5 ms·

I wouldn't. Google search is garbage these days (if only because it's pretty much a monoculture, and that leads to SEO arms races) and their other services can

I wouldn't. Google search is garbage these days (if only because it's pretty much a monoculture, and that leads to SEO arms races) and their other services can easily be replaced by paid equivalents that are far less likely to be a single point of failure.

judge2020 8y ago
> other services can easily be replaced I agree with you regarding services that are entirely technology-based (GDocs, Drive, etc.) but so much of Google is the definition of a monopoly (in the sense of "hard to enter the market"): - You can't replace Gmail without keeping your Google account open so that any old emails get forwarded to your new address (although this is a problem with any old mail server) - Google Maps is by far the most dominant maps service, besides Apple Maps (but only on iOS) and I don't see OpenStreetMap implementing turn-by-turn directions. - Youtube content creators already have dedicated fanbases on Youtube, and the vast majority of those subscribers don't care enough about the content creator to download another app just to watch their content. Also: > easily be replaced by paid equivalents There's a reason Google is so big right now: everything is free. If you had to pay for any of Google's services I can guarantee they would have a small fraction of the usage they do today.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  > don't care enough about the content creator to download another app just to watch their content. The HTML5 video tag exists - you don't need "another app", though you might need another video host. There's very little inherent difference between YT and any other popular, large site. They host videos? Video is not that much more bulky than other website content anyway. (At least if you avoid gold-plating the service with 720p, 1080p, even 4K video streaming, which is just silly when the "content" is some cats doing whatever.) Websites come and go. (And of course OSM data can be used to provide turn-by-turn routes, even with on-device processing. What makes you assume that this is not a thing?)
  - rock_hard 8y ago
    This is such bullshit! YouTube’s video streaming infra is a masterpiece of engineering and magnitudes of order better than a vanilla streaming setup! You might not notice because you live in a place with great internet...but most people don’t!
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      To provide people with poor internet connections with effective access to videos, youtube transcodes videos to various qualities. That's not cheap, but neither is it magic.
      - rock_hard 8y ago
        That’s a simplification of what’s actually happening and how well their implementation works though. Just travel to a third world country and look at how poorly other video services like Facebook, Vimeo, etc perform in comparison. There is some good posts from John Harding out there that get into the details

judge2020 8y ago

> other services can easily be replaced I agree with you regarding services that are entirely technology-based (GDocs, Drive, etc.) but so much of Google is the definition of a monopoly (in the sense of "hard to enter the market"): - You can't replace Gmail without keeping your Google account open so that any old emails get forwarded to your new address (although this is a problem with any old mail server) - Google Maps is by far the most dominant maps service, besides Apple Maps (but only on iOS) and I don't see OpenStreetMap implementing turn-by-turn directions. - Youtube content creators already have dedicated fanbases on Youtube, and the vast majority of those subscribers don't care enough about the content creator to download another app just to watch their content. Also: > easily be replaced by paid equivalents There's a reason Google is so big right now: everything is free. If you had to pay for any of Google's services I can guarantee they would have a small fraction of the usage they do today.

zozbot123 8y ago
> don't care enough about the content creator to download another app just to watch their content. The HTML5 video tag exists - you don't need "another app", though you might need another video host. There's very little inherent difference between YT and any other popular, large site. They host videos? Video is not that much more bulky than other website content anyway. (At least if you avoid gold-plating the service with 720p, 1080p, even 4K video streaming, which is just silly when the "content" is some cats doing whatever.) Websites come and go. (And of course OSM data can be used to provide turn-by-turn routes, even with on-device processing. What makes you assume that this is not a thing?)
- rock_hard 8y ago
  This is such bullshit! YouTube’s video streaming infra is a masterpiece of engineering and magnitudes of order better than a vanilla streaming setup! You might not notice because you live in a place with great internet...but most people don’t!
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    To provide people with poor internet connections with effective access to videos, youtube transcodes videos to various qualities. That's not cheap, but neither is it magic.
    - rock_hard 8y ago
      That’s a simplification of what’s actually happening and how well their implementation works though. Just travel to a third world country and look at how poorly other video services like Facebook, Vimeo, etc perform in comparison. There is some good posts from John Harding out there that get into the details