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

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

theatlantic.com

71 pointsraldi50 comments

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.

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?

>Cache and Similar still exist, granted they're more difficult to find now.

Cache is now tightly integrated into Chrome and I think more heavily used then before (ie by a larger audience) because now if you pull up a website that's offline Chrome will point you to the cached copy

So they made the feature easier to use on their browser but harder to use on other browsers? Seems slightly evil to me.

You can just click or hover the preview "arrows" (which look like >> to the right of a search result on hover) and the "Cached" link appears. Not evil in any way.

I tried searching around to see if Instagram had any patents that were discussed on the web after their sale. I could find absolutely nothing useful. The search algorithm decided that news about Facebook's acquisition and their AOL patents was so 'hot' that it would show me only day old links.

It's a useful feature at first glance, but more and more often I find myself wishing that Google would just work like I expect it to (like it used to).

The alternative answer is that Instagram has no patents, and nobody is talking about it, so there's no search results to return for that.

And as far as I can tell, Instagram didn't have any patents. A quick Google Patent Search doesn't turn anything up with their name in it either [1].

[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=instagram&tbm=pts

One UI thing we've struggled with is how to tell the user that we don't think there are any good results for the query. It's a very difficult thing to evaluate effectively, because most of our notions of a good search result page (obviously) involve there being results on it. But it seems intuitively that there's a big value to quickly and reliably concluding "nope nothing" and moving on.

It's a problem exacerbated by the increasing size of our index. It's hard to quickly tell whether you've reached the noise floor of the internet yet.

That's the conclusion I came to, but it wasn't very definitive. At the very least I expected to come across links to people talking about their lack of patents. Maybe I should have searched for 'instagram no patents'.

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.

Google has also proven itself to not "be evil."

I'd say the jury's still out on that one.

What proof are you speaking of?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

>They'll raise the fear flag whenever they find an opportunity for more pageviews.

Or worse, (and some of the more level headed community here is guilty of this too), the "zOMG GOOGLE IS NOW EVIL" flag. If I had a nickel for every time some random blogger decided that somehow advertising in a slightly different way was an affront to truth, justice, and the American way....

Being anti-google does indeed seem to be the hipster position at the moment. $5 says it'll soon be, 'I'm too cool even for Apple, I use Windows mobile'.

Not that there's anything wrong with windows mobile, it's quite nice. I can see it having a bit of the perception of the phone your parents would carry. Though, and that'll feed perfectly into hipsterism.

I could rant anti-google and I've got both a Nexus One and an iPad :-)

But I'm sure the extensive criticism that Apple receives here is all clear-eyed, eh? According to the poll, the public loves Apple, but they are routinely pummeled on HN. I note that, just in casual reading, I can count 20+ user names who are Google employees. That's people who have actually commented and self-identified as Google employees, meaning that the actual number of voters is of course much higher. What effect do you think that might have on objectivity?

As an aside, I'm disappointed that people continue to reward your insults with up votes. It's pretty well known that that's not how you're supposed to behave here.

I guess there's a lot of subjectivity at work. An Apple fan will no doubt see a lot more criticism than someone (and I'll admit I qualify) who is less pleased with the company.

That said: surely you can't be arguing that it's somehow a bad thing or reflects poorly on Google that it's employees are active in our community, can you?

I can assure you it's not merely Apple users.

I can assure you it's not merely Apple users.

I'll second that; I've despised Apple from day one, especially back when there were much better reasons (no memory protection? no true multitasking? in the year 2000? what is this, a student project?). At least now they seem to be more technically competent, even if they are definitively evil.

I don't really trust Google (hence why I don't use GMail), but I can tell you right now, I would turn down an interview with Apple, no second thoughts. If Google asked for an interview (again), I'd probably say yes, even though I'm not likely to accept an offer. Google has plenty of issues, but not nearly as many as Apple and I do think that a lot of the Google-hate is from Apple fanboys, but not all of it.

I can third that... Google's "Play", G+, annoying ads on youtube, inability to complete cool stuff like docs etc all frustrate

In other words Android users don't criticize Google.

edit:

It is hardly a big reveal that this correlation exists. Presumably people's opinions have an influence on how they choose to spend their money and vice-versa.

Singling out 'Apple Users' in this regard is just an ad hominem.

If you really think "Android users don't criticize Google", you haven't been paying attention.

Here are some common criticisms off the top of my head:

- "Why doesn't the Nexus S / Galaxy Nexus have a microSD slot?"

- "Why hasn't Google enabled paid apps in my country?"

- "Why isn't Chrome Beta/Google Music/Books/Currents/... available in my country?"

- "Why isn't the Nexus One getting ICS?"

- "Google Play is a stupid name"

- "Why does the Chrome Beta require ICS?"

- "Google should clamp down more on Android OEMs" [to prevent fragmentation]

- "Android should have open development, not just open source"

- "Google's design guidelines for the back button are wrong"

- ...

