[HN Gopher] Google Workspace for everyone
___________________________________________________________________
Google Workspace for everyone
Author : danirod
Score : 186 points
Date : 2021-06-14 12:13 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.google)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.google)
| erik_p wrote:
| This makes me miss Google Wave... Are they iframing in
| spreadsheets with a slack clone?
| drcongo wrote:
| I have absolutely no idea what this announcement is actually
| announcing. It takes seven paragraphs to actually get there, and
| then announces something that I'm 99% sure was already available.
| My wife doesn't have a work Google Workspace account, but she can
| still use docs etc. What's actually changed?
| swsieber wrote:
| I think the original google workspace launch announcement was
| better:
| https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/workspace/introducing...
|
| Not a lot better, but still better. There's a gif of basically
| integrated workflow between email, chat and document editing...
| I think.
| jollybean wrote:
| This is a huge point. Google is funny in how inconsistent their
| messaging is.
|
| I feel that they have neat product ideas, but organizationally
| maybe the are oriented around engineering lines, so product
| might lack focus, and product marketing is an afterthought.
|
| Remember Google+ ? Nobody knew what it was.
|
| Remember Wave? Nobody really knew what it did.
|
| How does the biggest company on earth fail to understand how to
| communicate basic things?
|
| This product page has way too much text, and not nearly enough
| 'what it is' 'what it can do' and especially 'why'.
|
| As such, it's hard to get the word out organically.
|
| Information spreads like a virus, you want a high R0 which
| comes with clarity, consistency and authenticity.
| tdeck wrote:
| Everyone knew what Google+ was. It was Google's attempt at
| cloning Facebook. In contrast to Wave, I don't recall any
| confusion on that point at or after launch.
| josefx wrote:
| As far as I remember I first thought it was some weird
| exclusive blog platform, that impression only turned into a
| "complete failure to clone facebook ran by a team of brain
| dead morons" when they tried to force subscribe everyone to
| it. It was impressive how Google could completely fail at
| something, of course Google and Facebook made a few deals
| to stay of each others turfs behind closed doors so that
| failure may have been intentional.
| jollybean wrote:
| Nobody knew what Google+ was.
|
| 'Company A strategy vs. Company B' is not something
| 'people' think or know about.
|
| That's something for people in the industry to think about.
|
| Ask your mother or father who work in Real Estate and
| Healthcare what 'Google+' is (back in the day) and they
| wouldn't really know.
|
| And nobody knew what Wave was. I used it and couldn't
| understand it, other than it was a means to communicate
| with other people. Colossal product marketing, usability
| and communications failure.
| Jiocus wrote:
| Almost. It was Google's attempt at cloning Facebook by
| cloning _Diaspora_.
|
| https://diasporafoundation.org/
| hairofadog wrote:
| I've got you covered. I watched the video, and here's what you
| can now do with Google Workspace:
|
| * Be notified when packages are coming via "e mail"
|
| * Send your own "e mail" to other people
|
| * Organize events by date in a "calendar"
|
| * Write an episode of Stranger Things in a "document", or if
| you don't happen to own the Stranger Things franchise, write
| about your viewing experience
|
| * Write down a list of band names
|
| * Sum the number of times a given child poops in a day in a
| "spreadsheet"
|
| * Take part in a "meet", which is a sort of phone call but with
| video
|
| I hope that clears it up.
| NotSammyHagar wrote:
| What about 'encryption'? It apparently part of it, but the
| examples were using a plugin written by a third party.
| LegitShady wrote:
| Ya I watched the video and still have no clue what this does
| over regular Gmail/docs combo.
|
| Also Google's spreadsheet program is dogballs compared to
| excel.
| jeanloolz wrote:
| Excel is certainly superior for analysis etc, but there are
| plenty of use cases where Google sheets is superior to
| excel, for instance http api to interact with your sheet.
| Depends what you're trying to achieve really.
| LegitShady wrote:
| I think power query in excel does http and more quite
| easily.
| AnonHP wrote:
| And chat. You forgot "chat"!
|
| I'm still puzzled at what's new and what's different from
| what people with (free and paid) Google accounts have.
| MikeDelta wrote:
| This "e mail" thing sounds intriguing. How does the "e
| mailman" know where to deliver this "e mail", and do I need
| "e stamps"?
| nh2 wrote:
| The work procedures of the "e mailman" were captured in
| this documentary:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x4_dozWkq0
| starik36 wrote:
| Check out the "Ralph breaks the internet" documentary. It
| has an easy to follow explanation.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| What makes a "meet" special is that in a meet, it's socially
| acceptable to scream while looking at your phone.
| jeffrallen wrote:
| That's all fine and dandy, but can I make boring
| presentations full of bulleted lists? Because missing that
| would really be a deal breaker for me.
| growt wrote:
| Great, now I have to watch it to see if you're joking about
| the baby pooping part.
| zyemuzu wrote:
| You'll probably know by now, but sadly he wasn't joking.
| dm319 wrote:
| Wow, this is reminding me of Microsoft's videos on how to
| throw a launch party to celebrate a new version of
| Windows.
|
| https://youtu.be/1cX4t5-YpHQ
| tdeck wrote:
| This all reminds me too much of this joke video:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ICp2-EUKQAI
| neogodless wrote:
| I threw one of those. Unfortunately, I missed this video,
| and just served alcohol and played games on a Playstation
| 3, and enjoyed my free copy of Windows 7 Ultimate. Those
| Windows 7 playing cards were pretty clutch, though.
| cutemonster wrote:
| I started wondering if it's really from MS or maybe a
| joke but got too bored to continue watching to find out
| HappySweeney wrote:
| It's sadly real.
| k12sosse wrote:
| Judging by the clock on the range hood.. that took 1.5
| hours to put in the can. LOL!
| shard wrote:
| Nice catch. Not sure if you're making fun of the fact
| that it took so long to record all the takes for this
| video, but 1.5 hours seems reasonable. As an amateur, it
| would probably have taken me 4-5 hours to record that.
| salex89 wrote:
| Revolutionary.
| Florin_Andrei wrote:
| The old Google (of Larry and Sergey) is gone.
| leavenotracks wrote:
| This made my day... ... and saved me watching!
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| such ~~synergies~~ !
| mitjam wrote:
| Wow this reminded me of this Weird al Yankovic gem:
| https://youtu.be/GyV_UG60dD4
| starkd wrote:
| All for $72/year. I'm pretty sure I could already do all
| those things.
| x0x0 wrote:
| Apparently, an utterly incoherent announcement of:
|
| 1. a switchover to Chat (apparently some hybrid slack/discord/I
| can't figure out)
|
| 2. serious plans to compete with microsoft office via more
| enterprise capabilities
|
| 3. availability of (previously) paid gsuite-only features to
| individuals for $10/mo
|
| all bundled together in a mash
| cptskippy wrote:
| I think Workspace is Google's attempt at a Teams/Slack/Wave
| product. I have to use Teams at work and can't fucking stand
| opening Word/Excel docs in Teams. That interface forces you to
| focus on one thing at a time and provides no easy way to
| navigate between work streams while maintaining state. Why
| would I want that?
|
| Basically, Workspaces is failing so they're trying to open it
| to a wider audience in the hopes that it won't fail. It'll
| probably be abandoned by October and shutdown in a year or two.
| walshemj wrote:
| Me to that is the one thing I hate _NO_ Microsoft I do not
| want to open an office document in some bastardized web
| version.
| jfrunyon wrote:
| It is by no means failing; at least from what I see, their
| adoption is higher than it's ever been. They are making a lot
| of pointless changes while ignoring all the real problems
| they have, though. Like the fact that group Chats are still
| unusable for organizations with... you know... users.
| bogwog wrote:
| The real question isn't _is it failing?_ , it's _does any
| employee at Google still happen to give a shit about it?_
|
| Because if the answer is no, it's going to the graveyard no
| matter how many users it has. (https://killedbygoogle.com/)
| deelowe wrote:
| It's all that's used at Google. The office suite isn't
| going anywhere.
| anoncake wrote:
| What does Google use for internal chat?
| romwell wrote:
| Hangouts/Chat.
|
| Which means, practically, that everything is done through
| internal mail lists, because chat is not usable.
|
| Pre-covid, that also strongly incentivized everyone to
| actually work on campus.
| what_ever wrote:
| I don't find Chat unsuable at all. My only team related
| emails are bug updates which are filtered. I feel group
| chats on Chat is a better UX than old Hangouts.
|
| Edit: Disc: Googler.
| mkr-hn wrote:
| Same reason Blogger is immortal.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Workspace has SLAs[0] as well as 50+ features in
| development at any time [1].
|
| 0: https://workspace.google.com/terms/sla.html#:~:text=ra
| te-,go...
|
| 1: https://support.google.com/a/table/7539891?hl=en (and
| this is just the public list).
| imNotTheProb wrote:
| Google killing products is what lost me as a fanboy. I
| even enjoyed their data collection.
|
| But getting rid of Google Play and changing their photos
| policy was the last straw. Now I'm Gmail and some search
| only.
|
| Even got me an Android with a custom ROM and chrome
| compiled without Google..
| swiley wrote:
| Ooh another one. I've completely lost track of them at this
| point.
| basch wrote:
| >I have to use Teams at work and can't fucking stand opening
| Word/Excel docs in Teams.
