4 ms·

I think Techcrunch misses the point here. Twitter has failed in providing access to this content - when was the last time Twitter ever told you about something

I think Techcrunch misses the point here. Twitter has failed in providing access to this content - when was the last time Twitter ever told you about something local? What Google has - with Google Now/Feed and their various news efforts - is distribution, and you bet they know where you live and care about local stories for. An anecdote: a coworker who lives nearby got a local story recommended to them about part of my building facade falling off. I don't think Google cares about how to monetise this, it benefits from this content being on the web, rather than locked in Facebook groups. As much as anyone here might hate Google, they are one of the few entities with deep pockets who have a real stake in the open web.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
AMP seems to contradict the idea that Google is invested in supporting the open web. And Google is a business, not a charity, they're not going to invest in something they can't monetize.
- apeace 9y ago
  I don't think AMP contradicts supporting the open web. Could you share your argument for that? Here are mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13467736 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13467736 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14636939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14636939
- Eridrus 9y ago
  Google is not a charity, but their core business - Search - depends on the web having content they can index. This is a play to defend their existing business, not a revenue opportunity. I think AMP is a good thing for the mobile web. It makes web pages actually usable. People get a bit wound up about the fact that Google hosts the content on their CDN, but there is always a real URL backing it, the content isn't locked into Google's platform.
  - feikname 9y ago
    > It makes web pages actually usable. Overriding the default scroll behavior, so as to make the user have to scroll to the very top of the page to display the browser address bar is really annoying though. Besides that, I often do prefer AMP pages due to them loading faster and wasting less data.
freehunter 9y ago
>I don't think Google cares about how to monetise this, it benefits from this content being on the web If that was true, there are so many properties that Google would still have running. Instead they shut them down because they couldn't be monetized.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  They don't even try to monetize certain things. Google Reader should have been a goldmine of data to throw at some evil AI dedicated to figuring out what I'm likely to buy based on what RSS feeds I read. I think it's as simple as internal politics being shitty, and certain projects having managers who don't win the battle to keep their project going. Trying to figure out what will or won't stay is as lucrative as reading tea leaves.
  - balladeer 9y ago
    > Google Reader should have been a goldmine of data to throw at some evil AI dedicated to figuring out what I'm likely to buy based on what RSS feeds I read I don't know. Maybe they tried and figured the GR adoption wasn't widespread enough[0] and hence the possible monetisation exercise wouldn't have been worth a business division or a separate department and maybe GR as an experiment failed right then. What say? [0] This comment is anecdotal I would say. I know a lot of people who were/are not on HN, Reddit, Tw etc and definitely were not on GR. So maybe it's just me.
pavel_lishin 9y ago
> As much as anyone here might hate Google, they are one of the few entities with deep pockets who have a real stake in the open web. Is that why they killed Google Reader, and tried to build their own walled Facebook equivalent and forced every Google user to partake in?
- malloryerik 9y ago
  Why hasn't anyone made a real Google Reader replacement? Google Reader seemed so simple. Maybe it wasn't?
  - nod 9y ago
    They did: theoldreader.com
  - mindcrime 9y ago
    Digg Reader works pretty well for me. It's bare-bones, but that's all I really need.
  - pavel_lishin 9y ago
    They have. Two other commenters have weighed in, but neither mentioned the replacement I prefer - newsblur.com, good enough that I'm a paid subscriber.
    - mercer 9y ago
      I liked NewsBlur but for some reason switched over to InoReader. I wish I could remember why though, but I haven't been using feed readers for quite a while... Either way, both are good services but somehow I always wished I could GReader back.
evan_ 9y ago
> when was the last time Twitter ever told you about something local? Wednesday, when I saw a plume of smoke on the horizon and then the local police department tweeted to avoid a certain intersection and a local journalist tweeted about the apartment that was on fire. Granted, I had to find and follow those accounts- but I’m pretty sure that twitter suggested them to me.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
mindcrime 9y ago
> when was the last time Twitter ever told you about something local? Quite often here, as I follow the @ChapelHillFD account[1] and frequently see updates about local incidents there. [1]: https://twitter.com/chapelhillfd https://twitter.com/chapelhillfd
balladeer 9y ago
Almost everyday. I don't think Twitter can't, or doesn't want to. It's how much hyperlocal Twitter is for most parts of this world than Google. I am from a city in India where Twitter adoption is probably the highest in India and I guess at a decent ranking on Global level - at least by sheer numbers if nothing else :). But when I go to my village or those small towns nearby - there are no Twitter users but almost everyone who has a mobile phone and an Internet connection and wants to use it, they start with these places and usually stick: WhatsApp, Google, Facebook. Not necessarily in the same order. It's not like Google wants an open web, Google doesn't want anyone else to have their own closed web. I will start with as petty (if you call it so) as closing Google Chat to external XMPP and making it an intense pain to use a Google Service w/o a Gmail a/c. Until very recently I didn't know https://accounts.google.com/SignUpWithoutGmail https://accounts.google.com/SignUpWithoutGmail existed. Tying everything to a Gmail, Plus, or that X service (which might as well be deprioritized or shut down in a year or so) account is not really going for an open web.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

