2 ms·
Must Google do everything?
by XiZhao 12y ago
Must Google do everything?
- tree_of_item 12y agoThis is a great thing for Google to do, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
- d2xdy2 12y agoI take it as saying something like "why does it have to be Google that does this; someone should have done this a long time ago", maybe. Google starts a lot of cool projects, it'd be neat to see other companies taking the same initiative in certain areas (I'm sure there are, I just am not well versed in that area).
- lambda 12y agoI don't know of any other companies who control as many display ads on the web, which can be replaced by a "thank you for donating." There already are other similar services, like Flattr, but it becomes hard to ensure that you get a steady revenue stream by serving ads to some people and getting donations from others, and being able to turn off the ads for those people who donate.
- lambda 12y agoGoogle runs the largest advertising network on the web. They already pay for much of the content you see online. Only they have the ability to say "pay $1-$3 a month, and we'll replace those ads with a thank you", and have it actually affect a significant fraction of what you see.
- TeMPOraL 12y agoYes, please. Because they seem to be one of the few companies who make things that don't suck.
- stass 12y agoThat's subjective. I don't recall a single product from them that came after search and didn't suck. But the real problem with them is these solutions are being pushed down people throats whether they like it or not similar to what Microsoft was doing in the 90s. This is just another example.
- TeMPOraL 12y agoI say GMail and Google Maps are examples of products that were both significantly prettier and better (feature and UX-wise) than any alternative available at that time. But you're right, it's subjective. No one seems to do any kind of pushing. You're free to not use GMail or Google Maps or whatever; people use it because it sucks less than alternatives.