|
| If you open Word or Excel directly, does the main page show
| you a list of appropriate documents to open? I have found the
| amount of times where the workflow requires navigating to a
| document through teams first to be extremely minimal. If the
| document isnt on the list, typing a couple characters into
| the Word/Excel search bar does the trick.
| cptskippy wrote:
| That works for documents you previously opened but not
| documents just shared. You have to jump through hoops to
| open them in the native app. Once you do they're in the
| list but it's frustrating that it won't just do that by
| default.
| josefx wrote:
| She can now pay for it? The fun part is the claim that Google
| Workspace was designed around security and privacy, followed by
| a screenshot of Gmail, which until 2017 actively scanned mails
| for ad personalization. I can't wait for McDonalds to announce
| that it was founded on the principle of a healthy vegan diet.
| xxpor wrote:
| Gmail doesn't scan emails any more?
| ruined wrote:
| Gmail certainly does scan and process language in email,
| because they generate reply suggestions, and who knows what
| else behind the scenes.
| Laremere wrote:
| They no longer do any ad personalization based on the
| contents of your email, and AFAIK, they never did for
| paying customers.
|
| Obviously, other systems process the contents of your
| email, eg spam filter, the frontend displaying the email to
| you, and I assume the government can get access through
| legal warrants (the ethics of the secrecy of such actions
| is a different debate - Google is required to follow the
| law).
| xxpor wrote:
| Yeah, makes sense. I just hadn't heard about the ad
| change.
| judge2020 wrote:
| For reference:
| https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-
| traction-in....
| PedroBatista wrote:
| They do, but they said they don't.
| mkr-hn wrote:
| What could they possibly gain from it that they don't get
| from data mining they do openly that's worth the
| inevitable lawsuits from SLA'd companies when it came
| out?
| MAGZine wrote:
| they don't need to--remarketing is used enough that there
| is enough demand for ads in your specific inbox, without
| having to scan the contents.
| skybrian wrote:
| I don't think Gmail advertisers could track you unless you
| actually clicked on an ad? By today's standards that's
| actually pretty good.
| influx wrote:
| They also built a database of Amazon purchases, which lead to
| Amazon now sending me worthless e-mails. Thanks Gmail!
| nodesocket wrote:
| I also don't get it. I am a single user with Google G Suite (I
| guess called workspace) and pay $6 a month. What does this
| announcement mean?
| starkd wrote:
| I was recently looking at it, but the only thing I can see it
| gets me is the ability to add a custom domain name to my
| emails.
| nodesocket wrote:
| I already have a custom domain, that's why I pay the $6 a
| month for G Suite (previously).
| rishav_sharan wrote:
| I may be completely wrong here but I think some of the stuff
| that you are paying for will now be moved to a free tier
| called Workspaces Individual.
| pkulak wrote:
| Save time and just read the deprecation announcement in 6
| months.
| [deleted]
| exabrial wrote:
| Not putting any eggs in this basket I got burned on Google Wave
| and I won't forget it ever, hah.
| mastazi wrote:
| As a privacy conscious user, I hope one day there will be a
| "Premium" Google account for individuals, where you pay in
| exchange for not being tracked and not being shown ads. I wonder
| if this announcement is Google going into that direction. I'm
| sure Google knows that for many, perception of privacy issues has
| changed drastically in recent years.
|
| At the moment, they still have dis-joined paid offerings, for
| example Youtube Premium, Google Play Pass, Google Workspace, etc.
| - with many Google products, such as Android or GMaps, there is
| still no way to pay your way out of tracking/ads (at least that I
| know of). Instead, there should be a single paid subscription,
| for all Google services.
|
| I left Google a while ago[1] but if the "privacy subscription"
| offering became a thing, I would be back in no time.
|
| [1] My main Google account was deleted and replaced with a
| combination of Mailinabox, Nextcloud, Duckduckgo etc. - but I
| have an alt account only for Youtube, linked to my wife's Youtube
| Premium Family plan.
| Relatotuile wrote:
| I can't seem to find the answer to one of the most important
| questions - Will this prevent users from using many Google
| features like GSuite currently does? I'd hate for people to fall
| into that same trap - You aren't able to use things like Nest to
| Google account migration, many Google Home features, family
| sharing, etc.
| circlesguy wrote:
| Prior art: https://circles.app/ Has chat, tasks, files just like
| Google, but also has shared notes, lists, links and so on.
| foobarbazetc wrote:
| And before that: one million other PIM tools that have done the
| same things for decades.
| axismundi wrote:
| ...and a few years later, once you have adopted it and moved your
| stuff into it, Google will bin it and move on to something new.
| No thanks, been there, done that: rss reader, wave, talk,
| hangouts - never again.
| ebr4him wrote:
| More importantly, Google Photos!!!!
| starik36 wrote:
| What? Is it going away? My understanding is they are just
| including lesser quality photos in the 15 GB limit.
| jerrygoyal wrote:
| I'm not sure why someone mentioned Google Photos. Afaik
| it's not going away but actually has a paid tier now (after
| 15gb exemption). imo having a paid tier is a good
| indication that the product is bringing revenue so won't be
| killed like other free products by Google. Google photos is
| actually a good product anyway.
| akkartik wrote:
| Hard to justify a paid service from a company without
| customer support:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27339588
| beders wrote:
| Let's take bets on re-re-branding and or end-of-life date!
| buggeryorkshire wrote:
| It would be nice if they provided a route to getting old GAFYD
| users over to a standard Google Account.
|
| I've still got old accounts with photos etc on that I cannot
| move, and the only reason I moved from GAFYD is because of so
| much functionality being missing.
|
| GAFYD https://lifehacker.com/what-does-google-apps-for-your-
| domain...
| shp0ngle wrote:
| The most annoying thing is that I got married and I now want to
| share my Google One account with my family
|
| ...and I cannot, unless they all have my domain.
|
| By the way, you can sort-of "move" your photos by adding them
| to shared album and "saving to local" on the other side. But
| then, if the original account is removed, the photos are still
| removed (AFAIK).
| AndrewDucker wrote:
| I also can't have a YouTube Premium Family account, because
| they don't support Google Workspace accounts!
|
| I really do wish I hadn't moved my domain over to them - but
| my Google Calendar, email, and Google Play purchases are all
| in there.
| murgindrag wrote:
| This is one of the many reasons I'd never use Google in any
| business setting. I had GSuite / free-edition set up for my
| family. Now, new members don't have access to basic features
| like Google Voice without shelling out $6/month. A lot my
| family signed up, so I'd be looking at thousands of dollars per
| year.
|
| Google is happy to drop you, mostly for an obnoxious up-sell.
| You're a statistic, and if they drive your business under,
| that's a statistic too.
| pylon wrote:
| So I assume the things that are becoming free don't include using
| your own domain for mail? Will Google Workspace Individual
| include that? The TechCrunch article mentions it will be $9.99
| with introductory price of $7.99 which is more expensive than
| current basic plan.
|
| I really just want custom domain hosting with Gmail and ignore
| everything else.
| berns wrote:
| That's the first thing I looked for. It has not changed. It's $
| 6 / user / month.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| The "book a meeting" mechanism shown in the animation towards the
| end looks like an interesting competitor to Calendly and similar.
| dfcowell wrote:
| I just want that to replace the ugly as hell, never-updated-
| since-day-1 meeting slots UX in Google Calendar.
| znpy wrote:
| What even is Google Workspace?
|
| Is this the used-to-be google apps?
|
| is this g-suite?
|
| is this google for education stuff?
| Marveleouse wrote:
| Do not use a Google Workspace account for personal use. Just get
| a Gmail account. There's far too many restrictions and caveats
| that they've manufactured in the past few years (for no good
| reason). I've used Google Workspace since 2008, long before any
| of these restrictions existed and I wish it wasn't a nightmare to
| migrate 12 years of context to a Gmail account. Google put me in
| lose-lose position. Don't put yourself in one.
| geek_at wrote:
| You can use google checkout transfer to transfer everything
| from a workspace account to a gmail one
|
| https://takeout.google.com/transfer
| twodayslate wrote:
| > Transfer Your Content is only available to authorized G
| Suite for Education Accounts. Please contact your
| administrator, or sign in with another Google Account.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Agreed. I've got email set up for my family via Google
| Workspace and we're not allowed to manage our Nest with them.
| All sorts of weird "oh you're a second-class citizen" spots in
| Google's systems.
| josteink wrote:
| Family sharing of Google Play and YouTube Premium
| subscriptions are not available for workspace accounts
| either.
|
| Which makes it a no-go once you have a family, EOT. So now
| the entire family have Apple services instead for the same
| price.
|
| Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
| Tenoke wrote:
| Workspace allows you to use Gmail with your own domain easily
| which is really the only reason I use it for a project.
| easton wrote:
| Are they losing a lot of customers to Basecamp or something? This
| seems like the business model for a lot of their customers (small
| businesses/churches/etc that just need a space to put stuff where
| everyone knows where it is). Those places are probably paying for
| Google or Microsoft mail anyway though.
| Angostura wrote:
| It feels to me more like this is a response to Microsoft Teams
| - scrape together lots of existing products and try to reskin
| them under a new brand.
| foobarbazetc wrote:
| Basecamp is like a rounding error in usage compared to G*.
|
| Probably more Microsoft or whatever.
