4 ms·

"At Google, we think that internet users’ time is valuable, and that they shouldn’t have to wait long for a web page to load." Says the company whose business

"At Google, we think that internet users’ time is valuable, and that they shouldn’t have to wait long for a web page to load." Says the company whose business model consists of convincing publisher to put ads in their website, thus slowing down page load times. Same company that lets you integrate Web elements like scripts and web fonts from their servers, once again making your webpage slower to load. I know I'm exaggerating it a bit, but I really hate this company mission pitches that people in big companies constantly use to open their technical communications.

Synaesthesia 11y ago
Yes actually the goal of all companies is to make profit, as much as possible. I know, it annoys me too, for example Apple says their mission is to "leave the world better than how we found it", but I'm skeptical about that ;-)
afsina 11y ago
You are exaggerating and your rant is not fair or relevant. They are honest with that sentence and this is potentially a big contribution to software world and Internet.
- camillomiller 11y ago
  I wasn't diminishing the technology's importance in any way. My point was actually the opposite: why spoil a good communication about technological breakthrough with such lazy and fake-sounding company propaganda?
- camillomiller 11y ago
  Well, considering the discussion it seems to have sparked, I would say it's not that irrelevant either.
rplnt 11y ago
Obviously the reality is to serve ads more efficiently. But is it bad if it helps users in the end as well?
lgieron 11y ago
Why would anyone trust this kind of corporate BS? It baffles me that you even try to take what they say at face value. For me, it's akin to state propaganda in non-democratic countries: everyone knows that whatever authorities say and what the truth is are two different things, so there's little point to even analysing the official message (except maybe for humor factor etc.)
- mda 11y ago
  Which part of the sentence is not true?
  - stonogo 11y ago
    None of it? If they thought my time was valuable, they would not put colored strips at the top of every screen that say "Switch to chrome" or "Switch to GMail" or even after I've switched to Chrome, "Chrome is not your default browser." If they thought my time was valuable, they wouldn't be wasting it with their constant desperate pleas to browse the internet in precisely the way they want. If they really valued my time, they wouldn't throw random context switches into every single one of their web properties for whatever is the product du jour. If they wanted my page to load faster, they would work as hard on making their stupid website addons load fast as they worked on getting everyone on earth to install them. Running local mirrors of ajax.googleapis.com and fonts.googleapis.com, along with hijacking analytics and doubleclick and returning 0-byte files, is the best thing I ever did for my poor parents' satellite internetion connection. Internet users' time (and site loading speeds) are very much second- or third-class items on google's list of things to give a shit about. I'm absolutely not questioning thees decisions; google is an advertising agency and must prioritize this over my convenience! But pretending like they're some kind of altruistic charity working for the common good is disingenuous and slightly offensive. It also creates the problem where some of the more gullible people actually believe google, a huge faceless global company, gives a shit about anyone in particular, which is demonstrably untrue.
    - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
      Some Google pages have load times now upwards on ten seconds on Firefox, this is to me, what makes this statement so hilarious.
qq66 11y ago
"At Walmart, we think that users' money is valuable, and that they shouldn't have to pay extra for their toilet paper." Does the fact that Walmart charges money for their products make the above sentence disingenuous? Of course Walmart charges money, that's how their company works. That doesn't mean they can't try to reduce waste or inefficiency in their system.
- abalos 11y ago
  Another thing too - I've found that other advertising platforms' ads are much more obnoxious. Google does a pretty decent job at keeping their adds from popping up in your face with technicolor, which I can appreciate.
jonas21 11y ago
I dunno. Ads on Google search don't delay your results in any noticeable way. Wouldn't it be great if all ads were like that, given that ads are currently the only viable option for a wide variety of sites to stay in business?
- camillomiller 11y ago
  The answer is a sounding yes, but I was just criticising the hypocritical nature of such a sentence, which is totally gratuitous in a post made to communicate a technological advancement. That sounds as fake as corporate bullshit could be.
mda 11y ago
Your comment reminded me of an old Turkish saying: "Looks like your intention is not to eat the grape but to beat the vineyard keeper."
- camillomiller 11y ago
  Sorry but I don't get it :D
  - mda 11y ago
    It can be used in several situations, one could be: The acts of a person implies that person's motivation is not to use a product or comment about qualities a product but to bash the producer/creator using the context of the product. So ulterior motive is to punish creator, the actual product is only a medium. (grape: product - wineyard keeper: producer) Sorry it sounded a bit harsh. I also agree that a dry and more technical blog entry would be better, but I think it is not a big deal considering the importance of the product.
SagelyGuru 11y ago
"At Google, we think that internet users’ time is valuable, and that they shouldn’t have to wait long for a web page to load." There is plenty of evidence of significant drop in users numbers with increasing page load time. An advertising company has to ensure that their ads are not only displayed but that there is also a reasonable chance that they will be noticed. Otherwise it becomes a pointless exercise, advertisers leave and revenues drop. Therefore what is really going on here is Google trying to squeeze in more advertising before annoying the users to the point of leaving the page. Yes, I agree, advertising in itself is inimical to user's time and thus the above sentence can be seen as deeply hypocritical.