Those are not criticisms of Google the company. They are minor feature gripes about products.

This supports my point.

I don't really follow that.

Perhaps the complaints about "Google Play" and the back button are minor gripes (though I have seen them woven into larger themes), but...

The implied answer to any of the "Why" questions asked in anger (as they usually are) is "Google doesn't care about ______ users." (whether you fill in the blank with non-US, Nexus One, non-ICS, etc). Similarly, the implication behind the things Google/Android "should" be doing (but isn't) is that Google doesn't care about what they should (fragmentation and open source in my examples). Those are all criticisms of the company, not just the specific issue raised.

In that case you've successfully invalidated the parent poster's claim that posts critical of Google are only made by iPhone owners.

Either way shows the parent post to be a baseless ad-hominem.

The parent post didn't say "posts critical of Google are only made by iPhone owners". Instead, it said there was a "correlation" between people who own iPhones and people who "focus" their "rants" on Google "to the exclusion of other players".

It also wasn't talking about the tendency you reference upthread (people who use things from company X tend not to criticize company X). Let me try to make the claim clearer: People who use Apple products (specifically iPhones) disproportionately criticize Google (since Android). You may agree or disagree with that claim, but, in my opinion, it is a claim that should be evaluated on its own merits rather than summarily dismissed (as you do).

I nowhere summarily dismiss it. I say that the correlation is not exclusive to Apple owners and is just a reflection of their opinions.

What I dismiss is the claim that this pattern is somehow unique to Apple users commenting on Google vs say Android users commenting on Apple. That's what makes it an ad-hominem.

Do you actually support this claim?

Slow down. You're strawmaning really badly here. Neither did I say that the correlation was "exclusive" to Apple owners. I said (read carefully this time) that the perception that Google has been doing things worthy of heavy criticism ("turned evil", etc...) is unique to the community of technical Apple users (and that this community heavily overlaps the one here). Outside that echo chamber, even in highly technical communities, it doesn't exist. So I argue that it's a social artifact, not a reflection of Google's behavior.

Thanks for clarifying.

I have recently had the experiences of meeting more than one person (not super-technical engineers, but tech-literate IT people) who were very negative about even the idea of owning Apple products, but also without prompting made statements like "I hate what Google is becoming", and "everyone used to like them but now they're evil". So I can assure you the sentiments aren't limited to such a small community.

Even if this were not so, complex criticisms of a technology business would reasonably be expected to originate within a skilled technical community with a demonstrated preference for an alternative. So if these critiques did happen to be limited to this community, this would still be no reason to conclude that they do not reflect Google's behavior.

Your statements like: And the reason is clear: since 2008 Android has represented the biggest single threat to Apple's increasing dominance. are clearly an ad-hominem because you are implying that their criticisms stem from loyalty to Apple as a company, as opposed to them actually reasoning that Google's products and strategies have become counter to their specific values.

I'd say it's just as reasonable to suggest that Android amongst other things has caused Google itself to change its values, and it is this change of values that people are calling out.

Saying things like "none of this speaks to the legitimacy of.." and "Some of it is deserved.." does nothing to mitigate the ad-hominem.

If the criticism is legitimate, or the statements are deserved, then it doesn't matter what phone someone has in their pocket.

You need to check your netiquette documentation, because that's not what ad hominem means. I'm not arguing with Apple users and trying to tarnish their reputations via unrelated attacks.

I'm making the specific point that their loyalty drives their opinions (frankly I don't even see why you even think this is controversial -- it happens everywhere, in every subject). And that because of their (your) preponderance in this community (again a very uncontroversial fact), it seems like (this is my conclusion drawn from above) more people are souring on Google than is really true. QED.

Now, maybe you disagree with some of those facts. But none of that argument is based on attacking anything unrelated about you guys.

(edit: I shouldn't have bitten. Go away, troll.)

You didn't address any of the points I made, and that's a straw man definition of ad-hominem. Ad-hominem is not specifically about tarnishing reputations, or unrelated attacks, although these can be part of it.

If you look at a real definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You'll see that it conforms to what I said in my previous comment.

You have clearly indicated that you think the position of Apple users is less valid because of their loyalty to the company. That is ad-hominem - attacking the position by pointing out a characteristic of the person rather than the position, and is a fallacy designed to mislead the audience.

You also think that negative positions about Google are more prevalent amongst Apple users. On that point we have agreed from the beginning, but I haven't argued against that so repeatedly defending it is just another straw-man.

[edit: You added 'go away troll' to your comment after I posted this. That doesn't make your argument seem very strong.]

or maybe, just maybe this points to the fact that the people who appreciate good design and stuff that just works use Apple products and see the latest changes by Google as unfavorable.

i do. new layout? search clutter? play in my google browser bar? circle results in search? maps api pricing? etc etc etc.

i loved the old google. really getting annoyed with the new one. it is becoming apparent that they are an advertising network above all else.

but hey, if conspiracy theories about Apple make it easier for you, please continue.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com