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

31–40 of 444 posts

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

#31

Post by redorb »

mapgrep wrote: post #12
ChuckMcM wrote: post #4

I feel the author's pain. I don't hold it against Google for looking at the way RSS is (was?) used and re-implementing it in a way that they can more easily make money off it, while simultaneously removing any traction they are offering for the old non monetizable way of doing things. They are a business after all and no amount of money in the bank is enough [1]. But I find the whining a bit distracting since the sam…

>"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 wouldn't bet against a lot of money (google) shutting down something they have seemed to bet a lot on. I believe Google shutting down Google Reader already means that 'RSS has gone somewhere' or will on July 1..

[edit] I also think Google backing off the shutdown would show a lot of users that it does listen and is willing to continue running a sub-par unit instead of shutting it down.

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

#32

Post by NewAccnt »

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…

Google, has no obligation to support Reader. What they did to the RSS market was shady, indeed, but it is well within their rights and they did not do anything that would infringe on the rights of developers or users the way Apple does. Nobody has a right to make a profitable RSS service, and nobody can tell them they have to support RSS in place of their social network of choice

Apple on the otherhand enforces a single marketplace on their operating system today. Microsoft has mostly learned from their past mistakes and people watch their every move and jump on them if any technology they use can be used to subvert freedom of developers or users down the line.

I don't have any dog in this race, but I don't understand why Apple continues to get a free pass to implement market control mascaraing in the name of clean interfaces with comforting whitespace and unified design, especially when it is used regularly to usurp users' and developers' rights.

This article is nothing but platitudes and entitlement. Somehow people got in their minds that they have a right to Google Search and can demand features and support from them.. I have no idea how this idea came about, but it seems that the gist of it is that we've come to expect everything for free from Google and that's just how it should always be.

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

#33

Post by elviejo »

endlessvoid94 wrote: post #19
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 trust google to build good infrastructure more than I trust the collective developer community. That's one reason -- whatever they build will be more robust, flexible, and extensible. And immediately adopted by hundreds of millions of people automatically. I guess that's not the same as "durable", but playing devil's advocate, those seem like good reasons to me.

The internet was built by a deceloper community collective... spread around the world in different universities... linux was built by another collective... and bittorrent... and apache.... have we forgotten that open distibuted systems are the most durable ones??

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

#34

Post by emiliobumachar »

mthoms wrote: post #9

Nitpick: the extension would not need to send every URL visited to Google. Just the ones where it detects a G+ widget. And by serving you the widget in the first place Google already knows that you've visited that page. (Unless I misunderstand what the extension actually does)

It's much like facebook's "like" button. It informs fb you've visited the page even if you don't click it.

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

#35

Post by Periodic »

endlessvoid94 wrote: post #19
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 trust google to build good infrastructure more than I trust the collective developer community. That's one reason -- whatever they build will be more robust, flexible, and extensible. And immediately adopted by hundreds of millions of people automatically. I guess that's not the same as "durable", but playing devil's advocate, those seem like good reasons to me.

The RSS system was partially so painful because it was so fragmented. Some pages had links to feeds, some used the proper meta tags, some just didn't have them because they lost control of the presentation of the content. Some were headline only, some were snippets, some were full-article. And every few months one of my feeds would change location so I'd have go set up the new feed. Sometimes they'd just go dark because their provider had an error and the blog author might not even know.

In short, the RSS system had lots of nice properties, but it just wasn't compelling, partially because it was so fragmented.

Google will generally make robust infrastructure that exists much longer than most small sites. I'm willing to put some trust in them, though I personally dislike G+.

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

#36

Post by Shooti »

Given its a extension for universal access to the G+ notification count, people who go out of there way to install this and keep it have not only bought into the notion of the G+ stream, but like it enough that they want more convenient access to it.

With this as a premise, an optional feature inside an already optional extension to scope out more content for the stream just seems to be a logical extension for the enthusiasts who use it.

Even supposing the only content on the G+ page was exact reshares of articles, it isn't an exact 1-to-1 match with an RSS subscription since it also augments the users search results, populates contact details into the Android People app/address book as well as any other integrations they add to circles.

I don't really get the significance of the article, though maybe it's because I've (mostly) got over my Reader mourning phase.

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

#37

Post by jodrellblank »

angryasian wrote: post #16

lets all stop with all the fear mongering. Do you guys really believe that every time a site loads a facebook or twitter widget they aren't tracking you either. I can name 1000 other trackers that sites actually do install and that do genuinely sell your information. There are a handful of widgets that do the same thing for twitter and facebook so lets just stop the bs.

"Because Facebook tracks you, mentioning Google's tracking is fearmongering bs". I don't follow your argument.

I do, however, follow the like-button-blocker ShareMeNot

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/sharemenot/

http://sharemenot.cs.washington.edu/

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

#38

Post by mnicole »

gkoberger wrote: post #6
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…

Overstayed the web's welcome? I'm not convinced that's happened yet. I certainly don't disagree with your points, but it's moot. Normal users don't care about things like "privacy" or "neutrality" or "standards". If it works and is free, that's good enough. And the page views Google gets is testament to the fact that nobody outside of the HN-esque world has any issues with Google. Heck, I (and most people here) use G…

> nobody outside of the HN-esque world has any issues with Google.

People say the same thing about non-technical people using Facebook, but it isn't all that truthful. They have legitimate concerns, they're just waiting on the internet-at-large to determine the next best thing before expending any energy on making the switch.

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

#39

Post by doktrin »

NewAccnt wrote: post #32
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…

Google, has no obligation to support Reader. What they did to the RSS market was shady, indeed, but it is well within their rights and they did not do anything that would infringe on the rights of developers or users the way Apple does. Nobody has a right to make a profitable RSS service, and nobody can tell them they have to support RSS in place of their social network of choice Apple on the otherhand enforces a sin…

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think any criticism of Google automatically translates into tacit support of Apple. They [Apple] certainly have their warts, but this isn't about them at all.

For my part, I share many of the frustrations voiced here. I can't stand Google's persistence in ensuring I'm constantly logged in, or Chrome's ever helpful reminder that I should sync it with my Google account.

The business case is obvious, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. In fact, I dislike it enough to no longer use Chrome as my default browser and have moved away from all of their services with the exception of Gmail.

I don't take my privacy as seriously as some here, but it's easily gotten to the point that I no longer feel comfortable trusting Google with the entirety of my online experience. For what it's worth, my bar [for not-trusting-companies] is set relatively high, and Google has absolutely begun clearing it, unfortunately.

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

#40

Post by Periodic »

DanBC wrote: post #29

Honestly: Google isn't that bad. This article mentions a few things, and specifically mentions Google. But really many other companies and websites are doing similar things. I've been railing against anything other than pure HTML, CSS, and perhaps Javascript for years. I've obviously lost that argument a long time ago. But it's not Google who killed that model of the web. If anything Google is helping by helping to k…

I noticed a decent number of sites ditching RSS because it was too hard to monetize. RSS feeds were fairly low interaction. You read the article, you go to the next, you're done with them. This means you're not going to their site and getting the ad impressions, seeing the related links, noticing the comments, etc.

I personally think that an HTTP meta tag would be the right way to link to a G+ page. And heck, this is a browser extension, so I don't even have to install it if I don't want it. But it's not like this is a nefarious plot by Google to destroy the web as we know it.

Post reply on HN