5 ms·

Google is pretty much taking your shit nowadays and there is nothing you can do about it. That shit is either a company you built or a product of theirs that yo

Google is pretty much taking your shit nowadays and there is nothing you can do about it. That shit is either a company you built or a product of theirs that you used. They are not a search company, they are a conglomerate. They'll buy you or break you. It's funny when they fail though isn't it? Remember Google+? Who lead that initiative? What a travesty that was. Outside of Gmail, Google's UIs really do suck. But back to the point. There really isn't anything wrong with what they are doing, they are a typical business. Again, nothing wrong with that. They do stuff for their own self-interest. They are not your friends. Organic search results get in the way of advertising.

JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
There is something wrong with a monopoly, it's just been so long since any of it has been enforced that people have forgotten. Hopefully that changes soon.
Johnny555 7y ago
Google is pretty much taking your shit nowadays and there is nothing you can do about it That sounds like Amazon -- if you've got a hot selling product on Amazon, you can expect them to copy it and start selling it under the Amazon brand: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-20/got-a-hot-seller-on-amazon-prepare-for-e-tailer-to-make-one-too https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-20/got-a-hot...
- troysand 7y ago
  Same applies to Microsoft as well. Remember Ami Pro, WordPerfect?
  - blackrock 7y ago
    Isn’t Word Perfect still used in the legal profession, because of how it aligns the text with precision during print out? (Or something like that.)
- mjevans 7y ago
  Those Amazon branded products are the only things I really feel comfortable buying from Amazon these days... it's the one item I'm 99% positive they'd never allow co-mingling or other BS sources for.
- tguedes 7y ago
  How is this different than Walmart, Target, or name any grocery store offering their branded version of products in order to drive down prices?
  - Johnny555 7y ago
    In many cases those store brand products are made by the same manufacturer as the brand names, but I don't think Amazon typically negotiates with the original product owner for manufacturing their clone.
    - mjevans 7y ago
      Most of the Amazon X products I can think of are really basic obvious things. Sheets, cables, simple computer peripherals... well OK those are the things I remember ordering offhand that were such things. My point is that they'd be categorized as basic staple items. Someone else might have sold a particular size or feature of X, but I don't see any reason why Amazon or another competitor wouldn't think to copy it. Instead (as I made in a different reply a couple hours before yours) I believe it's the strength of Brand Recognition as a form of Quality Control, which is an area that has decayed on Amazon as a whole but less so with their own brand of products.
      - Johnny555 7y ago
        Not all of their products are "Amazon Basics" products - they have a lot of private label brands that aren't obviously "Amazon". But the article I referenced above was a company that came out with a nice laptop stand design and a few months later, Amazon started selling one of their own that looked basically the same (but not identical).
eru 7y ago
> They'll buy you or break you. You say that like they are equally bad for you. Being bought out is great for the previous owners. (Otherwise, they wouldn't sell.)
- onion2k 7y ago
  Otherwise, they wouldn't sell. The only reason not to sell is because you believe Google can't break your business before you get a better offer or you can IPO. If you think they can do that then you don't really have much of a choice. Founders tend to factor this in to their thinking from the start. "Acquired by Google" is often considered a desirable exit goal.
  - eru 7y ago
    Mostly agreed. IPO is kind of a sale too. (Though it's relatively easy for founders to keep control in an IPO, given the market's acceptance of weird share voting arrangements.)
- modo_mario 7y ago
  >You say that like they are equally bad for you. Being bought out is great for the previous owners. (Otherwise, they wouldn't sell.) If the other option is being broken then of course you sell. Even if you could make more money in the long run if they weren't holding a gun to your head.
lazzlazzlazz 7y ago
Gmail's UI is very, very bad by contemporary standards — but yes.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
chewz 7y ago
> Google is pretty much taking your shit nowadays Apple is doing the same thing on it's own turf. If you make successful app expect to see 80% functionality crap copy added to next iOS release as a feature.
modo_mario 7y ago
>Remember Google+? Who lead that initiative? What a travesty that was. Outside of Gmail, Google's UIs really do suck. I don't think that was an issue with the UI. Their UI was quite nice and the overall UX was too. Thing was they started by driving up hype, then letting a lot of people in but not everyone. Those lots left because it didn't have the main drive of a social media platform. Users. Their friends weren't allowed in yet. And then more people were let in who left. And then everyone. A horrid way to launch.
- aikah 7y ago
  > Their UI was quite nice and the overall UX was too. No their UI sucked. One third of the page was occupied by a stupid header you couldn't even reduce or remove with a CSS hack. I hated it. Fortunately now, most websites doing that tend to disappear. Also, the content of the page itself was 1/3 wide, which is ridiculous when one is trying to read a long blog post. The Google+ was a disaster UI wise, I would not be surprised it highly contributed to its demise.
  - modo_mario 7y ago
    >No their UI sucked. One third of the page was occupied by a stupid header you couldn't even reduce or remove with a CSS hack. I hated it. What? I must have missed that because I don't remember seeing it. >Also, the content of the page itself was 1/3 wide, which is ridiculous when one is trying to read a long blog post. Which would be much wider than the actual content on it's main competitor facebook.
leshenka 7y ago
I wouldn't call them "a typical business", given their magnitude and ability to distort the Web

JohnJamesRambo 7y ago

There is something wrong with a monopoly, it's just been so long since any of it has been enforced that people have forgotten. Hopefully that changes soon.

