> “I actually agree with other commenters: Google just doesn't know what it's about anymore. It has no overriding vision.”

it’s pretty apparent to me that after google finally got over wanting to be facebook, google now wants to be apple. and they’re desperately trying not to be microsoft, even though that’s what they mostly are.

in the beginning, google had a unique identity (quirky & clever) and vision (organize the world’s information). now they look to others to figure out who to be. it’s like the small town high school football star who never moved on.

> and they’re desperately trying not to be microsoft, even though that’s what they mostly are.

Mostly because Microsoft became more like Google in recent years. :P

You mean old Google?

They're doing some seriously good things in the dev space.

They are embracing a lot of technologies because that is how they gain market share and then extinguish them.

and spamming users with ads left and right, Google style, too

Hmm. In Chromium Edge, my new default browser, AFAIK the UO plugin will still work perfectly unlike in Chrome, meaning I rarely if ever see any ads.

The closest thing to an ad in VSCode or for that matter Terminal would be .. I guess hints at ease of Azure cloud services? Never found it intrusive myself, and I do AWS.

It's hard to understand your message, but... ads in VSCode? Is that a thing now?

I was kind of trying to say I haven't seen any ads, just non-intrusive integration with other MS services, in response to the ads reply I got. Sorry that was actually rather vague and roundabout.

You can use VSCodium, it's a fork of VSCode without Microsoft's telemetry.

> small town high school football star

That's odd thing to call the biggest software company* in the world.

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

* Alphabet

That wiki doesn't justify your statement. It's leveraging a list from 2017, but using Alphabet's market cap from 2019? And regardless, the actual market caps on that page would say Microsoft is the biggest software company in the world.

I have no idea what Forbes is using for its ranking but it is obviously not by valuation.

EDIT: And it should arguably be Apple, but for some reason neither Apple nor Amazon are software companies?

The Wikipedia article sorts by sales. Not sure why the years are like that, but the relative values are similar in 2019. [1] [2]

> for some reason neither Apple nor Amazon are software companies?

Because they aren't software companies? Or at least principally software companies.

Amazon is categorized as an retail company. [3]

Apple is categorized as a computer hardware company. [4]

Nitpicking aside, I think my point stands about a $800B+ company.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/companies/alphabet/?list=global2000#5...

[2] https://www.forbes.com/companies/microsoft/?list=global2000#...

[3] https://www.forbes.com/companies/amazon/?list=global2000#2c4...

[3] https://www.forbes.com/companies/apple/?list=global2000#3d04...

And market cap while it measures investor sentiment, doesn’t measure fundamentals. If it did, Uber wouldn’t be worth anything.

1. Just so we are clear, after having gone through 5 "lifetimes" of fitbit and probably 15 across the family, one thing I can tell you is that the software is buggy with no end in sight. Fitbit could definitely use better software.

2. If Google didn't integrate their Auth, the same community will be complaining about the lack of compatibility.

There's a difference betewen integrating one auth and disintegrating all others. Should my fitbit be bricked if I make a wrongthink comment on YouTube?

I don't think fitbit will be improved considering how jank WearOS can be

> as in, Google didn't buy you just for the team

2.1B isn't an acquihire. They want the customers, the team, and the manufacturing chain at the very least.

Nah, what they want is me, ie. my data. I'm throwing away that fitbit (Google Personal information gathering device) and deleting my account. I'm informed enough to make that decision. Unfortunately thousands of users that just got sold out are not.

Fuck Google.

I moved to iOS to be Google free. Have been happy with my Fitbit until I read this news and went through this exact sentiment. Happy to be part of a vocal minority.

I advised my privacy-worried dad to get a Fitbit instead of an android watch (couldn’t afford Apple Watch). Now I feel like an *hole

We live in fast times.

In a little less than a decade the perception of Google went from 'Best search on the internet' and 'Do no evil' to 'Fuck Google' and 'Delete your accounts with them'; and 'their search has gotten exponentially worse'

No skin in the game from me (I only use Gmail for non-essential shopping), just an observation. Personally, I think it's great. I'm proud to stand with the vocal minority against the rampant data collection and trade.

Same as Microsoft, really: first they were one of the plucky little companies* “sticking it” to the likes of Big Blue and AT&T, then they themselves fell victim to their own success and became embodied in Gates Of Borg on Slashdot, then they missed the boat on Mobile and failed to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish the Internet and ended up on the downward stroke, so now they’re cool again... while the Googles and Apples that opposed them and grew ascendant in their various ways are now the Great Evils that draw our ire.

My guess for the next great Satan? One of the notable, useful, quirky little “meta”/“web-glue” outfits such as IFTTT or somebody like that. Or a Fintech. Or some other company that somehow insinuates itself into our daily lives, holding our rickety digital lifestyles together, and eventually becomes as indispensable as mortar is to a brick building.

