7 ms·

Google (as a company) is more popular than Facebook, Twitter, and even Apple

71 points by raldi 15y ago

bjtitus 15y ago
This doesn't seem terribly surprising. Both Facebook and Apple are very polarizing companies. They have huge fans and also huge detractors. Google seems generally "useful" to everyone. They don't tend to have the same polarizing effect Facebook and Apple have. And, of course, Twitter is just too unused by the general public. Even the reasoning behind people's perceptions seems relatively easy to gauge: Facebook's core product deals with personal and sensitive information that causes privacy concerns and seems to make the service more "personal". Apple seems elitist to some. Probably because of their historically high priced items. Google's core product is simply giving you access to information on the web that isn't particularly personal and provides a lot of real world value to people.
- mehrzad 15y ago
  Google has also proven itself to not "be evil."
  - ktizo 15y ago
    I'd say the jury's still out on that one.
  - rbarooah 15y ago
    What proof are you speaking of?
- runevault 15y ago
  While adoption isn't on facebook's level, twitter is in pretty damned wide adoption at this point. Hence you see so many people in the media pimp their/their company's twitter now (ESPN last time I actively watched it was super bad about this for example).
  - bjtitus 15y ago
    Definitely, but most everyday people still don't know what it does. The amount of people who are at least aware of what Facebook actually does is enormous.
- Drbble 15y ago
  Google's core product is tracking everything published about you, your every movement online, reading all your mail and personal documents and addressbooks, and integrating it with advertising profiles and pushing unwanted invasive social features into every nook and cranny.
lawdawg 15y ago
More confirmation that what tech bloggers and the valley elite think is far removed from what the average consumer thinks. Except Facebook, everyone hates facebook.
kristianc 15y ago
It's hard to take The Atlantic's hand-wringing on "privacy compromises" seriously when Ghostery throws 20 alerts when I visit the damn page.
- nooneelse 15y ago
  I'm seeing 16, but your point stands, that is right up among the most I've ever seen on a page. Facebook, Google, and Twitter can collect info on who reads that page, so score a bit more "favorable" rating on Apple from me.
  - mdwrigh2 15y ago
    To be fair, The Atlantic is explicitly using Google to collect info on that page -- they're using Google Analytics. On the other hand, they also use the +1 button.
Kylekramer 15y ago
I'm curious if the increasing negativity in the more tech oriented population to Google will leak to the general population. As it stands right now, Google has a pretty bullet proof public rep. They are seen as the company with the fun doodles that makes free and helpful websites. I guess the prototype for this is late 90s Microsoft, but I feel that the MS backlash was fairly minor in the general population and mostly created by a very public antitrust case that fueled numerous and sustained headlines. It is bubbling over to the public (Jon Stewart made a casual joke about G+ a couple weeks ago), but I feel like the Google backlash will stay mostly in the community unless there are new developments.
- ajross 15y ago
  It's not the "more tech oriented community". The correlation is more specific than that. It's Apple users. As it happens, Apple nuts make up a disproportionate share of the population here, and at other locations in the broader "Web 2.0/Startup Community", so it's easy to make the mistake and try to extend that to all of the tech industry, but it's wrong. And the reason is clear: since 2008 Android has represented the biggest single threat to Apple's increasing dominance. Really try this some time (here or elsewhere): find a anti-Google rant, check the poster's history and see how long it takes to find out who designed the phone in their pocket. None of this speaks to the legitimacy of criticism aimed at Google, mind you. Some of it is deserved. But the focus on Google (to the exclusion of other players with more questionable history like, say, Facebook) is absolutely an effect of the reality distortion field.
  - blinkingled 15y ago
    Bingo! This needed to be said - I've felt the exact same way for some time now. The poster history and being "in the Apple camp" are a dead give away.
  - vibrunazo 15y ago
    I wouldn't even say it's Apple users. It seems to me that almost all the negativity towards Google comes from sensationalist tech bloggers. They'll raise the fear flag whenever they find an opportunity for more pageviews. Google just happen to be a good punch bag since they literally make the news with a significant new product/update every single week. Apple users just happen to be an important part of their target target audience. But looking at the big picture. Sensationalist tech bloggers' influence is really insignificant to the general population.
