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

Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

gigaom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 242 posts

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#171

Post by johnpowell »

kercker wrote: post #106

If Google keep creating new things, how can it manage so many products? Killing some old products is a good option for them, though bad for users.

I think part of the reader problem is that, like me, many people think of reader as a few servers on the bottom of a rack at a huge datacenter. Just a few blinking lights next to the floor that nobody thinks about or has to really do anything to keep them blinking.

I'm sure people worked on it but in the grand scheme of things it was a drop in the bucket.

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#172

Post by dewiz »

My two cents: trust only apps that allows to export 100% of your data, or even better saves your data in an open format accessible through API.

At the end of the day it is not about Google or Microsoft or Evernote, but about not losing data You created.

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#174

Post by jan_g »

AJ007 wrote: post #150
mindcrime wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. It's very unfortunate too, as Google were uniquely positioned to be great defenders of the Open Web. Who else has the clout to do it now, as well as the motivation? Does anybody see Marissa moving Yahoo that way? I'm guessing "no" but would love to be proven wrong. It won't be Microsoft, you can bet on that. Red Hat are a moderately powerful company, but they aren't that big and could wind up acquired by Oracl…

I think there is a compelling case Microsoft should move in the other direction. Will they have the right leadership in the future to do this, I don't know. Microsoft is not a lost cause. I came of age as an active Slashdot reader. At that time Microsoft was seen as an arch villain that could do nothing but evil. Curiously, today Google has a far deeper and more chilling degree of influence far beyond what Microsoft…

>Google today, makes the Microsoft of yesterday look like a used child's toy.

I agree with you completely with regards to privacy and all the information that Google has about users. However, the difference is that Microsoft of yesterday had a stranglehold on users' choice. It was really hard to be productive by NOT using windows operating system and the whole ecosystem that came with it.

Today you don't want Google search? Use Bing or ddg. Gmail? There are countless other free webmail providers. Google+? You have Facebook, Twitter and so on. Youtube? DailyMotion, Metacafe, etc. Android phones? You have iOS, WP8 devices.

While Google really is very powerful, one still has good alternatives.

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#175

Post by rjtavares »

tlrobinson wrote: post #129
brian_cloutier wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's corporate mission is to organize the world's information. Taken from http://www.google.com/landing/now/ > Google Now gets you just the right information at just the right time. Google Now extends the mission to include personal information. The plan is to eventually know what you want before you know you want it. How could that be any more strategic?

One could argue Reader organized information as well.

Reader lets you organize information, not Google for you.

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#178

Post by joedevon »

jseims wrote: post #120
ghshephard wrote: post #2

My favorite comment from the post: "And by the way – how is this app strategic for you guys and Reader is not? A little clarity would certainly be appreciated." I too would love to know what Google is thinking here.

I'm building something on top of Hangouts, and I had an exchange that this reminded me of. I was finally connected with a developer evangelist, and I sent an email saying something like "would love to know more about Google's strategic goals with Hangouts". Her response was "I'm sure you're aware that Google doesn't discuss its strategies outside the company". What a striking cultural difference from startups, where…

Google doesn't want anyone to know what they're up to. Ironically, they want to know EVERYTHING about what YOU are up to.

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#179

Post by hilko »

fudged71 wrote: post #141
brian_cloutier wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's corporate mission is to organize the world's information. Taken from http://www.google.com/landing/now/ > Google Now gets you just the right information at just the right time. Google Now extends the mission to include personal information. The plan is to eventually know what you want before you know you want it. How could that be any more strategic?

Does one mission statement really cover the motivations of a company that has branched out into so many areas? Reader is a huge blow to that mission.

Isn't that why they're consolidating and trimming the business, to be more focused on that mission statement?

In itself, Reader could fit in (as the article by one of the original developers touched on). But for various reasons they never worked this out, or didn't put enough resources on it. So now they pull the plug. A stupid decision for many reasons, but not necessarily from a purely 'strategic' point of view.

One reason I can think of that they never invested deeply in Reader could be that the subset of people using it actively (geeks, information addicts) just wasn't interesting and broad enough to them.

Re: Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself

#180

Post by hallomac2013 »

AJ007 wrote: post #150
mindcrime wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. It's very unfortunate too, as Google were uniquely positioned to be great defenders of the Open Web. Who else has the clout to do it now, as well as the motivation? Does anybody see Marissa moving Yahoo that way? I'm guessing "no" but would love to be proven wrong. It won't be Microsoft, you can bet on that. Red Hat are a moderately powerful company, but they aren't that big and could wind up acquired by Oracl…

I think there is a compelling case Microsoft should move in the other direction. Will they have the right leadership in the future to do this, I don't know. Microsoft is not a lost cause. I came of age as an active Slashdot reader. At that time Microsoft was seen as an arch villain that could do nothing but evil. Curiously, today Google has a far deeper and more chilling degree of influence far beyond what Microsoft…

What a terrible joke. We are talking about a company that if left unchallenged, would have destroyed everything free and open source stands for. For what? For utterly selfish domination. Microsoft is rotten to the core from the very beginning. They didn't started for making "better stuff". "That doesn't matters" to them. And they proved many times that they haven't changed at all.
Post reply on HN