*Other notable examples being, in no specific order: Intel, DEC, Symbolics, Commodore, and yes, Apple.

> My guess for the next great Satan?

It's Cloudflare.

edit: Just to be clear, the reason I'm so suspicious of Cloudflare is that they're inserting themselves between users and their destination. The service they provide is a great value, and their contribution to the public (free dns and vpn) is extremely admirable. But they only exist because the infrastructure maintained by the old corporate guards is so poor. Once they take over all network traffic, they'll be the next great Satan. Their story will probably turn out similar to Google.

> No skin in the game from me (I only use Gmail for non-essential shopping), just an observation.

This is really commendable. Do you host your own E-mail/Calendar/Contacts server? if so, what's your setup like in terms of hardware and the software stack?

If you want it easy, you can buy something like a Synology NAS where you can install locally hosted Email, Contacts, Calendar, Dropbox and Photos servers with a few clicks. The software is of decent quality as well.

Obviously you pay for the convenience, but it's not a lot for self-hosted and maintained stack at home.

Contacts are, unfortunately, still under Google. Just under a separate email.

Important email is hosted through https://soverin.net with a custom domain.

Never used Calendar and have no plans to.

Don't throw it away, send it to me. I'll pay for shipping.

I just deleted my Fitbit account and will for sure be confirming whether it's deleted in 7 days.

How will you confirm this?

You missed "Data"

I mean, it's implied in "customers" but yeah, they want the data obviously

Sundar has been leading Google for a few years now. Larry/Sergey have been out and about for a while now.

I am a Xoogler myself.

Yes and no. Sundar has no more vision than Larry does yet somehow is paid $200m+ a year and in my mind is the most unjustifiably overpaid CEO by a huge margin. At least Larry founded the company and contributed to turning into the behemoth it is. Sunday is a random associate product manager who somehow managed to ride the wave of Chrome to somehow becoming CEO.

> Sunday (sic) is a random associate product manager who somehow managed to ride the wave of Chrome to somehow becoming CEO

I'd be more careful about dismissing him as a random APM who "somehow managed to ride the wave of Chrome". Successes like these aren't wholly random and while there is certainly an amount of luck involved, you need to remember that Chrome is/was a crazy essential thing for Google's success before the smartphone/Android revolution.

It is more about not giving up the entry point to search (browser on PC -- mobiles weren't dominant in 2008) to a competitor (MS) who could stifle or charge a steep price to let it be the default search. If you need any more data on this, read up on how much Google pays Apple to be the default search engine ($5B a year IIRC).

So... Sundar's CEO status may or may not have been the best choice but don't discount years of work and navigating inside a behemoth like Google and getting st done :)

> Sundar has no more vision than Larry does yet somehow is paid $200m+ a year and in my mind is the most unjustifiably overpaid CEO by a huge margin.

Do you have a source for this? My understanding is that this $200m figure is a multi-year figure to keep him at Google.

I wouldn’t characterize him as random though. Larry seemed to like him because he is able to handle conflict very well.

It is hard to accurately judge how the CEO is doing as most us are not privy to what he has to deal with in his job. That said, to me he seems uninspiring, dodging questions and without much background in Computers. In some ways arguably similar to Steve Ballmer.

> The stock that Pichai received will vest in quarterly increments through January 2020

Seems like multi-year (2016-2020), not annually.

Just like Presidents, you cannot judge a CEO's job till the aftermath. That and after only deep introspection. Few cases bar exception, i.e. Steve Balmer.

Nadella seems much more capable as a visionary than Pichai

> Sunday is a random associate product manager who somehow managed to ride the wave of Chrome to somehow becoming CEO.

Chrome has monopolized not just the Internet[1], but is in the process of monopolising desktop dev thanks to the success of Electron. Of course those are good credentials to end up in charge of Google.

[1] As far as most people are concerned, their browser is the Internet.

I have no idea why you are downvoted.

Anything less than violent enthusiasm about Google leveraging their Chrome monopoly tends to go down badly here.

Under your theory, Steve Jobs still runs Apple.

Depending on how much product roadmap he set before he shuffled off the mortal coil, he may well be.

Now you are comparing Apples to Lemons.

I'm on the outside but always had the impression Eric Schmidt was calling most of the "do evil" important things.

I don't really have any special evidence to the contrary, but I suspect Schmidt gets a bad rap simply because of his appearance and demeanor of looking a bit stodgy like a bureaucrat from the federal Gov or something. He also has a very serious face. I think he was basically a competent CEO who steered the company away from risky businesses.

Every Andrew Carnegie needs his Henry Frick [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike#Plans_of_Carn...

They don’t care about the product in so much as they care about the avenue to suck up more data, no?

Actually, no. I find this whole "they're selling your data" trope to be trite and just annoying at this point.