Johnny555 7y ago

Google is pretty much taking your shit nowadays and there is nothing you can do about it That sounds like Amazon -- if you've got a hot selling product on Amazon, you can expect them to copy it and start selling it under the Amazon brand: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-20/got-a-hot-seller-on-amazon-prepare-for-e-tailer-to-make-one-too https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-20/got-a-hot...

troysand 7y ago
Same applies to Microsoft as well. Remember Ami Pro, WordPerfect?
- blackrock 7y ago
  Isn’t Word Perfect still used in the legal profession, because of how it aligns the text with precision during print out? (Or something like that.)
mjevans 7y ago
Those Amazon branded products are the only things I really feel comfortable buying from Amazon these days... it's the one item I'm 99% positive they'd never allow co-mingling or other BS sources for.
tguedes 7y ago
How is this different than Walmart, Target, or name any grocery store offering their branded version of products in order to drive down prices?
- Johnny555 7y ago
  In many cases those store brand products are made by the same manufacturer as the brand names, but I don't think Amazon typically negotiates with the original product owner for manufacturing their clone.
  - mjevans 7y ago
    Most of the Amazon X products I can think of are really basic obvious things. Sheets, cables, simple computer peripherals... well OK those are the things I remember ordering offhand that were such things. My point is that they'd be categorized as basic staple items. Someone else might have sold a particular size or feature of X, but I don't see any reason why Amazon or another competitor wouldn't think to copy it. Instead (as I made in a different reply a couple hours before yours) I believe it's the strength of Brand Recognition as a form of Quality Control, which is an area that has decayed on Amazon as a whole but less so with their own brand of products.
    - Johnny555 7y ago
      Not all of their products are "Amazon Basics" products - they have a lot of private label brands that aren't obviously "Amazon". But the article I referenced above was a company that came out with a nice laptop stand design and a few months later, Amazon started selling one of their own that looked basically the same (but not identical).

eru 7y ago

> They'll buy you or break you. You say that like they are equally bad for you. Being bought out is great for the previous owners. (Otherwise, they wouldn't sell.)

onion2k 7y ago
Otherwise, they wouldn't sell. The only reason not to sell is because you believe Google can't break your business before you get a better offer or you can IPO. If you think they can do that then you don't really have much of a choice. Founders tend to factor this in to their thinking from the start. "Acquired by Google" is often considered a desirable exit goal.
- eru 7y ago
  Mostly agreed. IPO is kind of a sale too. (Though it's relatively easy for founders to keep control in an IPO, given the market's acceptance of weird share voting arrangements.)
modo_mario 7y ago
>You say that like they are equally bad for you. Being bought out is great for the previous owners. (Otherwise, they wouldn't sell.) If the other option is being broken then of course you sell. Even if you could make more money in the long run if they weren't holding a gun to your head.

lazzlazzlazz 7y ago

Gmail's UI is very, very bad by contemporary standards — but yes.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

chewz 7y ago

> Google is pretty much taking your shit nowadays Apple is doing the same thing on it's own turf. If you make successful app expect to see 80% functionality crap copy added to next iOS release as a feature.

modo_mario 7y ago

>Remember Google+? Who lead that initiative? What a travesty that was. Outside of Gmail, Google's UIs really do suck. I don't think that was an issue with the UI. Their UI was quite nice and the overall UX was too. Thing was they started by driving up hype, then letting a lot of people in but not everyone. Those lots left because it didn't have the main drive of a social media platform. Users. Their friends weren't allowed in yet. And then more people were let in who left. And then everyone. A horrid way to launch.

aikah 7y ago
> Their UI was quite nice and the overall UX was too. No their UI sucked. One third of the page was occupied by a stupid header you couldn't even reduce or remove with a CSS hack. I hated it. Fortunately now, most websites doing that tend to disappear. Also, the content of the page itself was 1/3 wide, which is ridiculous when one is trying to read a long blog post. The Google+ was a disaster UI wise, I would not be surprised it highly contributed to its demise.
- modo_mario 7y ago
  >No their UI sucked. One third of the page was occupied by a stupid header you couldn't even reduce or remove with a CSS hack. I hated it. What? I must have missed that because I don't remember seeing it. >Also, the content of the page itself was 1/3 wide, which is ridiculous when one is trying to read a long blog post. Which would be much wider than the actual content on it's main competitor facebook.

leshenka 7y ago

I wouldn't call them "a typical business", given their magnitude and ability to distort the Web