AMP seems to contradict the idea that Google is invested in supporting the open web. And Google is a business, not a charity, they're not going to invest in something they can't monetize.

apeace 9y ago
I don't think AMP contradicts supporting the open web. Could you share your argument for that? Here are mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13467736 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13467736 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14636939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14636939
Eridrus 9y ago
Google is not a charity, but their core business - Search - depends on the web having content they can index. This is a play to defend their existing business, not a revenue opportunity. I think AMP is a good thing for the mobile web. It makes web pages actually usable. People get a bit wound up about the fact that Google hosts the content on their CDN, but there is always a real URL backing it, the content isn't locked into Google's platform.
- feikname 9y ago
  > It makes web pages actually usable. Overriding the default scroll behavior, so as to make the user have to scroll to the very top of the page to display the browser address bar is really annoying though. Besides that, I often do prefer AMP pages due to them loading faster and wasting less data.

freehunter 9y ago

>I don't think Google cares about how to monetise this, it benefits from this content being on the web If that was true, there are so many properties that Google would still have running. Instead they shut them down because they couldn't be monetized.

pavel_lishin 9y ago
They don't even try to monetize certain things. Google Reader should have been a goldmine of data to throw at some evil AI dedicated to figuring out what I'm likely to buy based on what RSS feeds I read. I think it's as simple as internal politics being shitty, and certain projects having managers who don't win the battle to keep their project going. Trying to figure out what will or won't stay is as lucrative as reading tea leaves.
- balladeer 9y ago
  > Google Reader should have been a goldmine of data to throw at some evil AI dedicated to figuring out what I'm likely to buy based on what RSS feeds I read I don't know. Maybe they tried and figured the GR adoption wasn't widespread enough[0] and hence the possible monetisation exercise wouldn't have been worth a business division or a separate department and maybe GR as an experiment failed right then. What say? [0] This comment is anecdotal I would say. I know a lot of people who were/are not on HN, Reddit, Tw etc and definitely were not on GR. So maybe it's just me.

pavel_lishin 9y ago

> As much as anyone here might hate Google, they are one of the few entities with deep pockets who have a real stake in the open web. Is that why they killed Google Reader, and tried to build their own walled Facebook equivalent and forced every Google user to partake in?

malloryerik 9y ago
Why hasn't anyone made a real Google Reader replacement? Google Reader seemed so simple. Maybe it wasn't?
- nod 9y ago
  They did: theoldreader.com
- mindcrime 9y ago
  Digg Reader works pretty well for me. It's bare-bones, but that's all I really need.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  They have. Two other commenters have weighed in, but neither mentioned the replacement I prefer - newsblur.com, good enough that I'm a paid subscriber.
  - mercer 9y ago
    I liked NewsBlur but for some reason switched over to InoReader. I wish I could remember why though, but I haven't been using feed readers for quite a while... Either way, both are good services but somehow I always wished I could GReader back.

evan_ 9y ago

> when was the last time Twitter ever told you about something local? Wednesday, when I saw a plume of smoke on the horizon and then the local police department tweeted to avoid a certain intersection and a local journalist tweeted about the apartment that was on fire. Granted, I had to find and follow those accounts- but I’m pretty sure that twitter suggested them to me.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

mindcrime 9y ago

> when was the last time Twitter ever told you about something local? Quite often here, as I follow the @ChapelHillFD account[1] and frequently see updates about local incidents there. [1]: https://twitter.com/chapelhillfd https://twitter.com/chapelhillfd

balladeer 9y ago

Almost everyday. I don't think Twitter can't, or doesn't want to. It's how much hyperlocal Twitter is for most parts of this world than Google. I am from a city in India where Twitter adoption is probably the highest in India and I guess at a decent ranking on Global level - at least by sheer numbers if nothing else :). But when I go to my village or those small towns nearby - there are no Twitter users but almost everyone who has a mobile phone and an Internet connection and wants to use it, they start with these places and usually stick: WhatsApp, Google, Facebook. Not necessarily in the same order. It's not like Google wants an open web, Google doesn't want anyone else to have their own closed web. I will start with as petty (if you call it so) as closing Google Chat to external XMPP and making it an intense pain to use a Google Service w/o a Gmail a/c. Until very recently I didn't know https://accounts.google.com/SignUpWithoutGmail https://accounts.google.com/SignUpWithoutGmail existed. Tying everything to a Gmail, Plus, or that X service (which might as well be deprioritized or shut down in a year or so) account is not really going for an open web.