Hacker News Reader

There is no lock-in with Google, and that makes all the difference.

Switching to a different provider of search, email, website statistics, ads, browser, etc, is not only possible — it is effortless.

Google haven't made alliances with other vendors to make it hard or even uncomfortable to use a competitor's product in either market. Quite the contrary, many of their services provide means of exporting my data, unlike many of their competitors.

Google does not dominate either one of those markets due to having leveraged dominance on another market, forcing the end-user's choice. I do not have to use Gmail just because I use Google for searching, it is just as easy to use any other email provider instead. Same thing goes for ads, browser, etc.

As long as Google's services continue to be free of lock-in and either one are easily switched out for a competitor's product, I'll be comfortable using their various services in spite of dominance in various markets.

There is no lock-in with Google, and that makes all the difference.

I don't know, considering they're responsible for something like 80% of my business most days I'm feeling pretty freaking locked in...

No, you're feeling dependent. There's a difference.

If you are using 80% of their services now, it is because you feel like you are getting good return on them. If you decide that isn't the case in the future, as the original poster said, it is easy to move whatever portion of their service you aren't happy with to another provider.

If there isn't another provider that offers the same level of service and the same ability to walk away that Google does, that isn't lock-in, and it isn't really Google's fault.

I do wish there was another email provider that I felt had as strong an offering as gmail does, just in case.

He's talking about search traffic to his business. I feel the same way. It's scary knowing that if one company blacklists you, you basically disappear from the internet. Google provides 99% of my incoming search traffic (even though I rank higher on other engines).

What are you saying, exactly? Should google endeavor to make their search results worse so that more people use other search engines? A simple monopoly based on the excellence of a freely provided service is not necessarily a bad thing, especially considering that search engines do not particularly inspire customer loyalty. If google becomes dramatically worse and other search engines become dramatically better they will lose the majority of their users without much difficulty, just like yahoo, ask, etc. lost their users when google got big.

Should google endeavor to make their search results worse so that more people use other search engines

I'm not suggesting anything like that.

I'm simply pointing out that for many of us, Google traffic is a SPOF. How to go about fixing that, who knows. Some people are claiming Twitter is the future of traffic, but I don't think so, at least not for most sites.

The way to fix it is simple: have other search engines leapfrog google in the same way that google leapfrogged the existing ones.

Effortless?

You are currently using 1794 MB (24%) of your 7345 MB.

How can I "Effortlessly" move my 18,000 emails to another provider?

How can I "Effortlessly" replace my need to cater to Der Googlebot for the assurance of keeping happy my largest source of traffic?

All I'm saying is... if 3/4 of all toll free phone calls to American businesses were routed thru a single provider, that company would be regulated by the Government. I don't necessarily thing Google should be regulated, but I do think you are naieve if you think the existence of Google circa 2009 isn't as dangerous as Microsoft circa 1999.

They provide pop3 access that lets you download all 18000 of those emails. You can then do whatever you want with them. Certainly set up your own webmail system on a server, say.

Oh store them locally in mail-client-of-your-choice. Or import them into any other webmail service that supports importing from pop3 (none come to mind, but it would be fairly trivial to implement.)

"There is no lock-in with Google"

While Microsoft owned the program and the data format my data was stored, Google owns the program, the data format and the server my data is stored in.

I am not sure how comfortable I should feel. Data export facilities are your friends.

Which Google projects are you unable to export your data from? I'm happy to point you to the interface to do so or pass on the request to the data liberation team in Chicago.

For mail, contacts, reader opmls, docs/spreadsheets/etc there are exporting facilities and in some cases (like in blogger) mass export tools that Google has written to make it easier, in essence, to leave. Some tools aren't as easy to export from, yet.

As to the "server your data is stored on" we won't be shipping that to you anytime soon :-)

That's precisely why I said "Data export facilities are your friends." They exist.

I am aware I can pull my data off Google's servers anytime I want, but, if such interfaces or facilities become unavailable, I will be stuck.