| xyst wrote:
| I don't need these "enterprise" features. I just need an e-mail.
| That being said, I do pay ~$5 per month (they charge PER user)
| for workspaces just for a hosted e-mail solution using my own
| domain (firstname@lastname.com).
|
| One of these days, I'm going to self host it. Just need to figure
| out what's the best way so my e-mails don't get bounced back or
| get flagged as spam
| mastazi wrote:
| If you are a tech-oriented person (which I assume is the case
| as you're a HN reader) you can set up Mailinabox without much
| hassle. It does everything for you including the "e-mails don't
| get bounced back or get flagged as spam" part.
|
| https://mailinabox.email/
| Skunkleton wrote:
| In my experience self hosting email is more pain than it is
| worth. I switched to fastmail and am very happy. Don't let
| anyone dissuade you from giving it a try if you are interested
| though.
| ampdepolymerase wrote:
| Some PM just reinvented Google Wave.
| mcherm wrote:
| No they didn't.
|
| I wish they had.
| cpcallen wrote:
| To a first approximation, Google Chat is already Wave.
| circlesguy wrote:
| Some PM just reinvented Circles https://circles.app/
| jfrunyon wrote:
| "Use Rooms in Google Chat as a central place to connect, create
| and collaborate with others. Over the summer, we'll evolve Rooms
| to become Spaces and introduce a streamlined and flexible user
| interface that helps you stay on top of everything that's
| important. Powered by new features like in-line topic threading,
| presence indicators, custom statuses, expressive reactions, and a
| collapsible view, Spaces will seamlessly integrate with your
| files and tasks"
|
| Cool. So when are we (admins - or heck even users!) going to be
| able to edit, or delete, or hide, or restrict access to,
| rooms/Spaces?
| subpixel wrote:
| As a paying customer, I built my entire family photo sharing and
| storage scheme on the longstanding ability to sync images between
| Google Drive and Google Photos.
|
| Google removed that functionality, borked my entire system, and
| lost all of my trust that they know (or care about) what their
| customers want.
| nelsonfavedra wrote:
| "How long until they sunset this for something new?" is the
| first thing that comes to mind whenever one hears about
| something Goog did these days.
| brixon wrote:
| They will sunset it without something new to replace it.
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| I like Google, but their product teams desperately need to talk
| to each other. I had been a 2TB Plan subscriber for quite a
| while. While trying to prune and free up some space, I realize it
| is practically impossible to do it any way that is easy and
| correct.
|
| It took me over two weeks of dedicated hourly time slots, a few
| automation, and many manual deletions to clean up everything. I
| also end up deleting essential documents that I should not have
| (I did have backups).
|
| I wrote down my frustration, the horrible experience deleting all
| the photos (some tips included that will help if you are planning
| to do so) - How to delete all Photos and get off Google Photos -
| https://brajeshwar.com/2021/how-to-delete-all-photos-and-get...
|
| I do have the grandfathered legacy Google Domains for Apps (may
| be about 10 or odd domains) and I pay for about 5 domains Google
| Workspaces. Teams find it easier to use Google Products
| (especially Gmail, and Calendar).
| room505 wrote:
| I had some old photos that I thought I removed and realized you
| have to go to https://picasaweb.google.com/, which redirects me
| to https://get.google.com/albumarchive/ so that I can delete
| them. There was no other way to find the photos.
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| Thanks. Now, I found a bunch of photos to delete from the
| Picasa days. :-)
| Tenoke wrote:
| >While trying to prune and free up some space, I realize it is
| practically impossible to do it any way that is easy and
| correct.
|
| I do it by connecting drive to Google colab and using
| bash/python as if it's a normal filesystem but admittedly even
| then it can occasionally behave weird (especially with bigger
| files). However, you can at least add whatever retry and double
| checking logic you want.
| dvfjsdhgfv wrote:
| For Gmail, the only thing that works for me is the regular
| Google Takeout. POP3 takes months to download all messages,
| IMAP is... well, IMAP and not e-mail archiving protocol.
| Fortunately Takeout exists so that you can just download
| everything to a safe place and free some space.
| cloudking wrote:
| Google Workspace was formerly known as G Suite, which was
| formerly known as Google Apps. It's the business version of
| Google products that includes additional functionality that
| consumer accounts don't have.
| https://support.google.com/a/answer/6043385?hl=en
|
| I shall attempt to explain what this announcement actually means,
| since it doesn't do a great job:
|
| 1) "Starting today, all of Google Workspace is available to
| anyone with a Google account" there are a lot of individual
| business owners that have signed up for free Gmail accounts and
| use them to run their business, now they can pay a subscription
| fee to upgrade those accounts to include Workspace functionality
| (like Google Chat rooms, Meet recordings, Calendar appointments,
| ML assisted writing, device management and other business
| features).
|
| 2) Google Chat (their competitor to Slack) and Docs suite are
| getting more deeply integrated in Gmail. Enabling the ability to
| bring in Docs/Sheets/Slides inline with a Chat "room" for
| collaboration without leaving Gmail. This will only be available
| for Workspace users (business, enterprise, education or the new
| individual plan).
| snambi wrote:
| I have no idea, what this is.
| rohanstake wrote:
| Looks good - but with Google products for everything, they have a
| tendency to kill products, it's risky.
|
| Maybe if the Workspace has some integrations options, it would be
| nice.
| choppaface wrote:
| Guh!! The image / video at the top seems to show Google Haircuts,
| Google Gym, and Google Cafeteria. I thought this announcement was
| that Google HR saw so many employees going remote that they were
| opening up the employee-only workspace facilities to everybody.
| Now I read this is just some dumb software. What a let-down.
| pbasista wrote:
| My first impression was similar. I thought that perhaps Google
| would publish their ideas of ergonomic, healthy, efficient and
| friendly workplace as some proposed standard that would be open
| to collaborations and continuous improvements.
|
| Apparently, I was wrong.
| Maksadbek wrote:
| Use it while it is hot and not killed.
| [deleted]
| grouphugs wrote:
| kind of a bad time for this don't ya think?
| gregwebs wrote:
| A link from this announcement goes here [1] where they show new
| collaboration features that moves Google Docs in the direction of
| coda.io to be able to better leverage structured data and tables.
| I have been loving coda.io.
|
| [1] https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/workspace/next-
| evolut...
| corndoge wrote:
| If you have a normal google account, once you sign up for
| workspace, if you decide to no longer subscribe, you can't get
| your original free account functionality back. No more gmail,
| calendar, keep, etc. Learned the hard way
| handrous wrote:
| Hahaha, makes me feel so much better about my own work when I
| see this kind of laziness out of the rich-as-hell giants.
|
| Dev: "OK, I finished the user story for migration from a free
| account to a paid account this sprint, but, again, there's a
| story for migration from a paid account to a free one and
| that'll involve compromises X and Y and there are a couple Hard
| Problems involved since usage may have exceeded free tier
| limits, and we physically migrate the account in ways that will
| be hard to undo since we cut corners to get this shipped, which
| will make it even harder. That's going to be a big chunk of
| work, and I think we'll need to break it up into smaller
| stories. Will we be going over that today?"
|
| PM: "Ummmmmmm... yeah..." _presses big red button that throws
| an inconvenient story into the "on ice" bucket that may as well
| represent "deleted"_ "Putting that 'on ice', we'll definitely
| get to it... some day."
| runawaybottle wrote:
| Don't you dare mock my standup style.
| pylon wrote:
| Wait really? I thought my regular Google account is
| disconnected from a Google Workspace account? The email is just
| used for initial sign up.
|
| I'm really glad I didn't try signing up for it when I was
| trying to setup my custom domain to host mail.
| corndoge wrote:
| I signed up using my free account while it was gsuite. Gsuite
| changed to Workspace, I stopped paying for Workspace and now
| I can't use my original free services, and I get a blurb
| explaining this is because I unsubscribed from Workspace.
|
| Possible I'm doing something wrong so I'd love to know what
| it is, but as far as I can tell, I can't get my free tier
| back.
| mattzito wrote:
| (disclosure: googler on workspace here)
|
| This was/is a domain account, right? @yourdomain.com? You
| upgraded from the free "google apps for your domain"
| account to a paid workspace account, and now you can't
| downgrade? If that's the case, that's unfortunately works
| as intended - that free domain-level tier doesn't exist
| anymore, so anyone who is on it (myself included) who
| starts paying and thereby upgrades to one of the current
| SKUs, can't downgrade to a SKU that no longer is offered.
| n_u_l_l wrote:
| Can't OP move to Cloud Identity Free to keep access to
| most of the free services[1]? They wouldn't have access
| to Workspace-specific services like Gmail and Google
| Calendar, but they would still have access to Google
| Drive, Docs, Sheets, Slides, Keep, and Meet. I assume
| other non-Workspace services like Google Play will also
| stay available.
|
| 1.
| https://support.google.com/cloudidentity/answer/7319251
| corndoge wrote:
| No, I upgraded from a completely personal account, like
| your mom might have, to Workspace. I cancelled my
| Workspace subscription and now have no access to Gmail,
| calendar, keep, etc. I never used "google apps for your
| domain".
| mattzito wrote:
| Starting from an @gmail.com account? We've always
| required you to have an accompanying domain for workspace
| accounts, as far as I know.
