Live data from Hacker News

Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

techradar.com

171–180 of 271 posts

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually a real thing. I worked at a consulting company partnered with McDonald's and they asked if we could help them optimize the number of sesame seeds on their burger buns.

Also raises the question: why does an executive need a consulting company to tell them to put less seeds on the bun? We can accept that "optimize" does not mean more...so...?

Because if they're wrong, it's the consulting company's fault, not the executive's. It is accountability laundering with a budget.

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#172
post #150

Remember when gmail first came out like almost 20 years ago? You had to get an invite! People loved it. It was a big deal - it made people actually love google. It wasn't just a search engine, it was this awesome company making awesome things and sharing them with you and it just made so much sense. Gmail was a billion times better than the alternatives (hotmail? yahoo mail?) and the competition just looked lazy and…

You're right and the problem is that I can't think of any product from Google for the last 10 years that had the same effect.

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you brought up McD's, then how do you explain why they're now rolling out Big Macs with more sauce, not less [1]? Along with a bunch of other improvements like melting cheese rather than sticking it on burgers cold. If nothing else matters than making numbers in a quarter, if companies "only ever cut back on things like product", then how do you explain this example of actual corporate behavior? It's not like M…

Is there a serious competitor to Google Search? Like, not a distant competitor like Bing that poses some hypothetical future threat, but like, a present threat to Google Search that they battle against daily. Likewise for the major other properties - Gmail? YouTube? The only products where there is IMO intense daily competition is Android and Chrome, where Google's dominance is far from complete. In Google's top mone…

> Is there a serious competitor to Google Search? Like, not a distant competitor like Bing that poses some hypothetical future threat, but like, a present threat to Google Search that they battle against daily.

Bing is what Google battles against daily. Bing is such a competitive threat that when reports came out three weeks ago that Samsung products might switch to Bing as a default, Google's stock dropped 4% [1]. Google has been innovating its search furiously over years and years because competition is just a click away -- knowledge cards, snippets, massive machine learning under the hood. Google pays Apple something like $8-12 billion a year to maintain its default. Google wouldn't do that if it didn't see Bing as a present threat.

> Likewise for the major other properties - Gmail? YouTube?

Microsoft Outlook? TikTok? Gigantic competitors. More businesses pay for Outlook than do for Gmail. And TikTok is crushing YouTube among teens [2].

[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/alphabet-falls-report-sam...

[2] https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/07/tiktok-is-crushing-youtube...

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#174
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And still we have sooo many devs who praise and glory their Google overlords. Chrome can do No Wrong. Android is Fantastic. Etc. It’s quite amazing actually.

I saw this a lot in like 2014, but it's been a while since I've run into anyone that fanboys Google or Android like they were in the past. People would fawn over Google.

Searching my old rants about AMP, they seem to swing from low/negative votes to higher vote counts around 2018.

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#175

I switched to fastmail.com a few years ago. It's not expensive and so far seems to work quite well for me.

I was reading this thread thinking, "I haven't noticed any ads on Gmail"... then remembered I've been using Fastmail for more than a year on my personal account.

So I guess that's a good thing - the fact I'm using Fastmail and not Gmail anymore just mainly disappeared from my consciousness.

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#176

This is part of why I chose a paid e-mail service. 1: No ads, ever 2: No reason to sell my data. They already have income, and if users found out they were selling data, they'd quickly bail from it (At least with the service I use, which is aimed more at users with privacy concerns), which would ruin their steady revenue. 3: Actually a reason to IMPROVE the product, because again, users will leave if the competition…

How do you quickly bail from email? It is a lot of effort to switch to a new email. The friction to levave is so high that your points 2 and 3 are not true.

If you own your own domain name for your email, then it's pretty simple and will take a few hours of effort to get fully moved over.

Part of why I pushed myself to move away from Gmail was I was still using the @gmail address occasionally.

Luckily, I'd been using my own domains for a long time for most emails, so it's been a pretty easy transition - I still have Fastmail poll Gmail for emails to make sure I see the ones that still go to @gmail.