srean 15y ago
Now, however, I feel that Google is pissing off some of its die hard admirers (me included, and I am almost a fanboy). A non-exhaustive list of things that annoy me: Random closure of services that had many happy users, for example code search Rigging the search page like a mine-field with distracting and inconsistent pop-ups. (Hello! the absence of such distractions were the reason I switched to Google) Removing two column format for news (Indian Edition). No immediate way to paginate image search. [EDIT: Paginations help in visually scanning a full page of new images and also anchors it to a particular link that I can go back to.The visual scan seems parallel and hence faster. The non-paginated version is closer to a more serial access, with no precise control over going back to where I want to. My other pet peeve is that I have to hover over every image for the meta data to pop up.] Dropping links to cache: text_only: and similar: pages. Dropping scholar from the drop-down menu. [EDIT: It used to be a flick of a mouse to try the same search on search/scholar.] Instant, though thankfully I can turn it off. Closing down labs. (Much of the fun in the brand is gone with it). Almost blindly copying Bing regardless of whether the changes are perceived as useful or not. An oft repeated excuse I hear is that they are now apparently focusing on search. Speaking strictly from my own experience, that focus is actually hurting the quality I perceive.
- mdwrigh2 15y ago
  I agree on a number of these points, but: > No immediate way to paginate image search. Out of curiosity, why do you want it paginated? This isn't a criticism, I'm merely curious. > Dropping links to cache: text_only: and similar: pages. Cache and Similar still exist, granted they're more difficult to find now. > Dropping scholar from the drop-down menu While I don't really mind they dropped scholar (scholar<Tab> in chrome works well enough when I need it to), I do wish they'd let us customize the top bar. > Closing down labs. (Much of the fun in the brand is gone with it). Eh, I'll agree with Larry on this one. When it died, I wasn't affected at all. I honestly can't think of a single thing that I used on it and, from what I hear. it was largely a collection of projects that were hardly even being maintained any more. > Almost blindly copying Bing regardless of whether the changes are perceived as useful or not. Besides a similar looking image search, what else do you think they've copied?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
TootsMagoon 15y ago
This is a measure of popularity based on the metric of feeling (favorable vs unfavorable). Using this metric one could place anything up there to compete, including Pizza! As a result, I am sure Pizza would have even higher "favorable" ratings than all of them! What this chart does not show is the relationship to demand. Which would also be a basis of popularity. Then you would need to measure the basis of feelings against specific segments (android vs iPhone). Bottom line....I think this report is a very unscientific measurement of "Popularity".
- zpk 15y ago
  I totally agree. And really what is this popularity vote? Is there really a merit to the "popular" brand? The war on Iraq was popular in 2003. If anything Google has done many things to upset the tech-educated population, than inspire them. Personally I think Google represents what Microsoft was in 1999. And I believe, at that time Microsoft, Yahoo were the premiere brands. We all know how they have turned(turning) out.
loverobots 15y ago
Apple is a consumer product company so the fact that 74% like them is amazing. Google is a different story. Why wouldn't the average Joe like them? Results not that good? Click on ads or scroll down more, bad results happen. Let's see Google sell phones and deal with day to day "my screen is not working and I just bought this ..." Facebook, baffles me. I think most people hate to admit that they like them :). Almost all use it, and it's not "bad" in the sense that is always up, pictures aren't lost and so on.
- neutronicus 15y ago
  > Facebook, baffles me. I think most people hate to admit that they like them :). Almost all use it, and it's not "bad" in the sense that is always up, pictures aren't lost and so on. Doesn't baffle me - Facebook and the dangers it poses to your career and/or children is a common media topic.
- Drbble 15y ago
  Google does not Nexus phones, and push OTA updates that break them. But they don't support the phones they sell, so customer complaints are no problem.
nextstep 15y ago
People love lots of companies that HN hates (or welcomes heavy criticism to). Zynga, for example, is popular with everyone I know who doesn't read HN.

