Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Google Will Collapse (medium.com)
34 points by TakakiTohno 18 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 35 comments

Should have put the disclaimer first. This is just a guy betting on Brave trying to write up some imaginary future where Brave causes google to collapse.

I wrote the first version before I had even heard of Brave. I recommend reading that one first and see if you still think that. (It's linked at the bottom of the article.)

I only added that part in the updated version a couple months ago because after learning everything I have about Brave since writing the article, I would feel remiss not mentioning it. What Brave is building truly feels to me like the best antidote to the adtech monstrosity Google and Facebook have created, and Brave is the only company I see with a clear vision on how to solve the problems for all parties (users, publishers, and advertisers).

If Brave was just another startup tackling a big problem, I wouldn't even think of mentioning it. But Brendan Eich is the one running this company, and he is undeniably one of the most influential people in the history of the web. He created the protocol that moved the web from 1.0 and 2.0, and then cofounded the company that took down the biggest browser of the time controlled by the monopolistic tech company of its day.

Who better to take down the biggest browser of today and create the protocol to move the web from 2.0 to 3.0?

—a guy betting on Brave

I went to medium.com to read this article about the forthcoming collapse of Google, and I noticed that medium.com wanted me to log in using my Google account. I find this ... unconvincing.

Medium sucks without premium. I don't know why they went with that route

It sucks with premium. I don't understand why people still bother with the platform.

> For all its efforts, the money Google earned from its nonadvertising ventures only ever accounted for a mere 15% of their revenue.

15% of Google's revenue is still a quite large business. Having online advertising badly weaken isn't enough to kill the firm, unless they sell the profitable parts to try to bail out the unprofitable core business.

The assumption that Google will collapse is probably still true, but only because most companies don't last long term. The bigger firms often take quite a while to fade though.

This seems unlikely. It's more likely it will continue to grow, but probably not as much as Apple, Microsoft, or Amazon.

I agree with that. They'll slow considerably, not collapse. The stagnation of their growth is basically inevitable, considering they'll be hitting $200 billion in annual sales soon (two more fiscal years). Right now there are seven companies in the US over $200b in sales. Globally there are 17 total over that line (seven of them are essentially state-backed energy companies). None of them are growing at a consequential real rate other than Amazon.

A more likely scenario is that Google will fund an army of bloggers and lobbyists to create propaganda to make regulators forget the fact that they have a monopoly. Then Google will keep extracting rents from corporations in return for allowing those corporations to maintain top rankings in Google search results. In this environment, small companies will struggle to compete for user attention because they cannot afford a large enough advertising budget to be in the top rankings for any significant keyword even at a local level. CPC is prohibitively high.

The Federal Reserve banks of the world keep printing fiat money out of thin air and injecting it into government bonds which governments then spend on enormous consulting contracts and other useless government services offered by these corporations. This 'free money' essentially flowing directly from the Fed to governments to corporations allows corporations to increase their advertising budgets beyond any reasonable economic measure.

Small companies start dying like flies; in this environment which is adverse to small companies (where exposure to customers is prohibitively expensive and where big government contracts are out of reach), big corporations will discover that they can significantly cut back on the quality of their products and use a portion of the savings to further increase their exposure and rankings on Google. This creates a vicious cycle where products keep getting worse, but corporations keep getting stronger and customer acquisition costs keep going up.

Eventually, all small companies are dead. Everyone in the world is employed by a corporation. Governments start introducing laws to allow corporations to fire employees who vote for political candidates which the corporation does not approve. Corporations share data with each other so getting fired from a corporation means instant homelessness for the individual; they will never find a job again. Family members will receive a warning from their own jobs if a relative is fired.

Corporations then move to have the minimum wage abolished. Corporations then start paying employees with accomodation and food instead of money; they make the case that doing so makes the system more efficient overall and that this is for the good of everyone.

It was an okay article with multiple sources until it became a sales pitch for Brave and "will collapse" became "did collapse".

The article makes big swooping statements like "treating people as people turned out to be a winning strategy" but fails to adequately explain what that means here.

If you are going to continuously edit a soothsaying prediction about Google's doomsday date since 2017 and place a bet on Brave succeeding while they keep using Google's technology (Chromium now maintained by Googlers), it very well appears that the authors crystal ball is a faulty one.

> (Chromium now maintained by Googlers)

“now” sort of implies there was a time when Chromium existed but was maintained by someone else.

Well that was an underwhelming argument.. google is shit random links* - DOWNLOAD BRAVE!"