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a Hackernews comment. > The idea that a company can keep removing something consumers want to pay for, but they won't notice, just doesn't exist in the real world. Have you heard of shrinkflation?

...And yours is such a Hacker News response? I don't know why you're even saying that. But yes, everybody's heard of shrinkflation, so I don't know what your point is. When inflation is happening or product-specific input costs are increasing, companies can either raise prices or shrink quantities. They have to do one or the other if they want to stay in business. Consumers are well aware of what's happening. Everybo…

These days I read downvoted comments first on HN. Everything you said is spot on (or to be honest, just common sense), but you're going to enjoy your downvotes.

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#178

Google now seems deep into the enshittification [1] process. Of all the big tech companies, they seemed the most customer-friendly, the least constrained by the need to optimize their money hose. But I guess the economic logic of tying executive compensation to short-term share price simply overwhelmed other considerations. The stock must go up, so revenues must grow, so Google must monetize everything to the maximum…

> Google now seems deep into the enshittification [1] process. Of all the big tech companies, they seemed the most customer-friendly, the least constrained by the need to optimize their money hose. But I guess the economic logic of tying executive compensation to short-term share price simply overwhelmed other considerations. The stock must go up, so revenues must grow, so Google must monetize everything to the maximum extent.

I'm surprised it this has taken this long to be honest. I expected everything to turn to shit with in a years of going public.

Re: Google appears to be scaling up the ads it shows to Gmail users

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't why this happens. If you are an exec at MCD, your main focus is on making numbers. That is it. Your bonus is based on this, your options are based on beating expectations...nothing else matters. What this means in practice is that companies look for ways to cut costs and fill gaps when a number comes in light (because you can cut costs immediately but growing revenue requires long-term investment). And, ov…

Since you brought up McD's, then how do you explain why they're now rolling out Big Macs with more sauce, not less [1]? Along with a bunch of other improvements like melting cheese rather than sticking it on burgers cold. If nothing else matters than making numbers in a quarter, if companies "only ever cut back on things like product", then how do you explain this example of actual corporate behavior? It's not like M…

That example has no relation at all to the topic. You seem to think that they are mutually exclusive or that "only" (in the part you have quoted) refers to something it does not. Just read what I said again.

It is reality, I worked in equity research specializing in consumer products so am reasonably familiar with the space. Consumers just see the product, but the economics are about a lot more. The actual product is but one area of competition (as I explained, just anecdotally product-focused consumer companies are the best kind of shorts because they will almost always saturate their market and be unable to build an area of solid competitive advantage...because product doesn't really matter).

I suspect you will have a problem comprehending this again, so to be clear: this does not mean that companies do not compete on product. It just means that product is often not the predominant factor.

I am not sure what you are saying but there is less competition in FMCG than QSR. Distribution consolidated heavily, and FMCGs have consolidated heavily too because the game is largely about expanding SKUs on existing distributor relationships (the economic model is actually very similar to Google, if you have a distribution network then it improves economics to add SKUs...this has been key for PEP) and advertising spend.

If you look at QSR, a lot of the product innovation that you see is superficial because of the limits of the operating model. Most of the "product innovation" is competition on advertising, there is real competition here (unlike with FMCG where ad spend is often defensive) because of consumer behaviour/the product consumption cycle (if you have ever been outside the US, you will realise that advertising on US TV is extremely unusual in this regard). And property has definitely become more important over the past decade (the growing chains are ones that have grown into the demographic shifts of the past ten years, chains with locations in legacy areas, i.e. malls, that are in decline have suffered).

Again, there is no competition at the margin. The world doesn't work that way. If MCD remove sesame seeds from their bun, there is not going to be a new entrant with more seeds. Maybe they add more seeds, maybe they add more sauce but that doesn't change that if they removed seeds to make numbers (which has happened before), there is very little risk to their competitive position. Again, the proof of this is how the world actually works, not based on some theoretical model of competition that you just thought up sitting in your bedroom.

Post reply on HN