I actually expect this more a reaction to Apple's pivot into health with the Apple Watch (people seem to forget the ex-Burberry CEO positioned the Apple Watch 1 as a luxury product--anyone remember the Apple Watch Edition for $10k?--health came later).

Google’s core business is ad targeting, the cornerstone of which is personal data used to target better. While it is (hopefully) untrue that they literally sell your data, they do profit from it indirectly (and massively, it’s 85% of revenue). Google has many great products and some bad ones, but almost all have vacuum hoses up against your personal data... Now, Fitbit makes a really mediocre and pedestrian tech product that captures a wealth of deeply personal data. I’ll go ahead and connect the dots on this one.

> I find this whole "they're selling your data" trope to be trite and just annoying at this point.

Do you believe it to be mistaken? Or true, but not worth caring about?

> Do you believe it to be mistaken? Yes, Google doesn't sell personal data.

Its core business is selling products whose entire value would be negated if it sold the data behind them, so it really wouldn't sell the data.

On top of that, I think it's a mistake to say that they are buying Fitbit for data anyway. They are buying Fitbit for a toehold in the wearables market; while this probably has some data value, it's pretty clearly part of their effort to build up direct sales of consumer products as a revenue stream.

It's hard to believe that the data in my exercise tracker has real, fundamental worth when I see so much targeted advertising that fails to leverage the data they already have. I suppose it doesn't matter to Google if someone buys a location-specific ad for a place I used to live in despite them knowing where my phone, purchases, and electoral record say I live but then why would them knowing my heart rate help them if they already know I bought a bicycle, search about bicycle parts, frequently use bicycle maps, and travel at about 15 mph?

> when I see so much targeted advertising that fails to leverage the data they already have.

Targeted advertising is far from the only thing Google wants data for.

Well advertising is over 80% of their Q32019 revenue, what else do they want it for?

Research.

From Google's privacy policy:

We don’t share information that personally identifies you with advertisers, such as your name or email, unless you ask us to

The problem isn't just their sharing the data (although you'd be naive to assume that the data they collect isn't being turned over to at least the US government) it's the collecting and storing of that data itself that is problematic. The fact that they're using that data to manipulate us via advertising isn't much better.

The presence and centralization of the data makes it a very juicy target for all kinds of evil people.

But, like most companies, Google defines PII to exclude items (such as the Android advertising ID, for instance) that are PII.

We all know it's possible to identify you even without name or email, given enough data.

If it was easy, advertisers would be doing it already. Google is highly motivated to keep your data fire-walled from advertisers.

Except that statement is just wrong and misleading. Your personal identifying information is all the metadata that can be aggregated and intersected to directly identify you, your name just is a number in the database but it's directly identifying and tracking _you_. Google doesn't care about selling your name or email, that's not valuable to them or advertisers.

And "unless you ask us to" is the default behavior of almost all google products. You have to ask them not to, sometimes under penalty of law (GDPR), before they actually change their behavior.

"unless you ask us to" - it's defined in the privacy policy and clearly says it's due to the user taking an explicit action.

While I sort of agree, I think the problem is that "they're selling your data" misstates what actually happens.

Facebook and Google want to collect your data and keep it. What they're selling is indirect access to you: the more information they have on you, the more precisely they can theoretically target advertising and content to you. Keeping the data they have on you to themselves is literally their business model.

Two points, though. First, of course, that's still essentially what's been dubbed "surveillance capitalism"; it's still something someone may be uncomfortable with for a variety of reasons. Your data is being indirectly monetized, but it's still being monetized, and you still have very limited insight into the extent of that data and how it's being used. Second, adtech isn't the business model of everyone who collects data -- and one could argue that the more businesses a data-collecting company is in, the more moral hazards pop up. How much data will Google give over to law enforcement when there's a warrant, for example? What if we see a Facebook Health initiative that allows medical providers and insurers selective access to what Facebook "knows" about you within the limits of regulations and the law? (Do you know what those limits are? I don't.)

I actually expect this more a reaction to Apple's pivot into health with the Apple Watch...

Expect what, privacy concerns? While I understand that, I'm not sure much health information collected by Apple devices ever leaves your "local ecosystem" (i.e., your personal set of devices). Also, the Apple Watch Edition notwithstanding, I'm not sure I'd say its original incarnation was positioned as a luxury product -- yes, you could pay $10,000+ for it if you wanted to, but it still started at $349. But it was certainly positioned as a fashion product at its introduction, which they've dialed way back on since.

Google also wants to meddle with the elections (Numerous quotes here, but the most relevant is certainly Youtube’s CEO). Anyway, you are right for the collect-and-keep-my-data part, but I think in their idea they want to use this data to build some sort of utopia. That is the most benevolent appreciation on it, because it is one that explains all of “Do no evil”, election “influence”, use of AI and exhaustive data collection.

A utopia was originally the exploration of what life would be like if a philosophy was taken to the extreme. In that sense, one man's utopia is another man's personal hell.

For example in the utopic vision of anarchy, there are no authorities and everyone must find their own path in the world. The flip side of having no decisions made for you is that you must make all of your own decisions. Or in democracy, since anyone and everyone has the exact same power over decisions, all the really important decisions are made in the most mediocre way possible. In Capitalism, we have the specter of individuals being ground into raw resources and then spit out when they reach their useful lifespan.

So if their intent is to build a utopia of their own making, that's definitionally evil because it admits no dissenting opinion in the matter of how we live our lives.

Right, but they’re not going to make money off the hardware, it’s going to be the services and ad targeting based off of the data. You think chromecast is to make a profit?

This is a continuation of the trite bit. What's missing is recognizing that Alphabet (not Google) is very focused on diversifying its revenue stream beyond search advertising, ideally in a way that takes advantage of the things it's already good at.

GCP is a good example. No search. No ads. No using of customer data. Just a desire for a really big potential revenue stream that builds on Google's expertise in managing huge numbers of servers and services.

Very focused, but not very good at it thus far. Their revenue is still 80-90% advertising revenue.

No disagreement.

GCP is the exception in that it’s the only Google business that does not rely on data aggregation and profiling.

That's not true. I think @ceejayoz below pointed out the situation well: they've made many attempts (waymo, for another still-unprofitable example). Just not many of them have turned into significant revenue -- particularly compared to the sustained ~24% YoY growth that Google managed for so long. That's a hard business to beat.

Waymo is an Alphabet company, not a Google business. What Google business other than Google Cloud do you consider not to not rely on data aggregation and profiling?

Google accelerated science, fiber before it was spun out into alphabet, the medical diagnostics part of Google Brain, the quantum computing group, Chromebooks, ATAP (the group that partnered with Levi's to make a jacket), ...

There are a lot. And there have been more that were cancelled. As I said: Google-the-search-and-advertising-company is one of the most successful companies of our time. It's astonishingly hard to replicate that success, which is probably why we don't see Google other units with equivalent revenue. But it's really not for lack of trying.

The data isn't very valuable, and it's even less valuable without users. They care about the product but are just incompetent at making hardware that people will buy, even if they eventually make the the product have useful features like identity assertion.

I don’t know about that. People’s daily fitness activity, weight, entire diet and sleep patterns aren’t valuable?

Ummm. Fitbit was already on the downward spiral. So, they'll take this lifeline from Google. Thank you very much

> [language/framework du jour].

Is this an accurate description of Google? I thought they used the same 4-5 languages they've used since the beginning of time, maybe minus perl and plus kotlin.

Fitbit already runs on Google cloud [1], IMO this has been in the making for some time already.

[1] https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/inside-google-cloud/new...

Just like any massive global tech company.

> as in, Google didn't buy you just for the team

Or for the data ... even better profiles of people, including people who tried avoiding giving Google that data. Probably time for such users to send GDPR notices (If EU citizens)

Wow what a bunch of FUD.

Maybe so, but please post substantively here. I know that takes time and effort, but it's always an option to just not post anything.

The site guidelines particularly ask: "Please don't post shallow dismissals [...] A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

forgive my ignorance, but what's a xoogler

From the context, I’d guess it’s an “Ex Googler”, in other words a former google employee.

Ex googler

"Google just doesn't know what it's about anymore."

Isn't it an organization optimized for enabling engineers to increase leverage?

That's why things get rewritten into [language/framework du jour].

I think they do. They're the same thing they've always been: an advertising company. They can only become something else when the majority of their income is derived from something else. Which it currently isn't.

>You may think you have a product but you don't.

I absolutely agree with everything.

Here is the thing, total side topic - but Fitbit's product is really excellent!

The packaging of the PCBs, the operating system, the tech, it's all really impressive.

I know that means nothing in the larger scope, Google bought them for their data and mining potential.

But the product is actually really cool. It appears to be simple, but when you deep drive, you can run your own javascript code on your own device, and serialize the data with packages like CBOR for export... This was done a micro that's running an RTOS made in C on an extremely constrained resources device.

I've always been impressed with Fitbit.

Can you run it with Bluetooth off logging locally and then sync periodically? I doubt it but haven't dove into it

The logging works ok while off bluetooth...but be aware that _any_ changes are basically impossible in that state. Even basic watch functionality like changing the time or setting an alarm require a bluetooth link, the software, and an internet connection back to the fitbit servers.

Well, that's a conpletely pointless limitation. Nothing of good was lost...

I've done that occasionally, over a weekend when I left my phone at home or something. Doesn't happen often, obviously, but it does have some small number of days of local logging.