| corndoge wrote:
| Reading over your previous post again I guess it was a
| "google apps for your domain" account. I did use my own
| domain and it was free, before I upgraded it (and when I
| upgraded it the product was still called GSuite). I wasnt
| aware the free tier was called "google apps for your
| domain". I guess then that the situation you described
| with the free tier no longer existing is what happened to
| me.
|
| Good to know at least that I didn't do something wrong.
| However, there was no warning about this happening in
| either direction that I recall - no warning that I would
| not be able to downgrade and no warning upon cancelling
| my Workplace subscription that I would not go back to my
| previous free tier. Nothing I could find by some
| searching that described this either. I appreciate your
| response here, otherwise I would never have known if I
| did it wrong...
| morpheuskafka wrote:
| If you had Gmail on your own domain, then it was the
| legacy Google Apps Free Tier. You can still create a
| Google account for free with a non-gmail address, and
| people can use that email to add you to docs and such,
| but it doesn't have Gmail. The days when it was called
| Google Apps was the last time you could get free email
| hosting on a custom domain.
| corndoge wrote:
| > You can still create a Google account for free with a
| non-gmail address
|
| Yeah - my email is elsewhere now, and I was hoping that
| by cancelling Workspace, my account would convert into
| the type of account you get when you sign up for Google
| services with a non Google email. But it didn't.
| ValentineC wrote:
| There was a significant period of time (~6 years) where
| one could upgrade to a free trial and downgrade again to
| the grandfathered free tier.
|
| That feature was unfortunately removed some time in 2018.
| northerdome wrote:
| And Google Workspace still doesn't play nice with Google Home,
| Photos, etc. I used to pay for GSuite and switched back to
| Gmail because of all the services I was ironically locked out
| of when I paid for them.
| mullen wrote:
| That's the funny thing about Google Workspaces, it's really a
| downgrade when you look out at all the Google services you
| are cut out of. Google Homes does not work, which is utterly
| shocking to me. I pay Google for Google Workspace and fancy
| smoke detectors and WiFi devices and they don't integrate
| with each other.
| moocowtruck wrote:
| how do i know i can trust to start using this without google
| killing like so many other things.. google today is so untrust
| worthy to me... especially after this photo storage thing.. just
| wow what a headache
| davemtl wrote:
| Is this just another Google product I'm going to invest a lot of
| time in, only to find out that one day they take it 'round back
| and put it down? [1]
|
| [1] https://killedbygoogle.com/
| ceejayoz wrote:
| No, this is the other main scenario at Google; a product
| important enough to keep, but with regular name changes so it
| sounds new.
|
| Google Apps for Your Domain --> Google Apps --> Google Apps for
| Business --> Google Apps for Work --> G Suite --> Google
| Workplace
|
| Same thing happened to Hangouts/Chat/Meet.
| callalex wrote:
| Many of the migrations you mentioned were not automatic or
| clean.
| kwanbix wrote:
| I don't understand why did they integrate chat with email. For me
| they are two very different use cases. If not, I will be only
| using email (or chat). I really don't get it. I had to uninstall
| chat on my android phone as I was getting double notifications
| for all chat messages. Really stupid IMHO. Of course there is
| surely someone who loves the integration.
| [deleted]
| vtail wrote:
| For as long a I am a "wanna-be founder", I used to be afraid of
| working on ideas that compete with (parts of) Google business.
| That feeling is no more.
|
| I use GSuite at work at a FAANG company, and Google slides with
| 50+ pages is so slow (multi-second pauses when changing slides)
| to be practically unusable. Finding documents in Google drive is
| hard to impossible, and good luck keeping track of comments or
| tasks assigned to you in multiple unrelated documents.
|
| I'm sure at some level consolidating their offerings is a right
| product move, but I don't think Basecamp or Calendly should be
| particularly concerned.
| dijit wrote:
| Never underestimate the power of an incumbent.
|
| Teams is not the best messaging/videoconferencing program by a
| country mile, yet it shows the most growth YoY [citation
| needed].
|
| I worked for a few companies who dipped a toe into the
| Microsoft waters and their products drowned everything else
| out; this was not because the offering was technically superior
| or cheaper.
| hellomyguys wrote:
| To be fair, Google "work" products seem to be a tier below
| Microsoft's even, and Google doesn't iterate as quickly to
| improve them either.
| znpy wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| Outlook is not my preferred email client but having. Used
| it on both windows and Mac OS as groupware tool, it's still
| better than most things by Google.
|
| It's just snappier, because it's native code. And outlook
| on Mac OS used to be gorgeous.
|
| Excel is a jewel and a marvel of software engineering.
| Google sheets is good for doing just 2+2.
|
| And so on. When it comes to office stuff, Microsoft
| software is just better.
|
| Sadly, because it's all proprietary software, but it is was
| it it.
| Tostino wrote:
| Google's is all proprietary too if it's any consolation
| lol.
| toast0 wrote:
| > It's just snappier, because it's native code. And
| outlook on Mac OS used to be gorgeous.
|
| I've been forced into using Outlook on Windows and Mac
| and snappy has never been my impression, although I seem
| to recall it being somewhat more usable on Windows. Not
| that GMail is snappy either, but a browser based client
| isn't necessarily slower than Outlook. Although an
| actually fast native client would be hard to beat.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I've used only the outlook web access client for outlook
| for four-plus years (literally haven't installed the
| native client). It's been more than tolerable.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > It's just snappier, because it's native code.
|
| Gmail used to be snappier than Outlook is now when it
| launched, even as a webapp. I'm not sure quite how
| they've managed to mess it up so badly, but it's poor
| engineering not a limitation of the tech stack.
|
| Agree with you on the other office products though. Word,
| Excel, etc aren't perfect, but they're much better than
| the alternatives for most things.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Teams is an easy sell for organisations.
|
| "Do you already have O365? Yes? Then you already have Teams!"
|
| That's a hard place to sell a competing solution to =)
| pydry wrote:
| I worked for an organization where this was the case but
| most people vastly preferred zoom.
|
| IT went as far as remotely disabling the use of zoom after
| months of pleading with people not to use it.
|
| This was ostensibly done for security reasons (citing zoom
| bombing, of all things, coz it was in the news).
|
| When teams had a raft of really bad zero days, of course,
| nobody in IT batted an eye.
|
| MS reaaaallly got its hooks in to that place.
|
| It made me wonder how startups are supposed to compete with
| this type of thing. Zoom was free _and_ better liked and it
| still got shut down.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _This was ostensibly done for security reasons (citing
| zoom bombing, of all things, coz it was in the news)._
|
| I don't think this is without basis? Zoom got some bad
| press. Unsure if _Teams_ is any better.
|
| Zoom apps sending data to Facebook
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22693792
|
| Zoom lying about e2ee
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25044254
|
| Zoom installer on macOS
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22706650
|
| Zoom rolling its own crypto
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22768494
| Spivak wrote:
| I'm actually surprised that Slack hasn't tried their hand
| at an email service to combat this. Yes o365 is more than
| email but that's their foot in the door. If you cut off
| that sales vector you make MS have to compete on the merits
| of their add-on services and they don't hold up. Notion is
| a OneNote and Sharepoint destroyers. Zoom and Slack are
| better than Teams and S4B. Okta and Auth0 are better than
| ADFS.
| pixel16 wrote:
| FYI ADFS is now going the way of the dodo and being
| replaced by AAD which does what Okta and Auth0 do
| already.
| FourthProtocol wrote:
| Do you know Okta well? I've been looking for product
| comparisons but the best I came up with was Okta's "Why
| Choose Okta vs. ADFS?" [1]
|
| And that's just sales talk. It says ADFS needs multiple
| servers, which it doesn't. At least it depends on your
| deployment model. And whether AD running on another
| server constitutes "multiple servers" (of course just as
| true for Okta).
|
| It also says Okta runs in the cloud. The implication is
| that ADFS doesnt. Well, like anything, it does.
|
| The remainder talks about low TCO, deployment speed,
| simplifying AD complexity, and the cloud. All of which
| are rather subjective.
|
| I say all of this having done some very complex ADFS
| deployments - at the extreme using Chip & PIN authN, and
| authR from client workstations assumed to be compromised.
|
| So given the above I'd love to find a compelling and
| unbiased comparison. Including featureset.
|
| [1] https://www.okta.com/resources/whitepaper/why-choose-
| okta-vs...
| forty wrote:
| Is ADFS fully managed? I think Okta is competing with
| Azure AD rather than ADFS.
| screye wrote:
| > Microsoft waters
|
| Microsoft and Google have a fundamentally different approach
| to enterprise software than Google. Microsoft is the mediocre
| Apple of enterprise tech, before Apple even got that
| reputation.
|
| EVERYTHING IS INTEGRATED. Microsoft makes it so insanely easy
| to stay within the microsoft ecosystem, that using a mediocre
| software created by Microsoft is always a better option than
| a 3rd party tool. (See slacks getting clobbered by teams,
| despite slacks being significantly faster)
|
| Part of what makes MSFT click is that they they go above and
| beyond to create a tool everyone can use. Additionally, they
| are obsessed with customers to a point that their tools lose
| all personality. This is bad if you want something that is
| opinionated in exactly the way you want (see Obsidian vs
| OneNote), but great for companies that want to offer an
| inoffensive tool that is serviceable for all its employees.
|
| An incumbent is fearsome when it uses every little advantage
| in its greater product offering to embed itself as the
| obvious option. (Apple for consumer tech, MSFT for enterprise
| tech). Google has refused to implement the kind of top down
| organizational structure needed to enforce such integration
| in its product lineup. This is the company that couldn't sync
| its grocery lists with google keep. As long as it stays true,
| Google will never be able to leverage the advantage of an
| incumbent. It's a shame too, their products are honestly
| quite good.
| levesque wrote:
| We use Teams at work, I miss Slack so bad.
| larodi wrote:
| So true and surprisingly so much not appreciated by so many
| ppl that actually benefit from MSFT products - directly or
| not.
| [deleted]
| judge2020 wrote:
| > the most growth YoY [citation needed]
|
| March 31, 2020: 75 million DAU [0]
|
| March 31, 2021: 145 million DAU [1]
|
| 0: https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-
| transcripts/2020/04/30/mi...
|
| 1: https://twitter.com/jeffteper/status/1387141320519557120?s
| =2...
| (https://twitter.com/bdsams/status/1387146648678244356?s=20)
| realmod wrote:
| GSuite is downright horrible compared to alternatives and its
| only saving grace is GMail. And its the same with GCloud which
| makes doing the most basic things slow and annoying. It really
| feels like most of those GSuite products are there JUST so that
| Google can say they have it.
