Live data from Hacker News

The IBM-ification of Google?

zeroshot.bearblog.dev

31–40 of 168 posts

Re: The IBM-ification of Google?

#31
post #11

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.

Waymo's pretty good.

Re: The IBM-ification of Google?

#32
Google is in an incredibly strong position. They're a top tier AI vendor, and in a world where content creation is largely commoditized and outsourced to AI, advertising companies will determine what gets seen, and what gets buried in the noise. They control both generation and visibility of what gets generated. Facebook could be in the same position, but they aren't as strong in AI. OpenAI wants to be Google, but they don't have the advertising reach.

Yeah, they aren't perfect or always necessarily the best in a given area, but to compare them to IBM is probably missing the forest for the trees.

Re: The IBM-ification of Google?

#33

> 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…

On IOS/macos there's an app called "Unwatched for YouTube" which allows you to subscribe to channels via RSS (no need to login) and then you can turn shorts on/off per channel.

It's free for now but the developer has plans for some kind of subscription for premium features.

https://apps.apple.com/in/app/unwatched-for-youtube/id647728...

Re: The IBM-ification of Google?

#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.

Re: The IBM-ification of Google?

#35

Google is in an incredibly strong position. They're a top tier AI vendor, and in a world where content creation is largely commoditized and outsourced to AI, advertising companies will determine what gets seen, and what gets buried in the noise. They control both generation and visibility of what gets generated. Facebook could be in the same position, but they aren't as strong in AI. OpenAI wants to be Google, but th…

Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.

Nobody ever got fired for choosing Google.

Seems apropos.

Re: The IBM-ification of Google?

#37

> 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…

There's a new setting rolling out in the YouTube app.

Go to settings > time management > shorts feed limit. Turn that setting on, and you can select how many minutes you limit to. There's now an option for "0 minutes".

Re: The IBM-ification of Google?

#38
> Look at the Railway GCP account ban situation. A literally billion dollar startup running on Google Cloud and Google just randomly snaps their fingers and deletes their account. Zero warning. No phone number to call. No account rep. Poof. Gone. It is actual insanity to me. A billion dollar customer gets the exact same automated middle finger as a low effort spam bot. Your B2B business is completely cooked if that is how you treat people. The enterprise cloud gravy train is right there and Google is standing on the tracks begging to get hit by the train.

If you've been around a while you know that at any business critical scale at all you establish a relationship with your cloud provider and get an account manager. When you do this, you have a number to call.

A billion dollar startup not doing this is a keen lesson for the CTO.

Yes, Google likely screwed up here, but being unprepared for account problems, having no established relationship with your provider is a critical mistake.

The article goes on to talk about Hetzner as an example: their pricing is great for individuals but they literally don't even offer account management relationships - even at scale they actively refuse them. There are equivalent stories of account terminations with Hetzner, which is also a key point: this isn't just a big business problem, at all.

Re: The IBM-ification of Google?

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking the other day that it's particularly weird that Gmail is so bereft of features after all this time. It's not that they've left it completely as-is "this is great, there is nothing to do"—but just that the things they have tried have been... kinda uninteresting and quite simple? It's weird to me that with the other AI features they've tried (including suggested responses and such in drafting new emails)…

I honest to God cannot see how someone informed at all could call Google stagnant. Name almost anything and Google is on the frontier. Quantum computing, self driving, language models, network infrastructure, TPUs, etc. It's some sort of delusion on this website that Google is falling behind. Or more likely, wishful thinking.

Nah, they're right. Google can only afford to do this because there are literally two players when it comes to online advertising. Remove advertising from Google and suddenly they can't subsidize failing BUs.

Kinda the point of preventing monopolies. They stagnate actual growth in the pursuit of profits. Americans don't benefit when Google is a trillion dollar company, but Americans would benefit if there was an actual competitive market.

Post reply on HN