Recently, I received a lot of e-mails about my Yahoo 360 account. I have no data there, but, still, someday soon (if not already) all data in those servers will be gone. From first warning to total obliteration, a mere couple months have passed. I had vacations longer than that.

That's why I keep all my important data nicely backed up someplace I control.

There is no lock-in with Google, and that makes all the difference.

Companies that are making an effort to use lock-in to keep you are not using that effort to keep you by giving you good customer service and user experience. A "no lock-in" policy supports quality. It says that a company is going to live or die by quality, not by something that sucks for the customer.

Google most definitely does not control email. Yahoo mail has many more users.

That may be so, but it's been a long time since I've mailed somebody at a yahoo address, gmail addresses are 13 per dozen in my contact list, and all of them are active as far as I can see.

Anecdotal statistics are meaningless. Yahoo still controls the lion's share of the email market, and they don't even offer free POP3 access to your account.

I have 2 gmail contacts (actually I think they're googlemail?) out of 300+. I don't really see any clusters. But then I don't have many geek friends/acquaintances and those that I do know appear to use company email addresses mainly.

I have two Yahoo addresses that I check once a month and one Gmail account I'm logged into 24/7.

But I guess it is entirely unproblematic that they can track your every activity wherever you are, on whatever device you are and whatever platform you are using. They are the good guys, right?

That's smarmy. I'll admit a teensy bit of bias, since I've never understood why people are so worried about being tracked. My letters to college professors I'm fine with Google scanning; love letters are about as embarrassing as my Google communications get, but I'm not exactly worried about them leaking to the world.

If you don't want to use Google, don't use Google. Use DuckDuckGo for search, set up your own webmail, don't use Chrome, don't use the Google Toolbar, don't use Android, and Google has absolutely no power over you. You're free!

Meanwhile, Google makes their business out of studying data, and its users all seem to think that's worth getting access to Google's stuff.

I hate this sarcastic mode of writing posts wherein it's a given that the company's evil, so you're allowed little jabs like:

After all they are using web-standards to do the stuff they do, so it can't be bad, right?

Nobody mentioned fucking web standards, man. Nobody would ever use that as a counterargument. You're raising strawmen to be baked in gas chambers.

I don't use my Google account at all nowadays. Google doesn't seem too upset by that. I'm satisfied with their level of control if they're not assholes about it when I stop being enslaved.

So, some suggestions:

- Your business plan about your web search startup. - correspondence / health records documenting some medical condition - a personal diary where you admit to something embarassing

All of these - and true, they're created to illustrate the point so a little farfetched - would be a real problem in case google decided to take a more active interest in the contents of your various data stores.

And how is this different from what you can do with Microsoft software and services today?

Google doesn't force its products on anyone, Microsoft does. Windows still comes preloaded on most PC's sold, even if you don't want it and don't want to pay for it. Then vendors aren't doing that to you, Microsoft is making them.

It's not really how much stuff Microsoft controlled that made them dangerous. It's the fact that they had no qualms about using their monopoly power to squash competitors. So far, Google hasn't demonstrated that tendency.

solution (if you dont trust them).

dont use Google, it's perfectly possible to do so.

That doesn't alter the fact that they are much more in control of what most users do, yet people regard Microsoft as the one we should be afraid of.

And how would you know if you send mail to someone using gmail or gmail hosted that google doesn't use this information against you? You don't.

I'm not saying we need to shut down Google, just that I find it odd that most of the FOSS world still regards Microsoft as the one we should be afraid of and avoid at all cost. After all: Google does have its arsenal of closed-source solutions with varying degrees of lock-in and little to no options for opting out once your data is harvested.

If the day comes that the government wants to go big brother on us, I'm pretty sure Google and/or their data will first on the list of things they want to get under their control, not Microsoft.