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _GSuite is downright horrible compared to alternatives and
| its only saving grace is GMail._
|
| I've personally never found a better alternative to Google
| Meet.
| matwood wrote:
| I like Meet b/c it's easy. Click link and people are in a
| meeting. I don't want to force people to install and app or
| hunt around for the tiny text that lets people join a
| meeting from their browser.
|
| Meet is far from perfect (performance issues on Macs), but
| ease of use trumps that for me personally.
| blntechie wrote:
| It's downright so simple to use, it's a pleasure.
|
| But the behavior of auto layout when someone is sharing a
| screen is completely weird to me. Also their new UI which
| rolled out to us recently is bit more complex than the
| simpler one before.
| camgunz wrote:
| What attracts you to Google Meet? I prefer Zoom personally
| (despite the privacy concerns), as I can have a meeting
| with someone without the fans on my 2017 MBP 13" going into
| liftoff, and the video feeds of the participants never
| freeze. Legitimately every Google Meet I've ever been a
| part of has either completely drained my battery, or frozen
| the video feeds of multiple participants, or both, even if
| there's just 1-2 other people.
|
| Plus I kind of resent Google Calendar not having reasonable
| plugins for other video services (Jitsi, Zoom, etc.); feels
| anti-trusty to me.
| lazide wrote:
| The issue I personally have with zoom (besides all the
| historic security concerns) is that it is typically
| incredibly complicated to use - too many bells and
| whistles to do even basic things. Meet generally 'just
| works', and has been better performance wise than Zoom on
| my hardware.
|
| Zoom does seem to do better overly severely degraded
| connections (and surfaces that It is happening). The
| experience is still pretty bad though.
| camgunz wrote:
| Oh yeah that's totally fair. I was hosting a meeting the
| other day and one of my participants wanted to share
| their screen, and I still haven't found where to do that.
| I just made them host. Their UI is hot garbage.
| djrogers wrote:
| It's in your meeting settings (sadly on their website,
| not in the app) under "Who Can Share?".
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _What attracts you to Google Meet?_
|
| It just works. You get a link, you open the link, you're
| in.
|
| Whenever I get a Zoom link, it first forces me to
| download the app. As in, you open the link and it
| instantly downloads an executable to my computer, which I
| need to then go delete. Then I need to fight the website
| by clicking a series of links to get to the browser
| version. Then I enter my name and join. Except oops, the
| meeting has not formally started, so it has now kicked me
| back to the previous page to re-enter my name. Try again,
| except later since if you go before it's officially
| started, you're doing this again.
|
| And that's how bad Zoom is even before you start the
| call. The UI in Zoom calls is also worse than Google
| Meet. What the hell is "Join with Computer Audio"? What
| does that even mean?
| matwood wrote:
| This. Meet isn't perfect, but 'click link, meet' is so
| damn simple.
| rexreed wrote:
| You should experience what it's like as parents and
| educators to use Google Meet for school. It's barely
| usable with massive performance and access issues.
|
| Google Meet unfortunately doesn't just work as easily as
| it should.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Well, I'm not a parent or an educator, but we've had
| company-wide meetings on Google Meet with triple-digit
| attendance and I haven't noticed performance issues.
| [deleted]
| camgunz wrote:
| Yeah it seems like Zoom's falling prey to the "we're a
| 10,000 seat contract but we _really need_ this feature "
| stuff. I think using Zoom was fine as long as you could
| effectively ignore the UI (yeah "Join with Computer
| Audio" is completely nonsensical, double especially at
| that phase like, oh yeah I would like to make that
| decision right now where people don't know I can't hear
| them and they can't hear me, cool cool cool), but if
| you're actually using Zoom features beyond like, everyone
| get on Zoom, it's not wonderful.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| >Plus I kind of resent Google Calendar not having
| reasonable plugins for other video services (Jitsi, Zoom,
| etc.); feels anti-trusty to me.
|
| It isn't native to gcal, but the zoom chrome extension
| works relatively well.
| Semaphor wrote:
| > its only saving grace is GMail
|
| Is that the HTML version? Because the normal GMail is also
| horribly slow.
| remus wrote:
| > Is that the HTML version? Because the normal GMail is
| also horribly slow.
|
| Out of interest, what is slow about gmail for you? I use
| gmail for work and speed has never been a problem or even
| an annoyance. Im genuinely interested as some people seem
| to have a totally different experience to me and it'd be
| interesting to understand why.
| oarsinsync wrote:
| Each morning I have to aggressively sift through ~300
| emails and archive ~270 of them. Archiving 10 emails at a
| time can take several seconds, from pressing the archive
| button, to the email list being refreshed with 10 more
| items from the previous page.
|
| Opening a conversation that has more than 5 messages in
| the thread will regularly take several seconds.
|
| EDIT: paging set to 100 conversations per page, with
| reader view / vertical split to enable reading emails at
| the same time as viewing the rest of the list of threads.
|
| Similar experiences with Chrome on Win10 as safari on
| macOS or gmail app on iOS.
|
| It makes me miss Outlook.
| blntechie wrote:
| For me, if I have long email threads (think 1 year worth
| of to and fros), it takes ages to load and keeps moving
| the position based on images loading etc. The
| conversation view completely becomes unusable beyond few
| tens of emails.
| Semaphor wrote:
| A long delay when loading it, a noticeable delay (I'd
| guess 50-200ms, it's not consistent) whenever I open any
| E-Mail. Compared to Fastmail where the start-up delay is
| shorter, and opening any mail feels instant.
| matwood wrote:
| I've used GSuite for years and find it fine. I do think it
| performs best using Chrome though. The document collaboration
| works well, and search works when I need it. Much better than
| something like Confluence.
|
| What other tools would you suggest in place of GSuite (email,
| calendaring, collaborative document building,
| searching/finding docs, etc...)? O365 is all that comes to
| mind.
| zentiggr wrote:
| > I do think it performs best using Chrome though.
|
| Sounds like a nail in the coffin, to me.
|
| I'll avoid Chrome. Unless it suddenly goes 100% FOSS, gets
| audited, and every feature that causes platform lockin gets
| stripped / opened.
| amf12 wrote:
| > I do think it performs best using Chrome though.
|
| Or Chromium which is FOSS.
| jfrunyon wrote:
| Curious what browser you use that doesn't have lockin and
| is audited?
| CPAhem wrote:
| We're forced to used GSuite. I find https://syncdocs.com
| useful - it lets me collaborate using MS Office on top of
| GSuite
| blntechie wrote:
| I'm surprised your employer allows to login to the SyncDocs
| client with your Google work ID. I'd be fired where I work
| if I do that.
|
| Google Drive sync client doesn't even work half the time
| for me and nothing would make me happier than going back to
| Dropbox for me.
| polote wrote:
| > That feeling is no more.
|
| Yep, and I'm building something to sit on top of google Drive,
| to manage files, and make it easier to collaborate as a team.
| That's not something new, similar, to what Confluence, Notion
| are offering, ...
|
| The reality is that google sucks at B2B, everything they do
| don't work. There are a few exception like google Workspace
| because Gmail was number 1 in B2C and they were the first to
| get Words and Excel in the browser and Google Analytics.
|
| The reality is that, innovation for a big company is hard,
| Microsoft was able to build Teams from scratch to compete with
| Slack and managed to it, and that's an amazing achievement, not
| something that we are used to seeing.
| myko wrote:
| > Microsoft was able to build Teams from scratch to compete
| with Slack and managed to it
|
| Teams is complete shit though, they didn't compete on quality
| of their offering. They're competing because every org
| already pays Microsoft a lot of money and they may as well
| use Teams because it's "integrated"
| hpoe wrote:
| Point of note, Teams wasn't built from scratch it was more
| like a remodel of skype which they already owned. If you
| start looking under the hood at various aspects of teams one
| will start to see Skype all over the place.
| wcoenen wrote:
| Must be one hell of a remodel then, considering Teams is an
| electron application.
| pitterpatter wrote:
| I don't know if they updated this yet, but one location
| this was evident was on Linux. During a Teams call, if
| you looked at the applications using pulseaudio, Teams
| would show up as Skype.
