4 ms·

In the long run, judging from recent incidents such as YouTube monetization suspensions, I do not think Google is good for the consumer web experience or for co

by jdw64 6mo ago

In the long run, judging from recent incidents such as YouTube monetization suspensions, I do not think Google is good for the consumer web experience or for content creators. I also think SEO search has almost completely broken down. In particular, the flow that used to support content creators through Google Search has been damaged. Previously, content would appear in Google Search, visitors would come in, and creators could earn revenue through ads, courses, or other products. But now Google can answer directly through AI Overviews, making it harder for content creators to survive independently. That said, I think Search is still making a lot of money because Google is effectively focusing less on informational search and more on commercial search. I mean searches with purchasing intent, such as “best laptop recommendation.” We cannot know the full search-volume statistics from the outside, but in my subjective experience, the quality of actual search results is often much worse than expected. In that sense, Google’s revenue now feels less like it comes from serving small developers or end users, and more like it comes from selling infrastructure to large companies and major developers. The huge increase in Cloud revenue seems especially important. Google appears to be strong in enterprise AI solutions, and as an AI development platform it seems extremely powerful. My impression is that the center of gravity in AI development platforms is shifting somewhat from Microsoft toward Google. However, revenue growth does not necessarily mean product quality. Since AI is increasingly absorbing informational search, users may end up using Google mainly for commercial-intent searches. From another angle, that gives Google an incentive to tune its algorithms and layout around purchase-intent queries. Separately from that, there is a sharp contrast between Google as a development platform for companies and Google as a service experienced by end users. From the end-user perspective, the experience feels worse every day. Search feels poorly maintained. Ads also feel poorly controlled; for example, adult ads may appear to teenagers. Outside the Gemini API, the places where users can actually use Gemini feel fragmented, and the web version of Gemini is difficult to use seriously because of strong token limits. Google seems to be trying very hard to serve developers who build on top of Google. But separately from that, ordinary users of Google services increasingly feel neglected.

bitpush 6mo ago
> Previously, content would appear in Google Search, visitors would come in, and creators could earn revenue through ads, courses, or other products. But now Google can answer directly through AI Overviews, making it harder for content creators to survive independently. This isnt a Google issue. Users are asking for it - ChatGPT and Perplexity did it first and it'd be crazy for Google not to do that. You could argue Google being late to LLMs were a good thing, and once they were forced to play the game, they played
- jdw64 6mo ago
  This makes sense from a financial perspective. But Google’s main service became centralized and convenient because it acted as the traffic gateway of the web. The moral question is a different matter. Suppose an electricity utility builds the power grid, and many businesses build their operations around that grid. Then later, the utility uses its privileged position in the grid to directly replace the businesses that depended on it. Would that be morally acceptable? It may be correct from a business perspective, but that does not automatically make it good for the whole ecosystem. In a capitalist society, companies are pressured to create new cash cows, enter adjacent markets, and even perform self-disruptive innovation in the interest of shareholders. This may be one such case. But whether that benefits the overall ecosystem is a separate question. Users want free content. Users want services without ads. Users want fast summaries. Users want answers without reading the original source. Those desires are natural. But if producers cannot remain sustainable under those desires, then the long-term quality of information may collapse. Google can preserve revenue through AI Overviews, while creators may lose revenue. The problem is that AI Overviews occupy a large container near the top of the results page and hide or push down the sources users would otherwise visit. In other words, the UX design emphasizes Google’s AI answer while making external sites less visible. It is true that content creators now have to compete with Google’s AI Overview. But this competition is asymmetric. From the company’s perspective, and from the shareholder perspective, Google’s decision may be correct. They are far smarter than I am. But it is still unclear whether Google will remain unharmed if the ecosystem that feeds it is gradually destroyed.
  - bitpush 6mo ago

by jdw64 6mo ago

bitpush 6mo ago

> Previously, content would appear in Google Search, visitors would come in, and creators could earn revenue through ads, courses, or other products. But now Google can answer directly through AI Overviews, making it harder for content creators to survive independently. This isnt a Google issue. Users are asking for it - ChatGPT and Perplexity did it first and it'd be crazy for Google not to do that. You could argue Google being late to LLMs were a good thing, and once they were forced to play the game, they played

jdw64 6mo ago
This makes sense from a financial perspective. But Google’s main service became centralized and convenient because it acted as the traffic gateway of the web. The moral question is a different matter. Suppose an electricity utility builds the power grid, and many businesses build their operations around that grid. Then later, the utility uses its privileged position in the grid to directly replace the businesses that depended on it. Would that be morally acceptable? It may be correct from a business perspective, but that does not automatically make it good for the whole ecosystem. In a capitalist society, companies are pressured to create new cash cows, enter adjacent markets, and even perform self-disruptive innovation in the interest of shareholders. This may be one such case. But whether that benefits the overall ecosystem is a separate question. Users want free content. Users want services without ads. Users want fast summaries. Users want answers without reading the original source. Those desires are natural. But if producers cannot remain sustainable under those desires, then the long-term quality of information may collapse. Google can preserve revenue through AI Overviews, while creators may lose revenue. The problem is that AI Overviews occupy a large container near the top of the results page and hide or push down the sources users would otherwise visit. In other words, the UX design emphasizes Google’s AI answer while making external sites less visible. It is true that content creators now have to compete with Google’s AI Overview. But this competition is asymmetric. From the company’s perspective, and from the shareholder perspective, Google’s decision may be correct. They are far smarter than I am. But it is still unclear whether Google will remain unharmed if the ecosystem that feeds it is gradually destroyed.
- bitpush 6mo ago