Hacker News Reader

Comment by matt_wulfeck | Hacker News Reader

I'm glad they involved google to make sure the change happens to anyone and also to verify their claims about access. This is the type of response we should expect/demand from other companies. Well done.

View on HN

I agree it is helpful to involve Google so it can be changed for existing Pokemon Go users. But I don't see how Google has verified the claim, since Google themselves have yet to release a statement.

By the way, Google indorsed this comment. Believe me?

Web of trust I suppose. I trust Nintendo and I also don't think Google would allow such a brazen and public endorsement if it were untrue. If google does indeed reset permissions then you know they've at least been in contact.

If it were a smaller company I'd like to see proof.

> If it were a smaller company I'd like to see proof.

Amazing how much trust the mere size of a company ensues.

It's not size directly, but the risk of goodwill. A bigger company stands to lose more goodwill.

That and stock value

I think it can also be size directly, the more people involved the more chance that one of them would tell-all.

I disagree. I think the bigger the company, the more likely they less care about users/support/their image. They're 'too big to fall' and the sheep are already on the ship. I believe there's plenty of examples out there, I can give you two straight away [1], [2].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5523992

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12034608

Google cares a lot about user privacy. If only a few percent of their users change their default search engine from Google to DuckDuckGo, they will loose a lot of revenue.

Well, seems like a few people are already looking around for an alternative [1] when it comes to privacy [2]. I can see some effort [3] but I'm not sure if addressing user's privacy concerns is their main goal.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12035667

[2] http://technical.ly/philly/2015/06/16/duckduckgo-cnbc

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12042613

The bigger the company, the higher the chances that a public statement - especially one admitting to a mistake - has to pass through PR and legal, and that one of those stops you from implicating a third party company in your actions if they aren't really being a part.

Too much to lose, not enough to gain.

It's probably much easier to involve Google when you are a Google spinoff company.

Yeah, because they likely have the phone number of someone they can call.

The company is actualy owned by Google.

The company WAS owned by Google. They left Google in August 2015 to become an independent entity.

Just to be entirely clear, Google (along with some other companies like Nintendo) have invested in niantic. So even though Google may not own Niantic, they are pretty interested in its success.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com