| amelius wrote:
| > The reality is that, innovation for a big company is hard
|
| Then why is Apple innovating more than anyone else?
| polote wrote:
| Because it is _hard_ it is not _impossible_.
| amelius wrote:
| That still doesn't make much sense if innovation is
| supposedly easier for small companies.
| Infinitesimus wrote:
| That statement is very hard to quantify even within the
| same industry.
|
| Apple makes and will continue to make great products for a
| specific subset of uses because they are willing to make
| big investments and are very opinionated about optimal user
| experience. The end result of that is the often great
| experience of their ecosystem today.
|
| They obviously also employ tactics to lock out competition
| too (see the purchase of AuthenTec, Dark Sky and a few
| other small purchases of best in class companies explicitly
| demanding that they don't work with anyone else).
|
| Innovation in reality is "improving things" and many many
| companies suck at defining what an improvement is and who
| the improvement is for. Too many focus on improving revenue
| numbers and that's it instead of improving user experience,
| reliability, security, privacy, etc. All things Apple cares
| deeply about*
|
| * Again, Apple's decisions are only an improvement to a
| subset of users but that's really all that matters to them.
| Happier users means more use of Apple products which is a
| win.
| agumonkey wrote:
| out of curiosity, what kind of machine are you using ? I expect
| it's not network io causing the slowdowns, but i'm curious if
| even latest machines can't handle google apps
| vtail wrote:
| I'm using a 2020 MacBook Pro 16" with 32GB of RAM. I'm WFH,
| but don't notice any slowdowns on any other task.
| j4yav wrote:
| You aren't really competing on quality when you go up against
| these kinds of products though, you are competing against "free
| and good enough" which is actually quite compelling in a lot of
| cases. If you've ever been up against Microsoft in a deal for
| example they just ignore your product and keep throwing more
| unrelated free stuff into the enterprise agreement until the
| client acquiesces.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Presumably there's space for both "free and good enough" and
| "paid and actually good" in a lot of market though.
| Arcanum-XIII wrote:
| Yep, but workspace is not free. Or good for that matter. It's
| maybe cheap, but with so many asterisks that I, and lot of
| other, starts to be unwilling to commit to anything Google
| agentdrtran wrote:
| sure, but when a business is paying for it it
| becomes"paying extra for a better product that covers
| something that works OK with what we already have"
| [deleted]
| what_ever wrote:
| > and good luck keeping track of comments or tasks assigned to
| you in multiple unrelated documents
|
| Try searching for "followup:actionitems" in drive.
|
| Disc:Googler.
| inthewoods wrote:
| I don't have this experience at all - first, I have slide decks
| that have 100s of slides and it works fine. I have no issue
| finding documents either - however I do struggle with the
| invites to documents inside of Gmail.
| WYepQ4dNnG wrote:
| > Finding documents in Google drive is hard to impossible
|
| This! I can't wrap my head around on how impossible is to
| search for things in drive.
| dmje wrote:
| Highly recommend https://slapdash.com which does a bunch of
| things - among which is finding files in gdrive insanely
| fast...
| mattkevan wrote:
| I found it was easier and quicker to message the person who
| shared a doc with me and get them to resend the link than it
| was to use the Drive search.
|
| Staggeringly bad for, you know, a search company.
| anoncake wrote:
| Google Search itself has become staggeringly bad so it
| fits.
| WYepQ4dNnG wrote:
| yes, and that's what I normally do as well. I also bookmark
| docs that I know I am gonna access in the future. I just
| don't trust I will be able to find it again.
| yuters wrote:
| I mean it's Google. You'd think they'd have nailed the
| concept of "searching" by now. :)
|
| But I have found a weird workaround for this. After
| installing Google Drive File Stream locally and searching for
| things with the file explorer, it doesn't seem that bad all
| of a sudden.
| runawaybottle wrote:
| It makes you wonder if they really do have the best people
| working on stuff. Is this really the same team that made
| gmail/maps?
| vtail wrote:
| People use to laugh at PMs (disclaimer: I'm a PM), but making
| right product decisions in a big Corp, with multiple parties
| to align with that had competing interests, is _hard_.
|
| I'm sure Google has high quality engineers working more or
| less on every product. It's just the solution space of
| products with big surface area and many interdependencies is
| really large. When you are more steps removed from your
| customers, and can't move fast (comparing to a small nibble
| team), finding the optimum becomes a very non-trivial
| exercise.
|
| Most successful products at big corps have laser-focused
| teams with highly influential leaders. Anything else results
| on mediocrity.
| derefr wrote:
| Why is it, then, that Google products with ~N users tend to
| be less good than equivalent open-source projects in the
| same verticals with ~N users, when those open-source
| projects mostly don't even have access to effective product
| management?
| DannyBee wrote:
| Which opensource product do you believe has 1 billion
| users like Gmail does?
| derefr wrote:
| None? Google has ~3 well-managed products that everyone
| loves and uses, such that nobody even _bothers to try_ to
| compete with them. These products are the exceptions.
| They may as well not be Google products, because they
| aren 't representative of Google's product-management
| _philosophy_ at all. You can 't set up a new team at
| Google and talk to them about doing things "the Google
| way" and have them to understand that to mean "like Gmail
| does."
|
| Google has 1000+ badly-managed products. Google's actual
| product-management philosophy, is reflected in how
| _these_ products are created, managed (into the ground),
| stagnated, and usually eventually killed. My post was
| about those.
|
| It's _very easy_ to beat the complete lack of product-
| management in your average FOSS project, by just having
| one full-time product manager with vision for where the
| product should go. See, for example, what this guy
| (https://www.youtube.com/c/Tantacrul) has to say about
| various pieces of FOSS DAW software, where all the flaws
| usually come down to a pure lack of product management on
| the FOSS projects' part. The problems he points out could
| all _easily_ be fixed by having one person with vision
| submit bug-reports about workflow issues, and having
| those bug-reports get taken seriously by the engineers.
| (And he 's now doing exactly that, as PM, for Audacity.)
|
| Google should easily be able to hire guys like him, and
| put them on projects like the ones I listed in my sibling
| comment. But they just... don't... seem to have it in
| them.
| lazide wrote:
| What large open source hosted office suite is better
| exactly? I'm unaware of one.
|
| Same with large open source email services? (Ala Gmail)
|
| It's usually apples and oranges comparisons. There is
| libreoffice, but even on it's best day it's not doing
| real time document editing/collaboration with 10+ people
| on opposite sides of the planet, and that is the Google
| Docs bread and butter for instance.
| derefr wrote:
| I think you're trying to compare against Google's _best
| and largest_ products (which probably have the best PMs
| working for them, with the clearest demand for
| "vision.")
|
| Compare instead Google's _average_ products (y 'know --
| the kind they eventually shut down) to the largest FOSS
| competitors in those same verticals.
|
| For example, compare Google Reader at its peak MAU, to
| the current #1 open-source RSS reader app.
|
| Or compare Google+ to, say, Mastadon. (Mastadon is a FOSS
| Twitter knockoff whereas Google+ was a Facebook knockoff,
| but I think the point stands.)
|
| Or, for a _painful_ one, compare Blogger to Wordpress!
| (Okay, maybe that one 's not fair, since Wordpress is a
| real company that can hire product managers. But _most_
| WP development is still random FOSS developers scratching
| their own itches.)
|
| Or compare Google Code at its peak to, well, anything.
| GitLab CE, GNU Savannah, _anything_.
|
| None of these were failures of engineering. They were
| either failures of product management, or failures of
| budget/staffing -- which is in essence still product
| management, since it's a PM's role to fight for the
| budget and headcount to get the job done.
|
| (That's not to say _all_ but the best Google products rot
| on the vine. IMHO Google are pretty good with steering
| their internal B2B _engineering-driven_ offerings, e.g.
| GKE, Firebase, BigQuery, etc. Those are run a lot like
| FOSS projects, in that it 's a combination of internal
| engineers scratching their own itches, and customers
| directly filing bug reports, that determine what gets
| built. It's the B2C products, and the marketing-driven
| B2B products -- where in either case the engineers
| involved might not have the problem themselves, and the
| customers might never directly engage with them in
| troubleshooting their workflows -- that tend to falter.)
|
| > There is libreoffice, but even on it's best day it's
| not doing real time document editing/collaboration with
| 10+ people on opposite sides of the planet, and that is
| the Google Docs bread and butter for instance.
|
| If that's your _only_ requirement, then the FOSS project
| https://etherpad.org/ that Google acquired to build
| Google Wave off of (and then later dis-acquired)
| satisfies it pretty well. These days it's even kind of a
| word-processor! (Originally it was just a multiplayer
| <textarea> with per-user text background colors.)
| vtail wrote:
| That's a good question, even if I disagree slightly about
| the premise, as random large open-source products
| targeting consumers (as opposed to infrastructure
| projects like Linux kernel) can dramatically vary in
| quality.
|
| My hypothesis: devs are much closer to users, as they are
| often users themselves, and have more freedom to work on
| fixing broken experiences, as opposed to just rolling new
| features.
| ItsMonkk wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| Linus was able to out-compete a team of hundreds of
| Microsoft Engineers who spent years building a Source
| Control system by himself within a span of 10 days when
| he built git.
|
| You can't take Microsoft Source Control, add a few
| stories, and end up with git in a Sprint. You can't split
| that work up between different teams.