71 points by raldi 15y ago

This doesn't seem terribly surprising. Both Facebook and Apple are very polarizing companies. They have huge fans and also huge detractors. Google seems generally "useful" to everyone. They don't tend to have the same polarizing effect Facebook and Apple have. And, of course, Twitter is just too unused by the general public. Even the reasoning behind people's perceptions seems relatively easy to gauge: Facebook's core product deals with personal and sensitive information that causes privacy concerns and seems to make the service more "personal". Apple seems elitist to some. Probably because of their historically high priced items. Google's core product is simply giving you access to information on the web that isn't particularly personal and provides a lot of real world value to people.

mehrzad 15y ago
Google has also proven itself to not "be evil."
- ktizo 15y ago
  I'd say the jury's still out on that one.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  What proof are you speaking of?
runevault 15y ago
While adoption isn't on facebook's level, twitter is in pretty damned wide adoption at this point. Hence you see so many people in the media pimp their/their company's twitter now (ESPN last time I actively watched it was super bad about this for example).
- bjtitus 15y ago
  Definitely, but most everyday people still don't know what it does. The amount of people who are at least aware of what Facebook actually does is enormous.
Drbble 15y ago
Google's core product is tracking everything published about you, your every movement online, reading all your mail and personal documents and addressbooks, and integrating it with advertising profiles and pushing unwanted invasive social features into every nook and cranny.

lawdawg 15y ago

More confirmation that what tech bloggers and the valley elite think is far removed from what the average consumer thinks. Except Facebook, everyone hates facebook.

kristianc 15y ago

It's hard to take The Atlantic's hand-wringing on "privacy compromises" seriously when Ghostery throws 20 alerts when I visit the damn page.

nooneelse 15y ago
I'm seeing 16, but your point stands, that is right up among the most I've ever seen on a page. Facebook, Google, and Twitter can collect info on who reads that page, so score a bit more "favorable" rating on Apple from me.
- mdwrigh2 15y ago
  To be fair, The Atlantic is explicitly using Google to collect info on that page -- they're using Google Analytics. On the other hand, they also use the +1 button.

Kylekramer 15y ago

I'm curious if the increasing negativity in the more tech oriented population to Google will leak to the general population. As it stands right now, Google has a pretty bullet proof public rep. They are seen as the company with the fun doodles that makes free and helpful websites. I guess the prototype for this is late 90s Microsoft, but I feel that the MS backlash was fairly minor in the general population and mostly created by a very public antitrust case that fueled numerous and sustained headlines. It is bubbling over to the public (Jon Stewart made a casual joke about G+ a couple weeks ago), but I feel like the Google backlash will stay mostly in the community unless there are new developments.

ajross 15y ago
It's not the "more tech oriented community". The correlation is more specific than that. It's Apple users. As it happens, Apple nuts make up a disproportionate share of the population here, and at other locations in the broader "Web 2.0/Startup Community", so it's easy to make the mistake and try to extend that to all of the tech industry, but it's wrong. And the reason is clear: since 2008 Android has represented the biggest single threat to Apple's increasing dominance. Really try this some time (here or elsewhere): find a anti-Google rant, check the poster's history and see how long it takes to find out who designed the phone in their pocket. None of this speaks to the legitimacy of criticism aimed at Google, mind you. Some of it is deserved. But the focus on Google (to the exclusion of other players with more questionable history like, say, Facebook) is absolutely an effect of the reality distortion field.
- blinkingled 15y ago
  Bingo! This needed to be said - I've felt the exact same way for some time now. The poster history and being "in the Apple camp" are a dead give away.
- vibrunazo 15y ago
  I wouldn't even say it's Apple users. It seems to me that almost all the negativity towards Google comes from sensationalist tech bloggers. They'll raise the fear flag whenever they find an opportunity for more pageviews. Google just happen to be a good punch bag since they literally make the news with a significant new product/update every single week. Apple users just happen to be an important part of their target target audience. But looking at the big picture. Sensationalist tech bloggers' influence is really insignificant to the general population.

