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

The IBM-ification of Google?

zeroshot.bearblog.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 168 posts

Re: The IBM-ification of Google?

#121

Post by coderenegade »

jasomill wrote: post #112
coderenegade wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM got to where it is today by being complacent and not keeping up with innovation. Google is notably at the forefront of innovation, in a driving seat, and that innovation directly stands to benefit one of their core businesses in a way that the market is probably only just beginning to understand. It's an entirely different situation, imo.

A technology company that's profitably doing over $50 billion in sales after more than 100 years with no obvious signs of impending doom sounds like an okay position to me, even if the tables have turned since 1984[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I

The context here is that at one point, IBM was an innovator and global leader in the technology space before it got outcompeted. It was the first company to cross a $100 billion market cap. If you think of the IBM of 50 years ago as being roughly analogous to Apple today, the difference is pretty clear. Google is much closer to Apple than it is to IBM, and I don't see that changing.

Re: The IBM-ification of Google?

#122

Post by pelasaco »

cyberax wrote: post #11
somesortofthing wrote: post #2

Not the article's main point but I've never liked the "google killing products" complaints. People always talk about how big companies fail because they're unwilling to take risks and just recommit to their areas of strength, but this is what risk-taking looks like - you blast out products, see what sticks, and kill what doesn't. People who think it's a quality product won't be wary of whether it'll get killed - the…

Can you name a good new Google product then? I just can't remember anything recent. I can't even remember any good recent _improvements_ to their core products. If anything, recent changes are more like downgrades than upgrades.

Isn't Gmail a product? i think its pretty solid. Actually the best e-mail service out there, no?

Re: The IBM-ification of Google?

#123

Post by pelasaco »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #99

Google is the opposite of IBM. IBM would send 10 consultants to coddle you while extracting all your money. Google sends you 10 automated notifications about how your service is about to be changed or terminated and then asks for more money. IBM also made its money off of fat enterprise contracts and vertically integrated products. Google makes its money off of being the monopoly owning most of the advertising indust…

however my last experiences with IBM was: they send you 10 junior consultants, they get the money, for 10 senior consultants, and still cannot deliver what they promised.

Re: The IBM-ification of Google?

#124

Post by lern_too_spel »

hintymad wrote: post #16

> YouTube is eating itself from the inside out too One thing that I really really hate Youtube for is that they don't allow users to turn off their shorts. You can choose to "reduce" Shorts for a given session, but they come back right next time. That said, Youtube is tremendously valuable for its high-quality content. It's kinda like a restaurant. The service can be horrible. They decor can be hideous. But! I'm goin…

If you're not using Morphe, https://www.theverge.com/streaming/912898/youtube-shorts-fee...

Re: The IBM-ification of Google?

#125

Post by sreekanth850 »

MrDarcy wrote: post #55
aurareturn wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think that Railway certainly had an account manager, right? Did they say they didn’t have one?

The article is incorrect and misleading. Railway did have an account manager and they did call them and they did pick up the phone and work with them to restore service.

What is the use of Account manager if a billion dollar company got screwedup for straight 5 + hours?

Re: The IBM-ification of Google?

#126

Post by thibaut_barrere »

cco wrote: post #117
esrauch wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you think account managers do that they can prevent accidents/bugs like that?

Typically a strong account team builds processes with other teams (compliance, engineering, etc) that enshrines and insulates important accounts from accidents like this. In this case, I'd expect major accounts (and maybe Railway isn't above this level?) to be in a protected tier that is immune from automated suspensions like this. If suspicious traffic occurs that _would_ trigger a suspension like that, the account…

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48231538, they appeared to have everything you can have, and it wasn’t enough to prevent this.

Re: The IBM-ification of Google?

#127

Post by thevivekshukla »

> And Search is just completely unusable now. They built an entire empire off our content. Bloggers, old forums, niche sites. We made the web worth searching in the first place. Now their AI Overviews just scrape our exact answers, strip out the hyperlinks, and repackage it in a blue box without linking back.

I don't like that they throw AI overview on your face when you search, rather they should show AI overview on the right column and search results on the left.

Re: The IBM-ification of Google?

#129

Post by soraminazuki »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #81
somesortofthing wrote: post #2

Not the article's main point but I've never liked the "google killing products" complaints. People always talk about how big companies fail because they're unwilling to take risks and just recommit to their areas of strength, but this is what risk-taking looks like - you blast out products, see what sticks, and kill what doesn't. People who think it's a quality product won't be wary of whether it'll get killed - the…

> Not the article's main point but I've never liked the "google killing products" complaints. ... you blast out products, see what sticks, and kill what doesn't Except that Google kills the products we use! Google Reader had basically the entire community. No one cares when they kill something niche. I don't touch new Google products, they're toxic. And now with AI I can finally stop using their search too. All that…

If anything, email is the #1 priority for de-googling, lest they slop you with a ban. Losing access to your email is so disruptive that migrating to a more trustworthy provider with custom domain support is worth the time and effort of updating addresses.

Re: The IBM-ification of Google?

#130

Post by scared_together »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #53
KnuthIsGod wrote: post #34

All empires eventually decay and die. Wang, Bull, Unisys, IBM, DEC, the Mongolian Empire, the Hungarian Empire, Dutch Empire, the Portugese Empire.... they all exist in some form, but are shadows of their former selves. IBM died because it was forced to hire second raters to fill the ranks. Over time, the company became synonymous with failure and mediocrity.

I honestly think we're in a post-disruption era in that Google/Meta/Twitter/Reddit/etc. can't die. They have too much power and they've captured the entire population now. The internet isn't made up largely of enthusiasts anymore. Mediocrity is the strength of these platforms. The eternal September has made their home and they're not moving again.

I think Meta, Twitter and Reddit will lose relevance as younger generations move to different social networks. TikTok has already taken a bite out of the social media market, so has Discord.

Out of the four companies listed, Google is the one whose survival I’d bet on.

Post reply on HN