Hacker News Reader

Comment by d0vs | Hacker News Reader

I honestly don't think people outside the HN echo chamber care that much.

Problem is, people on HN are making decisions and building tools and startups. If everyone loses faith in Google, we'll stop using their platforms and tools which translates to loss of money.

The only example I can give is at my day job, I built a backup system that uses Azure blob storage because I actually trust Microsoft more than Google.

I wonder how many other people have a "anyone but Google" approach? It's not just cancelling services, it's the churn in APIs; they seem to be less stable than products from almost any other company.

Google clearly just doesn't have the enterprise-support mindset in their DNA in the way that companies like Microsoft do.

Google's core business is search and ads. Everything else is either an afterthought or a dalliance, and it shows.

I already avoid new Google products because of this, as I am sure many of you do.

While I've embraced Golang somewhat, it took me a few extra months of research and thought before doing that.

I can't wait for Rust to gain more traction, and be usable on the web. IMHO it's a much more pleasant language to work with.

Funnily enough I am doing the exact same thing. In my mind Golang has a temporary spot on the roster, and I'm actively looking at Rust, Nim, and a few other languages for writing some server projects in the next few years.

The HN crowd is absolutely tiny, compared to the entire development ecosystem. And a lot of us aren't even shot-callers.

Are you suggesting there's zero people outside HN who avoid Google products due to legitimate concerns of long-term availability?

You should address that question to d0vs, as he is the one who made that point.

But now that I have a chance to think about it, I can see his point. Most companies don't really take that particular risk into account and just kick the problem down the road. If you tried raising it as an issue, you'd get responses ranging from 'sure, figure out a way to value the risk and we'll add it into the model', to 'who cares really?'.

This. Most corps with Deep pockets already have a big team on procurement, and I have no say in what tools I am allowed to use to get my job done. All those stuff is already decided. I may go and say, "Hey, have you seen this, it's better than X", and that will not yield anything at all.

If Google isn't careful, Microsoft is going to cannibalize their enterprise space. I think Microsoft has been getting the same vibes and it really seems like they are finally trying to be team players and not just catering to the low-hanging fruit of non-tech savvy folk.

I wouldn't be surprised if they take the gamble on releasing a (free?) online enterprise office application suite as some sort of MS Office Lite. Google is no longer the hero of innovation we all thought they once were, and slowly but surely, smaller niche companies and serious tech giants with the singular goal of squashing Google will replace their core products with products that are more open source, privacy-focused, and with real customer support.

I remember when I wanted to work for Google. God, I remember when I wanted to work for Facebook. What the fish was wrong with me.

Microsoft already has released Office Online. It's lite versions of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. They're quite good. They get certain enhancements when you buy an Office 365 subscription (in addition to the full applications).

IMHO there's nothing wrong with wanting to work for Google/Facebook/any of the big 4/5. Get one of those on your resume and you are set for life, even if the work isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I didn't know about Office Online. Glad to hear Microsoft is doing that.

The problem with Google and Facebook is that I've come to realize our ethics are extremely misaligned.

I'm not interested in building exploitable systems filled with damaging metadata that can be abused by totalitarian states or vengeful employees.

I'm not interested in forcing Africa into a world where Facebook and Google are synonymous with the internet.

I'm not interested in running an echo chamber that 1/4 of the world's population uses, subjecting others to political influence and carefully syndicated information that influences their thoughts and behavior, while providing massive quantities of foreign user data to three-letter agencies interested in squashing social uprisings in third-world countries.

And I'm not interested in shutting down my moral compass by accepting corporate propaganda that tells me what I am doing is right and for the benefit of mankind.

Only reason I ever wanted to work for either was the prestige, the badass lunch buffets, and the feeling that I'm doing something important, positive and ground-breaking. But those are all selfish desires and the last one isn't true.

Many of those reasons you wanted to work for them are very subjective. While you mentioned that the last one is not true, I find that the Google Deep Mind project to build a Starcraft AI is extremely interesting.

I'll agree, they are in some ways subjective, but I have to work with the assumptions and motivations I have when it comes to choosing my employer.

Now Deep Mind... I would work for Deep Mind. Or even just intern. I would love to work with some of the ML pioneers even if just for a few months and just soak in everything I can.

On the contrary. I've spent much of my career in the conservative "enterprise" world... and outside of the HN echo chamber, most established companies aren't yet making heavy use of Google products at all. Largely due to the cultural disconnect being discussed here.

Sorry, but "We'll give you 12 months notice!" is still nowhere near "enterprisey". Try a decade.

>Try a decade.

And even longer if you're willing to pay outrageous sums of money.

I work in the conservatibe enterprise world, and vendors dropping services with much less than a decades notice -- usually, but not always, with a recommended replacement that they are also willing to sell you -- is quite common.

I think Google's problem here, inasmuch as it has one, is marketing and relationships, not substantive policy.

First, isn't the HN echo chamber actually an important constituency for Google if they want to sell to businesses? Second, I think once you get one of these "over my dead body" reactions going, it has to hurt business. Consider the lengths Microsoft has had to go to to try to overcome their negative reputation in the tech community.

Except Site Search is primarily used by non-technical people. It's widely used on forums and common on WordPress sites.

Depends on the field – e.g. in the cultural heritage space, many people used Google Reader and that still comes up any time someone mentions a Google service: “What will we do when they cancel this?” That doesn't mean that people won't use something but it definitely encourages a healthy discussion about lock-in.

I don't care as long as "site:example.org query" still works on google.com

Effectively does the same thing.

I know a lot of big company CTOs –– for old, boring companies like insurance (blah!) and real estate (yuck!) –– and they are very concerned about tech companies' willingness to keep services around for the very long haul.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com