created by the community (and Dave Winer :-) and FeedBurner was created by two guys as I recall, its not impossible to make such systems so they will survive. Hence the whining about Google's action is misplaced. BTW, I'll take that bet on Google+ if we can agree on a future date :-) I think Google is in to Google+ for the long haul, killing it will take a lo…

Ah, sorry I misread you! :)

I hesitate to put an expiration date on Google+, except relative to RSS. Hmm.

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

#105

Post by kaoD »

pkulak wrote: post #100
kaoD wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I specially hate about Google+ is the fact that Google can't stop spamming me to join it. Now even Google Play comments need to be part of Google+. You know what, Google? Fuck you. No. Fuck you twice. I won't join that fucking horrid place. I don't even have Facebook, why would I join a crappy social network?

You're acting like the act of "joining" is some huge deal. You already have an account with Google. "Joining" Google+ probably flips 3 bits in some BigTable database somewhere. The only reason you are getting so self-righteous about it is because Google is giving you the option. If you don't _do_ anything on Google+, what's it matter? Interesting that you bring up you Facebook anti-creds. Do you also not own a TV?

Joining IS a huge deal. Lots of things are getting shared when you have a Google+ account, most of which I don't want to share (e.g. which YouTube videos I like, my Google Play comments...) and have to be turned off explicitly. I know this because I once was a Google+ user for a short time (during which I didn't even notice).

When I mentioned Facebook I just meant: "I'm not into the biggest and most useful social network, why would I join your crappy-and-useless one?"

P.S.: I don't own a TV.

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

#106

Post by s3bast0m »

ianstormtaylor wrote: post #58
DanBC wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do they need to do to fix YouTube? (I'm really asking. I think some of it is broken, and maybe people can pass information onto YouTube people.) 1) Default to 240: I want to be able to always watch videos in the worst resolution possible. I want the lightest bandwidth possible. I'd sometimes be happy with just the audio. It seems that I can't default to 240, no matter what I click. 2) Small elements in UI: There…

Personally I'd hate a default to 240 feature. I don't care about bandwidth, I'm tired of clicking the HQ button.

You can always try using this Chrome extension Auto HD For YouTube https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/empty-title/koiaok...

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

#107

Post by blantonl »

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…

Don't be evil? Pfeh.

Google is a publicly traded company (Stock Ticker: NASDAQ: GOOG)

The demands of the shareholders and board of directors outweighs the expectations of Google's users and business partners.

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

#108

Post by dannyr »

kaoD wrote: post #77
yanw wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So don't joint. No need to be rude about it.

Have you tried commenting on Google Play? You need Google+. I have an Android phone but I shouldn't need a Google+ account when I have my regular Google account which actually works on Google Play. And it wasn't like this when I bought my phone. I can't "opt out" of my phone. I already bought it before they required Google+ for Play's comments. Have you tried using YouTube? They keep nagging you to open a profile. et…

I tried using Facebook and it wants me to create a Profile!

I want to post a tweet but Twitter wants me to create a Profile!

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

#109

Post by r00fus »

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.

The problem with "don't be evil" is that it sets up the company to look hypocritical when it does something that could be construed as evil (or at least ambiguous).

Just like "it just works" for Apple - really super awesome, except when it doesn't - for large groups of their customers.

People may disagree on what's evil (especially when media companies can easily be "hired" to muddy the waters). Hypocrisy is much easier to detect and justifiably besmirches the brand value.

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

#110

Post by kaoD »

dannyr wrote: post #108
kaoD wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried commenting on Google Play? You need Google+. I have an Android phone but I shouldn't need a Google+ account when I have my regular Google account which actually works on Google Play. And it wasn't like this when I bought my phone. I can't "opt out" of my phone. I already bought it before they required Google+ for Play's comments. Have you tried using YouTube? They keep nagging you to open a profile. et…

I tried using Facebook and it wants me to create a Profile! I want to post a tweet but Twitter wants me to create a Profile!

I already have a profile both for Google Play and for YouTube. They want me to sign to a different service.

"I want to post a tweet but Twitter wants me to open a bank account!"

Your argument is invalid.

Also: they wouldn't be nagging me if I had no account. Did they nag you when using YouTube while logged out? They don't nag me when I'm not logged in.

Post reply on HN