srean 15y ago

Now, however, I feel that Google is pissing off some of its die hard admirers (me included, and I am almost a fanboy). A non-exhaustive list of things that annoy me: Random closure of services that had many happy users, for example code search Rigging the search page like a mine-field with distracting and inconsistent pop-ups. (Hello! the absence of such distractions were the reason I switched to Google) Removing two column format for news (Indian Edition). No immediate way to paginate image search. [EDIT: Paginations help in visually scanning a full page of new images and also anchors it to a particular link that I can go back to.The visual scan seems parallel and hence faster. The non-paginated version is closer to a more serial access, with no precise control over going back to where I want to. My other pet peeve is that I have to hover over every image for the meta data to pop up.] Dropping links to cache: text_only: and similar: pages. Dropping scholar from the drop-down menu. [EDIT: It used to be a flick of a mouse to try the same search on search/scholar.] Instant, though thankfully I can turn it off. Closing down labs. (Much of the fun in the brand is gone with it). Almost blindly copying Bing regardless of whether the changes are perceived as useful or not. An oft repeated excuse I hear is that they are now apparently focusing on search. Speaking strictly from my own experience, that focus is actually hurting the quality I perceive.

mdwrigh2 15y ago
I agree on a number of these points, but: > No immediate way to paginate image search. Out of curiosity, why do you want it paginated? This isn't a criticism, I'm merely curious. > Dropping links to cache: text_only: and similar: pages. Cache and Similar still exist, granted they're more difficult to find now. > Dropping scholar from the drop-down menu While I don't really mind they dropped scholar (scholar<Tab> in chrome works well enough when I need it to), I do wish they'd let us customize the top bar. > Closing down labs. (Much of the fun in the brand is gone with it). Eh, I'll agree with Larry on this one. When it died, I wasn't affected at all. I honestly can't think of a single thing that I used on it and, from what I hear. it was largely a collection of projects that were hardly even being maintained any more. > Almost blindly copying Bing regardless of whether the changes are perceived as useful or not. Besides a similar looking image search, what else do you think they've copied?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

TootsMagoon 15y ago

This is a measure of popularity based on the metric of feeling (favorable vs unfavorable). Using this metric one could place anything up there to compete, including Pizza! As a result, I am sure Pizza would have even higher "favorable" ratings than all of them! What this chart does not show is the relationship to demand. Which would also be a basis of popularity. Then you would need to measure the basis of feelings against specific segments (android vs iPhone). Bottom line....I think this report is a very unscientific measurement of "Popularity".

zpk 15y ago
I totally agree. And really what is this popularity vote? Is there really a merit to the "popular" brand? The war on Iraq was popular in 2003. If anything Google has done many things to upset the tech-educated population, than inspire them. Personally I think Google represents what Microsoft was in 1999. And I believe, at that time Microsoft, Yahoo were the premiere brands. We all know how they have turned(turning) out.

loverobots 15y ago

Apple is a consumer product company so the fact that 74% like them is amazing. Google is a different story. Why wouldn't the average Joe like them? Results not that good? Click on ads or scroll down more, bad results happen. Let's see Google sell phones and deal with day to day "my screen is not working and I just bought this ..." Facebook, baffles me. I think most people hate to admit that they like them :). Almost all use it, and it's not "bad" in the sense that is always up, pictures aren't lost and so on.

neutronicus 15y ago
> Facebook, baffles me. I think most people hate to admit that they like them :). Almost all use it, and it's not "bad" in the sense that is always up, pictures aren't lost and so on. Doesn't baffle me - Facebook and the dangers it poses to your career and/or children is a common media topic.
Drbble 15y ago
Google does not Nexus phones, and push OTA updates that break them. But they don't support the phones they sell, so customer complaints are no problem.

nextstep 15y ago

People love lots of companies that HN hates (or welcomes heavy criticism to). Zynga, for example, is popular with everyone I know who doesn't read HN.