Synaesthesia 11y ago

Yes actually the goal of all companies is to make profit, as much as possible. I know, it annoys me too, for example Apple says their mission is to "leave the world better than how we found it", but I'm skeptical about that ;-)

afsina 11y ago

You are exaggerating and your rant is not fair or relevant. They are honest with that sentence and this is potentially a big contribution to software world and Internet.

camillomiller 11y ago
I wasn't diminishing the technology's importance in any way. My point was actually the opposite: why spoil a good communication about technological breakthrough with such lazy and fake-sounding company propaganda?
camillomiller 11y ago
Well, considering the discussion it seems to have sparked, I would say it's not that irrelevant either.

rplnt 11y ago

Obviously the reality is to serve ads more efficiently. But is it bad if it helps users in the end as well?

lgieron 11y ago

Why would anyone trust this kind of corporate BS? It baffles me that you even try to take what they say at face value. For me, it's akin to state propaganda in non-democratic countries: everyone knows that whatever authorities say and what the truth is are two different things, so there's little point to even analysing the official message (except maybe for humor factor etc.)

mda 11y ago
Which part of the sentence is not true?
- stonogo 11y ago
  None of it? If they thought my time was valuable, they would not put colored strips at the top of every screen that say "Switch to chrome" or "Switch to GMail" or even after I've switched to Chrome, "Chrome is not your default browser." If they thought my time was valuable, they wouldn't be wasting it with their constant desperate pleas to browse the internet in precisely the way they want. If they really valued my time, they wouldn't throw random context switches into every single one of their web properties for whatever is the product du jour. If they wanted my page to load faster, they would work as hard on making their stupid website addons load fast as they worked on getting everyone on earth to install them. Running local mirrors of ajax.googleapis.com and fonts.googleapis.com, along with hijacking analytics and doubleclick and returning 0-byte files, is the best thing I ever did for my poor parents' satellite internetion connection. Internet users' time (and site loading speeds) are very much second- or third-class items on google's list of things to give a shit about. I'm absolutely not questioning thees decisions; google is an advertising agency and must prioritize this over my convenience! But pretending like they're some kind of altruistic charity working for the common good is disingenuous and slightly offensive. It also creates the problem where some of the more gullible people actually believe google, a huge faceless global company, gives a shit about anyone in particular, which is demonstrably untrue.
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    Some Google pages have load times now upwards on ten seconds on Firefox, this is to me, what makes this statement so hilarious.

qq66 11y ago

"At Walmart, we think that users' money is valuable, and that they shouldn't have to pay extra for their toilet paper." Does the fact that Walmart charges money for their products make the above sentence disingenuous? Of course Walmart charges money, that's how their company works. That doesn't mean they can't try to reduce waste or inefficiency in their system.

abalos 11y ago
Another thing too - I've found that other advertising platforms' ads are much more obnoxious. Google does a pretty decent job at keeping their adds from popping up in your face with technicolor, which I can appreciate.

jonas21 11y ago

I dunno. Ads on Google search don't delay your results in any noticeable way. Wouldn't it be great if all ads were like that, given that ads are currently the only viable option for a wide variety of sites to stay in business?

camillomiller 11y ago
The answer is a sounding yes, but I was just criticising the hypocritical nature of such a sentence, which is totally gratuitous in a post made to communicate a technological advancement. That sounds as fake as corporate bullshit could be.

mda 11y ago

Your comment reminded me of an old Turkish saying: "Looks like your intention is not to eat the grape but to beat the vineyard keeper."

camillomiller 11y ago
Sorry but I don't get it :D
- mda 11y ago
  It can be used in several situations, one could be: The acts of a person implies that person's motivation is not to use a product or comment about qualities a product but to bash the producer/creator using the context of the product. So ulterior motive is to punish creator, the actual product is only a medium. (grape: product - wineyard keeper: producer) Sorry it sounded a bit harsh. I also agree that a dry and more technical blog entry would be better, but I think it is not a big deal considering the importance of the product.

SagelyGuru 11y ago

"At Google, we think that internet users’ time is valuable, and that they shouldn’t have to wait long for a web page to load." There is plenty of evidence of significant drop in users numbers with increasing page load time. An advertising company has to ensure that their ads are not only displayed but that there is also a reasonable chance that they will be noticed. Otherwise it becomes a pointless exercise, advertisers leave and revenues drop. Therefore what is really going on here is Google trying to squeeze in more advertising before annoying the users to the point of leaving the page. Yes, I agree, advertising in itself is inimical to user's time and thus the above sentence can be seen as deeply hypocritical.