People tend to judge entities based on their actions, not their capabilities. Microsoft has acted as a rampaging barbarian horde, happily destroying competitors and allies alike. Google employs hundreds of students every summer to work on random open-source projects.

Google _could_ be evil if they wanted to, but so far there isn't any evidence that they have done so. Microsoft has been a force of destruction in the world, and there is no evidence that they have any desire to do otherwise. Which entity is more deserving of fear?

> Google employs hundreds of students every summer to work on random open-source projects.

They do lots of things to generate good will, so there's just no way they could possibly be doing anything evil, right?

They even say "Don't Be Evil", so there's no way they could be evil, right?

People tend to judge entities based on the actions they can see.

Hmmm well yes but your levelling a BIG claim against Google there. Any proof to back up the idea they might abuse data?

If not then what foundation does your mis-trust have?

My point still stands though - if you dont trust them with your data dont use them. If you dont trust your data will be safe in future dont use them.

If the "big brother" future ever happens I suspect which company your with will be the least of our problems :) Indeed I would argue that going with a larger company (especially one that has refused to hand over data already) is more sensible - because smaller ones have no power against governments.

The proof? Come on, man, I admire Google as much as the next developer does... Maps, Gmail, these things were simply stunning products when they released (and still are).

But they are a major American corporation. They employ a number of people in high-ranking positions who have very large compensation packages that are tied to profits and stock price.

I'd wager that nearly every working American can tell you stories about abuses of American corporations... dozens of stories... And most could probably tell you some that they themselves have witnessed as an employee.

The stock-price-driven mentality in management at large American publicly traded companies puts emphasis entirely on short term, quarter-by-quarter profits.

I don't mind being slightly inflammatory in saying that anybody with a little _wisdom_ treats all these corporations with suspicion. And you'd be a fool not to.

These are not people: lives will not be ruined by a presumption of guilty-until-proven-innocent. Giving these companies the freedom we give people to operate freely until proven guilty is what results in things like Enron and real lives being shattered.

Google is not a bunch of hippie kashi-eating hackers anymore. Not for a long, long time. It's a bunch of corporatist managers who love money just like every other company.

I'm a software developer and a startup founder. I have the same dreams many here do, the same I'm sure Sergey and Larry Page did. But come on. Don't be so foolish. Google is skilled at marketing and branding, but you're surely smart--nearly all here are. Don't blur the line between admiration and worship.

> don't mind being slightly inflammatory in saying that anybody with a little _wisdom_ treats all these corporations with suspicion. And you'd be a fool not to.

Im 100% in agreement with that statement.

But there is a vast difference between being careful/suspicious/analytical and saying "they probably sell my data". For the latter I want to see proof - otherwise I feel set against the idea because it smacks of anti-corporation fear.

I worked as a consultant maintaining commodities trading software for a multinational petroleum corp. They make money because they do business everywhere and because of that, they have intimate local information about everywhere.

A lot of that information, they cannot use for legal reasons. But there is a remainder that they can use legally to turn a profit. And in a company as big as that, some young turk is going to figure it out and make a name for himself.

It's a certainty that this will also happen with Google. A lot of information passes through them. A lot of it can't be exploited for legal reasons. Some young turk there is probably figuring out a way that it can be legally exploited, and we on he outside aren't necessarily going to be happy about it.

Not so much making big claims as airing the possibility. Just saying that avoiding Google entirely these days is harder than it might seem. Since so many people use Google's services chances are they might wind up with some of your data one way or the other, with your name attached.

And like I said, I'm not saying they are evil and blah blah, I just find the lack of scepticism towards Google somewhat odd when people are screaming bloody murder over any and every thing Microsoft does.

> Any proof to back up the idea they might abuse data?

There's no need for proof, and it would be really difficult to find even if they were already doing unspeakable things with the world's data.

The problem is that the data is there, ready to be abused when a Google executive happens to make that decision.

Imagine sitting next to a conveyor belt shifting an endless stream of cheese cakes past you. You know they're not your cheese cakes, and that it would be inappropriate to take one.

