4 ms·

The person your replying to misunderstood it. I misunderstood it. The literal meaning of the title is not what it literally means. I think we should agree that

The person your replying to misunderstood it. I misunderstood it. The literal meaning of the title is not what it literally means. I think we should agree that it is misleading.

solipsism 8y ago
It's certainly misleading, but only to this audience, which is full of people who have opinions about Google versus other search engines. It's not that misleading to the Economist's broader audience, which doesn't know of any reasons anyone would not use Google.
- dcow 8y ago
  You don't think that's slightly patronizing?
- gregknicholson 8y ago
  I don't think of Google as primarily a search engine. It's a suite of services. Most of their services require an account in some way, and I don't want to be tied to such a massive company. Like most Google's services that you can use without an account, their search engine is pretty decent (although DuckDuckGo is my main search engine). Maps is decent too. But I wouldn't pay to use any of Google's services. There are adequate libre alternatives now.
  - parthdesai 8y ago
    >I don't think of Google as primarily a search engine. It's a suite of services. Right, you don't. But you are also on HN, implying you are tech-literate. You know what my mom, Susie from accounting, Chad from marketing and Amy from sales think of Google as? Don't take my word for it, here just see what Oxford dictionary defines google [0] as. I don't get HN sometimes. People think everyone is as knowledgable or tech-literate as people on here. Still remember that famous comment in Show HN: Dropbox thread about why would one need it. [0]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/google https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/google
    - gregknicholson 8y ago
      Yes, I accept that other people see this company differently. I didn't say and didn't mean to imply that other people do or should see things the same way as me.

The person your replying to misunderstood it. I misunderstood it. The literal meaning of the title is not what it literally means. I think we should agree that it is misleading.

solipsism 8y ago

It's certainly misleading, but only to this audience, which is full of people who have opinions about Google versus other search engines. It's not that misleading to the Economist's broader audience, which doesn't know of any reasons anyone would not use Google.

dcow 8y ago
You don't think that's slightly patronizing?
gregknicholson 8y ago
I don't think of Google as primarily a search engine. It's a suite of services. Most of their services require an account in some way, and I don't want to be tied to such a massive company. Like most Google's services that you can use without an account, their search engine is pretty decent (although DuckDuckGo is my main search engine). Maps is decent too. But I wouldn't pay to use any of Google's services. There are adequate libre alternatives now.
- parthdesai 8y ago
  >I don't think of Google as primarily a search engine. It's a suite of services. Right, you don't. But you are also on HN, implying you are tech-literate. You know what my mom, Susie from accounting, Chad from marketing and Amy from sales think of Google as? Don't take my word for it, here just see what Oxford dictionary defines google [0] as. I don't get HN sometimes. People think everyone is as knowledgable or tech-literate as people on here. Still remember that famous comment in Show HN: Dropbox thread about why would one need it. [0]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/google https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/google
  - gregknicholson 8y ago
    Yes, I accept that other people see this company differently. I didn't say and didn't mean to imply that other people do or should see things the same way as me.