|
| The essence of git is in a unified design that matches
| the essential complexity of source control requirements.
| When you play the game of telephone from user to sales to
| program manager to project manager to architect to lead
| developer to UX designer to DB modeler, each step along
| the path introduces errors. Those errors made the system
| harder to design for, harder to scale, and harder to use.
|
| Linus was able to cover every element of those to a
| passable degree himself. You need to empower your
| developers. If they don't use the product, if they are
| not dogfooding, you have no chance to compete against
| those that are.
| [deleted]
| debacle wrote:
| Making the right decision is easy. Winning the internal
| political battles to nurture that decision to production is
| sisyphean, especially when the alternative is falling in
| line, not taking risks, and collecting a paycheck.
| JustFinishedBSG wrote:
| Are we using the same Gmail ?
|
| GMail is TRASH for me. It's the slowest, most ressoruce
| intensive site/app I've ever had the "pleasure" of using. I'm
| using Fastmail now and it's mindblowing how slow Gmail is in
| comparison.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > GMail is TRASH for me
|
| It is now, but it didn't used to be. Gmail at launch was
| incredibly fast. It gradually got a little bit slower over
| time, and then they made it a _lot_ slower with a rewrite a
| few years ago.
| skulk wrote:
| I still use the basic HTML version, it works fine and
| does all the things I need a mail client to do (except a
| "select all" button, which I've added with a short
| userscript: http://ix.io/3pXu/js)
| mattkevan wrote:
| It's embarrassing quite how much faster the plain html
| version is. Proof that all the fancy JavaScript gubbins
| do very little to enhance the experience and a whole lot
| to slow it down
| nicoburns wrote:
| Indeed. But they've always had both a fancy JS version
| and a plain HTML version, and originally the fancy JS
| version was just as fast if not faster.
| handrous wrote:
| A lot of Google's web stuff is god-awful, as far as
| performance. Today I tracked a most-of-a-second delay on KB
| input across my _entire_ browser to... having a tab with
| the Google Cloud dashboard open. A really boring one with
| nothing going on, too. Damn near an empty view.
| josefresco wrote:
| > Are we using the same Gmail ?
|
| Right back at you. I've used Gmail daily since it's launch
| and have never experienced "slow" unless I was on a
| slow/poor connection. How many tabs /instances are you
| opening? Are you using ancient hardware?
| handrous wrote:
| Google Fiber, powerful MacBooks for the last decade-plus
| (currently an Apple Silicon machine). Normal gmail takes
| longer to do its AJAX requests than full-page loads on
| "basic HTML" gmail, consistently. Lots longer. It also
| likes to eat 400-500MB of memory and all the processor
| cycles it can get, sitting in the background.
|
| Inbox was even worse, but I think they fattened up Gmail
| to match it after Inbox folded so the Inbox-loving people
| wouldn't suffer from increased performance when they had
| to switch back.
|
| On the plus side they drove me to finally start using
| real, native mail clients again, so... I guess I can
| thank them for that.
| josefresco wrote:
| Maybe it's a Mac thing? -\\_(tsu)_/-
|
| I'm on PC and don't experience any of these issues. My
| Chrome is using <400 MB of memory with two instances of
| Gmail, G Drive, Google Calendar, Google Ads and a couple
| more tabs, and is consuming maybe 0-1% of my CPU. I
| routinely have 4 separate Gmail inboxes open each in
| their own tab.
|
| Compose windows is instantaneous. Opening /viewing email
| is also nearly instantaneous. Same for search, and
| navigating between labels/folders.
| handrous wrote:
| > My Chrome is using <400 MB of memory with two instances
| of Gmail, G Drive, Google Calendar, Google Ads and a
| couple more tabs, and is consuming maybe 0-1% of my CPU.
|
| This is... very surprising. Are you sure you're
| accounting for the resources each tab is taking up? They
| may be listed separately from the core Chrome process in
| the task manager.
|
| I just opened my very boring and nearly empty Google
| Calendar and that tab _alone_ eats 275MB of memory and
| idles bouncing around(!) between 0.2 and 1% of a CPU core
| (which is a lot to be doing nothing, and the way it
| bounces around tells me timers or WebSockets or some
| other unfortunate-technology-to-have-added-to-Javascript
| is involved)
|
| [EDIT] for reference, loading an HN page spikes to
| 100-150MB of memory, then frees memory down to 40-75MB
| over tens of seconds, and idles around 0.0% of CPU when
| I'm not interacting with it. That's approximately the
| base cost of rendering _anything_ and the (mostly memory)
| overhead of isolating tabs so they can crash
| independently. Calendar stays at ~275MB and constantly
| uses some CPU, and I bet if I watched it over time that
| memory use would grow.
|
| [EDIT EDIT] basic HTML gmail hangs out around 170MB but
| keeps allocating then de-allocing 10-20MB more memory,
| bouncing up then returning to about 170MB. Then when I
| click on the link in the footer to load "standard" gmail
| instead, it spikes to 700MB(!!!) then drops to "merely"
| about 490MB and hangs out there indefinitely, using 0.4%
| CPU constantly and spiking to 2.5% periodically, while
| the tab is backgrounded. You are _definitely_ not looking
| in the right place for your browser 's total resource
| use.
| jfrunyon wrote:
| Good luck loading your email into... what, Outlook?
| Thunderbird, god forbid? And having it use less...
|
| (In fairness, I suppose Mutt's resource usage is probably
| lower.)
| handrous wrote:
| Sure, Apple Mail uses about half a GB, too (same mailbox
| as I just loaded in Gmail, even). But that's the _whole
| program_ , with several HTML emails open (a large thread)
| and my entire inbox scrollable instantly at once. Major
| view-switches take maybe 300-500ms, and its idle CPU use
| sits at 0.0%, not a constant 0.4-2.5%. And it doesn't
| have to reach out to a server to search, so some of that
| (I'm guessing quite a bit of it, actually) is likely in-
| memory search cache. That with what amounts to _two_ of
| gmail 's pages open (an email thread view, and a mailbox
| view, side-by-side--I only had the latter open in Gmail
| to achieve this much memory use)
|
| Unlike Gmail and other google properties, I can leave it
| open for weeks and forget it's there. It doesn't affect
| overall system performance--because it's not demanding
| CPU time and forcing context switches when it's not doing
| anything.
|
| [EDIT] incidentally, has Thunderbird bloated a ton or
| something? I used to use it on machines with 256MB of
| memory _total_ and it _was not_ the only thing I had
| open, and it was totally fine. And yes, HTML email
| existed then. I was under the impression it was--thanks
| to neglect, basically--still on good, old tech and the
| plan to "improve" it to ditch that for bloated modern
| junk was still on the drawing board.
| jfrunyon wrote:
| > Sure, Apple Mail uses about half a GB, too (same
| mailbox as I just loaded in Gmail, even). But that's the
| whole program
|
| Okay... Gmail is also the whole program?
|
| > That with what amounts to two of gmail's pages open (an
| email thread view, and a mailbox view, side-by-side
|
| Huh? You can do that in a single page in gmail, too.
|
| > incidentally, has Thunderbird bloated a ton or
| something?
|
| So has everything else. I used to use Chrome because it
| was less resource-intensive than Firefox (back in
| Chrome's early days, and circa Firefox 3.5)...
| handrous wrote:
| > Okay... Gmail is also the whole program?
|
| It's hosted in a browser. It gets things like HTML
| rendering "for free".
|
| > Huh? You can do that in a single page in gmail, too.
|
| I've never seen that and just tried to figure out how to
| do it just to see what it did to memory use. Couldn't.
| Did end up sitting around 680MB of memory (spiked to
| 800MB) looking at the same email thread I have open in
| Apple Mail, which, notably, doesn't exhibit those crazy
| memory-use spikes every time I click on anything.
|
| [EDIT] What I'm talking about is a fairly typical email
| client 3-column layout, with folders and such in one
| column, the current mailbox or folder loaded in another
| (these two columns together are like the default layout
| when you first load Gmail), and an email thread in the
| remaining column, all open at once. I've never seen that
| in Gmail, and with both ~1min of poking around their
| interface and ~1min of Googling, couldn't figure out how
| to get that. I can get columns 1 & 2, or 1 & 3. Not 1, 2,
| and 3 all at once.
|
| > So has everything else. I used to use Chrome because it
| was less resource-intensive than Firefox (back in
| Chrome's early days, and circa Firefox 3.5)
|
| Same. FF went way downhill in a hurry after the 2.x days.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| In general, it is not.
|
| The people who made Gmail are either still working on Gmail,
| working somewhere else, or working on a pet project because
| they bought the proof-of-competence to choose their project.
| Google's management structure basically doesn't have anything
| that says "Hey, you were successful at X, can you work on
| (thing adjacent to X)?" and incentivize the employee to do
| that if the employee wants to do something else.
|
| There's no reason to assume the people working on Slides,
| Spreadsheets, Drive, Docs, &c started particularly overlapped
| (though I'm sure there's consolidation these days). Similarly
| with GCloud; all the pieces of GCloud started as independent
| initiatives (App Engine, Cloud Storage, BigQuery, Compute
| Engine, &c). All of these started separate and only began
| using consolidated resources / providing consolidated UX
| frontends and APIs as they were forced to by a management
| chain ad-hoc'd together after Google decided "Cloud" was a
| space they wanted to do business in as an organized front.