My (and please feel free to take a pop at me) riposte is that Google is the single large Internet company that keeps encroaching into my privacy/life - but gives me enough carrot with each stick for me to forgive them. Yes, I'm being data-raped, but they're actually pretty open with it and provide me some use from this data. e.g. Years ago I was shocked at seeing that I was being tracked on the maps timeline. But, it meant I could identify that great restaurant I was trying to remember.

I had the option to turn off the tracking.. but well it's really useful. Then you see your last holiday came with free-tracking and your free-pixel photos inserted into a lovely timeline.. grinds teeth at the intrusion, but loves the nostalgic montage

They also have been successful in opening my wallet - no more youtube adverts for me (and yes, you can block them in the browser, but then that doesn't pay the creator). Also paid for Drive - originally that, drop-box or Onedrive flips coin - but best client, API for my NAS, could add backup for my Mum's PC.. It was better so I bit, but kept finding more useful stuff being added.

As a counterargument - "Facebook". I used to think it was magic, but every interaction annoys me. "Why don't you connect to these people???! - Because I've no idea who any of them are.

Ebay - Doesn't seem to offer me anything more, except more shite each time I try to use it. Expensive AliExpress at best.

Amazon - actually great for shopping, nice integration of third party stuff. Easily winner in cloud hosting - and great example of horizontal gubbins.

MS - Under Satya actually interesting once more - and as I was convinced they were going insane, proof that I've no idea what I'm talking about.

> data-raped

Please don't dilute the meaning of words like this. As your post acknowledges the use of your data is entirely consensual and sprinkling rape in their is just for shock value only bros could consider ok

Now stop that - Do you honestly (imagine I'm sat across the table from you, giving you a hard look) think I was trying in any sense to "devalue/mitigate/desensitize rape"?

And don't you even try arguing that your problem isn't directly with me, but your concern is that others reading my post might get the wrong end of it.

> Do you honestly think I was trying

No, I think it's an inappropriate superfluous shock-value word in this context.

> don't you even try arguing that your problem isn't directly with me

I wasn't going to!

It was just a bit of hyperbole.

Do you feel equally outraged to condemn "murder" if anybody uses the verb "kill"?

>> data-raped

> Please don't dilute the meaning of words like this.

It's a bad term, but telling people how to speak provoke's backlash and resentment. It's more effective to explain the effect phrases like this have on people (as you did) and let them make their own decision then telling them to not say it.

I'd imagine it's much more likely that Brave will collapse.

A bit dated and sensationalist, but still has some good points.

Maybe Google won’t collapse outright, but they are facing challenges on a lot of fronts. Everything from employees unionising, antitrust legislation both at home and abroad, massive loss-leaders like YouTube, and advertising market challenges.

Worst of all is probably the reputational damage. They used to be the darling of technologists everywhere, but countless privacy- and monopolist scandals have taken their toll. There’s a growing anti-Google sentiment, and once lost, reputation is hard to recover.

> A bit dated

It does seem dated, but the author has continued to edit it since it was originally written. He's got stuff from 2018 and 2019 in there.

> massive loss-leaders like YouTube

Citation needed.

Citations are a bit tricky, since Google keeps YouTube’s financials secret, but from what I hear, it’s been in the red ever since the adpocalypse, and the new COPPA-rules will not help, since all content targeting children will now also be demonetised.

I thought a recent article here said YouTube passed the break-even point in 2015

They might have been profitable before the adpocalypse, but I highly doubt that’s still the case. They lost a huge chunk of ad revenue then, and will be losing another huge chunk with the new COPPA rules forbidding them from serving ads on videos targetting children.

Combine that with a massive rise in staffing costs from all the new "Trust and Safety" people they’ve added.

Of course, Alphabet are keeping the actual figures under wraps, but I’d consider it highly unlikely that it’s looking good.

I consider it highly unlikely it's looking bad.

Playing ads on the internet at scale (where your control you content costs) is profitable else no other companies would not be doing it.

Think of companies like tubi breaking into profitability in isolation without anywhere near the scale that YouTube operates at. https://www.businessinsider.com/tubi-tv-profitability-avod-o...

And this is the year of the linux desktop...:p

...on the X12 window system!

Reminds me of this Dilbert: https://dilbert.com/strip/2002-08-26

Please don't remind me of Scott Adams, who makes sock puppets to pose as his own biggest fan on message boards to defend and flatter himself.


"And he's a certified genius. Just sayin'." -Scott Adam's Sock Puppet plannedchaos, on Scott Adams.

Women are "treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It's just easier this way for everyone." -Scott Adams

Yeah, said a dude who posts on medium in 2020

To be fair, this was posted in 2017

First posted in 2017, continually edited since then.

lols whats wrong with medium

Popups and paywalls and bloated pages.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact