I still code with the mindset of “I need my software to be good or my clients will leave.”
Google no longer operates like this. None of what you listed has any financial benefit to Google. You’re not going anywhere. All they stand to do is make more money off of you. If they can simplify the software, from being handcrafted by humans perfectly for you, to, instead, generated by an unsalaried AI, they’ll do that. They stand to lose mostly nothing and gain by reducing their workforce.
The competition for quality doesn’t exist because the money they save by moving to AI is apparent across the industry. Everyone is looking to use it meaning the only competition is who can provide better cheap AI, not who can make a better product for their users.
Why? I dropped maps completely as soon as they started enshittifying it with elements I don’t use that can’t be removed from the UI; now I use only OSMand. I dumped Chrome when they announced manifest v3 and use Firefox. I dropped Google Play store when they made it difficult to see the exact version and it turns out f-droid has everything I need. I also dumped gmail for k9; their sms client for an open source one; I removed their Youtube client and use Newpipe. I always search with Ecosia or DDG before trying google.
Good for you, but you are not the typical customer. The vast majority of people will put up with the enshitification and Google (and every other large company doing the same thing) will continue to reap billions in profit.
I agree, my comment probably didn’t properly reflect that. But the reality is for the (less than) 1% of folks like us on Lemmy, there are a majority that will just go along and that isn’t going to change anytime soon.
I’ll be honest, as much as I love how well it does, it’s still leagues behind Google Maps. Would I be fine if Google Maps were to shut down? Sure. Just like how in theory, Apple Maps on DDG serves as a usable map system on the desktop. In reality, I see no reason not to use a competitor as superior as Google Maps, as long as I can. This isn’t a Chrome-vs-Firefox situation where in many regards Firefox is the superior choice even on features, Google Maps is, for all it’s woes, incredibly ahead of the competition.
Which makes sense: It’s used so broadly, and can accumulate so much data about how people move about, it has access to a host of knowledge about motion and movement that other map system cannot match, be it out of choice or not. With OSMAnd+ it’s a choice of course, but even if that weren’t the case they just lack that ability. They cannot know how right now foot traffic in a certain area of downtown is quite slow due to a demonstration just having ended and a lot of people moving through a few adjacent streets back to the main train station. Google Maps can. Because like 75% of people in that crowd have it on their phones and enabled.
When I need to, I actually use ‘here we go’. Google is ahead of osmand, but only in the address finding Dept. I’ve gotten bitten by Google showing hours for a place that weren’t correct, so now I just call.
If you don’t need the extraneous info, here + organic maps works great.
The issue with this is that you’re contributing to a never ending feedback loop.
If a product is successful enough to enable convenient features that everyone likes, that means that nobody will give competition a fair shake because they “just don’t have those features that I need”.
I know that most customers would argue that it’s not their responsibility to give up on superior services just for the sake of giving competition a chance, but then whose responsibility is it?
In the end, products can only grow if you allow them to grow. Same thing with arguments like nobody using Peertube because YouTube has more content creators, or how nobody would use kbin or Lemmy because reddit has a much larger contributing userbase.
If you don’t give competition a chance, you’re only contributing to a monopoly. And then you’re as much to blame as the company that’s doing the monopoly
Yeah, but sometimes certain features can only be added when the company has a lot of money to back them.
Stuff like extremely fast buffering speeds due to good internet infrastructure to datacenters or elaborate DDoS protection for building entire clusters to cushion against huge data flows.
Or, if those are too technical, just think of the content creators on YouTube, who don’t want to upload their videos to other platforms because YouTube is effectively a monopoly now, and so it would be pointless to give other platforms the time of day.
If not enough content creators give competitors the chance, then how can they be expected to grow enough to stand a chance, in the first place?
Well I and people I know do use it regularly. I also think if I need someone to actually see what I sent them I will always choose sms just due to it arriving even in bad signal conditions and if the person has cellular data turned off. Especially if you go hiking into the mountains where cellular data really isn’t an option.