Now suppose you also knew that even if you did stuff your face with the cheese cakes whizzing past, there's no way you could get caught.

Now suppose that you knew a guy who'd pay you truckloads of money for a few cheese cakes.

And finally, suppose that the government stepped in and insisted that you leave the room and let them watch over the cheese cakes.

There is need for proof - or even some kind of suggestion. Otherwise it's just a scare story :)

YES consider what data Google stores about you and if you feel comfortable with it. But to suggest they are or plan to do something evil with it you need to actually come up with something more cohesive than, say, a feeling.

Example: I can suggest your bank could be doing all SORTS of things with your data - potentially supremely damaging stuff.... but you trust them, right? ;)

Capacity to do something and trust are different things. So I say again: if you dont trust them. Dont use them. :)

"Example: I can suggest your bank could be doing all SORTS of things with your data - potentially supremely damaging stuff.... but you trust them, right? ;)"

No. Of course I don't. Unless you're banking at "Wee Lil Credite Unione" you'd be foolish to trust your bank.

But I have no choice. I do use a Credit Union for some of my financial needs but when it comes to IRAs, Brokerage Accounts, ETFs, etc, I have only the choice between a large corporate bank and a boutique brokerage with much higher fees.And business banking brings a whole different set of requirements.

Reckless profit-seeking bank, fueled by bonus-hungry execs, levied vast damage to the US economy. I don't trust them. That idea is almost humorous.

But i need them.

And like it or not, I need Google. We all do.

I dare say that the banking sector might not have been best choice of analogy.

what makes you trust creidt unions?

I think banking is the perfect example because they are a very similar model. Obviously your distrustful of them all.

Why are you more trustful of another search engine than Google? And if your not then you have to use some search engine otherwise web browsing is a complete pain - and which one do you use? the one you distrust the least (I assume).

Sounding similar to the banks in your model?

At some point you have to extend a level of trust to some entity - be it a bank or a search engine (though I would argue the level of trust for a bank has to be much higher, surely!!).

If you cant do that then you have to keep your money under a mattress, or indeed not surf the internet...

(Edit: In case my point is a bit confusing - why are you suggesting that Google are any more or less trustworthy than any other site you visit. How can you trust pg not to be selling our data to people? I'm personally 100% sure he isn't but the suggestion is there - and I bet if it was made seriously people would demand evidence)

I don't trust credit unions per se, I trust small companies far more than I trust large ones.

Small companies are more transparent. They are built more on personal relationships than global branding campaigns. When you're small, most employees share the vision of the founders, because they work with them every day, and because the founders wouldn't have hired them otherwise. And because small companies simply cannot afford to seek short-term profits the way large companies can. There's no reward for that.

I'm sorry in advance for sounding like a prick, but isn't that obvious?

There is need for proof - or even some kind of suggestion. Otherwise it's just a scare story :)

The question is, what sort of market forces are at work, both within and outside of the company, which motivate bad behavior? What are the forces that dissuade it?

Can you prove that God exists? Otherwise it's just a fairy tale :)

How would you prove that Google is not doing anything evil? You assume they're not, but that's just as (in)valid as my assumption that they might be. You could argue that proof is needed either way.

> Capacity to do something and trust are different things.

Google has the capacity to "do something", and I don't really trust them. But I can't really "not use Google" either.

The problem is that my chances of affecting what data Google has on me are very, very limited. They have their hands on most of what happens on the Internet.

I can reduce my "footprint" for example by disabling referrer information from my browser, but coincidentally, GMail won't let me in anymore if I do that.

Choosing "not to use Google" is difficult when every site I visit causes my browser to say hi to them. Of course, there are other reasons too. They're still the most efficient search engine, for example.

You're right, my bank could be doing nasty things too, but switching banks would be easy. Assuming it would help, of course :p

Without disagreeing with your broader point, Gmail is popular but far from "controlling the majority of free web-mail."