Except for people like me I never paid Google with money.
I gave them my date for them to organise and assist me with.
If they can’t use my data to assist me, I’ll stop giving it to them by turning off permissions and features I don’t use.
Google really does need handling over your data to be useful. Especially as the EU gradually forces defaults to be for privacy. Google will need you to opt in more and more and that means they do need to give you good service.
As you continue to use their services you are shown ads or use services other companies have paid to have linked to. Even when things seem “free” they are never free. Google Maps makes money off charging their API for businesses. They charge what they do because their data quality is high. Their data quality is high because they track usage as well as ask users to improve their data (like ask if a restaurant has table service). Every time you search for a business or call a business because a Google search that gets tracked and compared. Businesses can also pay to appear higher in advertised search rankings.
TL;DR: You are given free access to improve Google’s data and they sell off that improved data to companies, or charge for higher visibility to their potential customers.
Pretty sure that’s exactly what the other guy said… “Selling” your data can be worth it if you get good service in return, which is what Google used to provide, but now it barely works half the time.
Maybe I misunderstood the point of data, but I was making the point that they don’t need to perform complex tracking or rely on non-anonymized data. Invading privacy isn’t a very important part of their business model. People still freely feed them data either directly (captcha with OCR scan or Street View images; adding location reviews, photos, and details; YouTube likes and subscriptions) or indirectly (searches and links you click after; YouTube views; places you navigate to and what time; your location when you request navigation directions).
The tagging of data around specific people (privacy) which the EU is very concerned about, I feel, is grossly overemphasized. Just counters on what gets pinged and when on a transactional basis is very much good enough for Google’s business model.
I still code with the mindset of “I need my software to be good or my clients will leave.”
Google no longer operates like this. None of what you listed has any financial benefit to Google. You’re not going anywhere. All they stand to do is make more money off of you. If they can simplify the software, from being handcrafted by humans perfectly for you, to, instead, generated by an unsalaried AI, they’ll do that. They stand to lose mostly nothing and gain by reducing their workforce.
The competition for quality doesn’t exist because the money they save by moving to AI is apparent across the industry. Everyone is looking to use it meaning the only competition is who can provide better cheap AI, not who can make a better product for their users.
Why? I dropped maps completely as soon as they started enshittifying it with elements I don’t use that can’t be removed from the UI; now I use only OSMand. I dumped Chrome when they announced manifest v3 and use Firefox. I dropped Google Play store when they made it difficult to see the exact version and it turns out f-droid has everything I need. I also dumped gmail for k9; their sms client for an open source one; I removed their Youtube client and use Newpipe. I always search with Ecosia or DDG before trying google.
Good for you, but you are not the typical customer. The vast majority of people will put up with the enshitification and Google (and every other large company doing the same thing) will continue to reap billions in profit.
Point is to provide an opportunity. Waze was it’s own thing for a while, even better than maps at first.
Don’t lie down and take it. You are worth more than that.
I agree, my comment probably didn’t properly reflect that. But the reality is for the (less than) 1% of folks like us on Lemmy, there are a majority that will just go along and that isn’t going to change anytime soon.
That’s ok. There’s always a first group to test and play with stuff, making it steadily more welcoming to newcomers.
Look what’s happening with Lemmy. 😉
I’ll be honest, as much as I love how well it does, it’s still leagues behind Google Maps. Would I be fine if Google Maps were to shut down? Sure. Just like how in theory, Apple Maps on DDG serves as a usable map system on the desktop. In reality, I see no reason not to use a competitor as superior as Google Maps, as long as I can. This isn’t a Chrome-vs-Firefox situation where in many regards Firefox is the superior choice even on features, Google Maps is, for all it’s woes, incredibly ahead of the competition.
Which makes sense: It’s used so broadly, and can accumulate so much data about how people move about, it has access to a host of knowledge about motion and movement that other map system cannot match, be it out of choice or not. With OSMAnd+ it’s a choice of course, but even if that weren’t the case they just lack that ability. They cannot know how right now foot traffic in a certain area of downtown is quite slow due to a demonstration just having ended and a lot of people moving through a few adjacent streets back to the main train station. Google Maps can. Because like 75% of people in that crowd have it on their phones and enabled.
When I need to, I actually use ‘here we go’. Google is ahead of osmand, but only in the address finding Dept. I’ve gotten bitten by Google showing hours for a place that weren’t correct, so now I just call.
If you don’t need the extraneous info, here + organic maps works great.
The issue with this is that you’re contributing to a never ending feedback loop.
If a product is successful enough to enable convenient features that everyone likes, that means that nobody will give competition a fair shake because they “just don’t have those features that I need”.
I know that most customers would argue that it’s not their responsibility to give up on superior services just for the sake of giving competition a chance, but then whose responsibility is it?
In the end, products can only grow if you allow them to grow. Same thing with arguments like nobody using Peertube because YouTube has more content creators, or how nobody would use kbin or Lemmy because reddit has a much larger contributing userbase.
If you don’t give competition a chance, you’re only contributing to a monopoly. And then you’re as much to blame as the company that’s doing the monopoly
The competitors? If they had customers without adding those features they also would have no incentive to add them.
Yeah, but sometimes certain features can only be added when the company has a lot of money to back them.
Stuff like extremely fast buffering speeds due to good internet infrastructure to datacenters or elaborate DDoS protection for building entire clusters to cushion against huge data flows.
Or, if those are too technical, just think of the content creators on YouTube, who don’t want to upload their videos to other platforms because YouTube is effectively a monopoly now, and so it would be pointless to give other platforms the time of day.
If not enough content creators give competitors the chance, then how can they be expected to grow enough to stand a chance, in the first place?
Which open source sms client do you use?
The vast majority of the world no longer uses SMS, so I doubt it’s a problem the average customer has to worry about much.
Well I and people I know do use it regularly. I also think if I need someone to actually see what I sent them I will always choose sms just due to it arriving even in bad signal conditions and if the person has cellular data turned off. Especially if you go hiking into the mountains where cellular data really isn’t an option.
I have QKMS on my phone for couple of years now
I still code with the mindset of “I need my software to be good or my clients will leave.”
Google still does this. As you probably already know, users aren’t clients. Users are products.
Except for people like me I never paid Google with money.
I gave them my date for them to organise and assist me with.
If they can’t use my data to assist me, I’ll stop giving it to them by turning off permissions and features I don’t use.
Google really does need handling over your data to be useful. Especially as the EU gradually forces defaults to be for privacy. Google will need you to opt in more and more and that means they do need to give you good service.
As you continue to use their services you are shown ads or use services other companies have paid to have linked to. Even when things seem “free” they are never free. Google Maps makes money off charging their API for businesses. They charge what they do because their data quality is high. Their data quality is high because they track usage as well as ask users to improve their data (like ask if a restaurant has table service). Every time you search for a business or call a business because a Google search that gets tracked and compared. Businesses can also pay to appear higher in advertised search rankings.
TL;DR: You are given free access to improve Google’s data and they sell off that improved data to companies, or charge for higher visibility to their potential customers.
Pretty sure that’s exactly what the other guy said… “Selling” your data can be worth it if you get good service in return, which is what Google used to provide, but now it barely works half the time.
Maybe I misunderstood the point of data, but I was making the point that they don’t need to perform complex tracking or rely on non-anonymized data. Invading privacy isn’t a very important part of their business model. People still freely feed them data either directly (captcha with OCR scan or Street View images; adding location reviews, photos, and details; YouTube likes and subscriptions) or indirectly (searches and links you click after; YouTube views; places you navigate to and what time; your location when you request navigation directions).
The tagging of data around specific people (privacy) which the EU is very concerned about, I feel, is grossly overemphasized. Just counters on what gets pinged and when on a transactional basis is very much good enough for Google’s business model.