| jerf wrote:
| I'd lay money it's not the engineers, but management. If
| management doesn't put performance as a top-tier requirement,
| there's no way to stuff enough features into a program for
| something like an office suite (already half-crippled by
| having to run in a browser) and keep the performance high.
| It's too much work for even the engineers who care to take it
| on in the cracks & edges around their other projects... it
| has to be something management prioritizes.
|
| Seems like this is how all "enterprise-grade" software
| becomes a pain to use. Usability and performance get short
| shrift below getting the next 100 bullet-point-features and
| before you know it the only computers in the world that can
| run it decently are the developer's, where it still is
| frankly only on the _edge_ of usability and far from where it
| would be a joy to use.
| lazide wrote:
| There is another factor with enterprise software - people
| build workflows around it that are business critical (think
| checklists and HOW-TO guides), and taught to folks that
| just want to turn the crank and get things done, not mess
| around with the latest changes (in general).
|
| UX changes (usually what people mean when they say
| 'usability) are problematic because they often require
| disruptive changes, retraining people, and breaking
| someone's business for awhile if they can't know this is
| coming and stage it out properly. That is a good way to
| lose customers.
|
| Performance improvements over unlocking some major business
| area with a feature are not as high priority - because an
| extra .5% in cost to an existing customer is usually not as
| important as unlocking another 10% of sales.
|
| Over time it can of course kill the product if not
| addressed. It's easy to see how the incentives lead people
| there though.
|
| And for an enterprise, they already pay people to do things
| they aren't excited to do every day - why should they care
| the software is motivating when people already clean
| toilets, deal with retail customers, and mop floors without
| any of those being exciting either? As long as it works, it
| works.
| jerf wrote:
| "why should they care the software is motivating when
| people already clean toilets, deal with retail customers,
| and mop floors without any of those being exciting
| either?"
|
| Efficient. I'm not looking to enterprise software to
| provide personal affirmation in life, but if it takes me
| 5 minutes of staring at loading screens to do something I
| ought to have been able to do in 15 seconds, that's that
| much lost productivity, and it multiplies over days,
| months, years, and across employees.
|
| Moreover, while supermegaultra performance tuning may be
| expensive, many performance improvements can be had for
| much less than the cost of time they are losing people,
| and many others can be obtained relatively cheaply if
| they are simply something that is kept in mind at all
| parts of the design process rather than completely
| ignored until it can't possibly be ignored any more. To a
| large degree, I'm not asking for these companies to make
| a moon shot to make me slightly happier... I'm asking for
| them to pick the freaking low-hanging fruit that is right
| in front of them, and, ideally, to do so on an ongoing
| basis. Computers are pretty fast nowadays, you don't
| really have to try _that_ hard to put something on the
| screen in less than 30 seconds.
| lazide wrote:
| For sure - but you're still thinking about it from the
| using side, not the purchasing/management side.
|
| We all know how dysfunctional management can be, and IMO
| this is more a symptom of the disconnect between
| management and the employees resulting in bad business
| performance.
|
| It's clear whoever is doing the purchasing either doesn't
| care, doesn't know, or has to pick the option due to
| another checkbox somewhere they can't control. The people
| who know have no control over the tools they are using.
|
| It's amazing how pathological organizations can be.
| [deleted]
| renewiltord wrote:
| In all genuineness, I have no clue what they're doing. I won't
| touch this shit with my personal Gmail account because I just
| know it has some one-way door built-in. Something like "You
| signed up for Workspace and now you can't use your Google Home!
| Hurray! Oh, you want to downgrade? Okay, you lost all your email!
| Hurray!"
|
| I'm just glad I make enough money that I can keep my GSuite and
| my personal separate. The one mistake I made is paying for this
| Google One shit which I don't know what it is but I'm too afraid
| to let it go in case they delete all my photos and email.
|
| Literally the most half-assed platform of all time. But the
| features are so good I'm pretty sure I'm paying three times for
| them and not upset. It's the risk of losing the data that scares
| me.
| headmelted wrote:
| Not for UK users
|
| Which sucks, because thats the only way to get Google Voice,
| which we still dont have here outside of Workspace.
| xibalba wrote:
| So can I stop paying for my 1 user business account now?
| easton wrote:
| They seem cagey about whether or not the individual plan will
| have custom domains or support. That'd probably be the
| dealbreaker for everyone with single-user business accounts.
|
| (Unless you're like me and still have grandfathered unlimited
| storage).
| flatiron wrote:
| which tier are you that you still have unlimited? i was on
| the $10 tier (which went to $12) and then i got a nasty gram
| a while ago and upgraded to the $20 tier, i 100% only use my
| account for the unlimited storage.
| ericwooley wrote:
| I just set it up to forward all emails to my Gmail account
| instead. Works great, and it's free.
| markstos wrote:
| The announcement could be clearer.
|
| Groups could already sign up to pay for Google Workspace, that
| doesn't change.
|
| Individuals could also sign up for Google Workplace group account
| that only a single person would use or use a lot of features in
| their individual account.
|
| The announcement could be more straightforward about what's
| actually changing.
| deckard1 wrote:
| Interesting. I was just looking for a way to route my domain
| email to Gmail. I then went down the rabbit hole of G Suite and
| discovered G Suite grandfathered accounts from back when G Suite
| was free for anyone with a Gmail account, I guess? Somehow I
| missed that period of time. My GMail accounts predate G Suite but
| are not on any G Suite plan.
|
| In any case, I wasn't going to pay Google $72 a year just to get
| a trickle of email. I signed up for the Zoho free plan and I'm
| starting to wonder why I stuck with Gmail so long. It's making
| Gmail look like it's from 2004. Granted, the free plan you can
| only use their web app or mobile app. But it's like $12 to step
| up to a full plan with POP/IMAP I think.
| morpheuskafka wrote:
| Apple just announced that iCloud+ will include custom domain
| support later this year, wouldn't be suitable for teams but
| might be a nice choice for individuals.
| personjerry wrote:
| What the hell does this announcement actually say? Is this just
| Gsuite? Are they introducing a lower price tier? What is the
| pricing? How do existing customers transition?
|
| The rebranding from "Google hangouts" and "Gsuite" to "Google
| Workspace" and everything inbetween I have to say has been a
| tremendously terrible marketing job, given the talent of the
| people at that company.
| derefr wrote:
| Judging mostly by the presented visual evidence rather than the
| PR-speak, I _believe_ it says they 're merging Gmail, Google
| Docs, and Google Hangouts into a single tightly-integrated SPA
| with a top-level Slack-like groupware layer to navigate it all.
| Insofar as a "Google Workspace" is a thing like a "Slack team"
| or a "Discord server", it'll probably also be internally
| modelled as a GSuite org.
|
| Again presumably, the GSuite Admin Dashboard would thus likely
| be integrated into the SPA as well (i.e. this SPA would now
| "be" GSuite) -- but for the people only paying for a Google
| Workspace, not a GSuite org, they'd probably see a version of
| the GSuite Admin dashboard where most of the more complex
| functionality related to domains / group policy / etc. is
| hidden, with the stripped-down version matching something more
| akin to a Slack team's admin panel: user management, group
| management, storage management, and app/integration management.
| sporkland wrote:
| I was hoping it was a bundling of apps/data/content along more
| task/project/team/org lines as opposed to the very user-centric
| organizational structure.
|
| Sadly for me, it seems like a re-brand like you said. It also
| seems like they may be planning on evolving the communication
| suites Email, Chat, Video Chat, to be a more integrated
| experience a la Microsoft Teams or Front?
| londons_explore wrote:
| Is this the start of curtailing the free google suite of apps?
|
| Will google Docs suddenly be limited to documents no longer than
| 3 pages or 3 collaborators unless I pay for a subscription to
| "Google Workspace for Individuals"?
| sascha_sl wrote:
| The blog post seems to be aimed at individual businesses.
| srs_sput wrote:
| Anyone want to start a betting pool for when Google Workspace is
| killed?
| easton wrote:
| It's a rename of GSuite, so a long time? They'd have to kill
| Gmail and Docs and like 50 other things first.
| Hamuko wrote:
| They can always kill the free tier like they did for Google
| Apps for Your Domain's free tier (to which I'm still
| grandfathered into).
| sofixa wrote:
| > They can always kill the free tier like they did for
| Google Apps for Your Domain's free tier (to which I'm still
| grandfathered into).
|
| So they didn't kill it if they grandfathered everyone in?
| I'm also on a grandfathered free Google Apps, and i'm happy
| not having to pay for it.
| cbarrick wrote:
| Google Workspace is just a rebrand of GSuite, right? It's
| unlikely to be killed off.
| gerbler wrote:
| It's also a paid service with many customers, so likely to last
| a long time.
| sascha_sl wrote:
| Unlike all the other things Google kills, this one has an
| actual SLA and a ton of customers with enterprise agreements.
|
| Oh, and it's very interconnected with GCP.
| runnerup wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27497207
|
| 'dang:
|
| > All: please don't post shallow, reflexive reactions to a
| story like this, even if you're sure you're right. Such
| reactions are 100% predictable (e.g. see
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27497174), and
| predictability hurts more than rightness helps [0]. Predictable
| discussions are tedious and invariably lead to worse--for
| example, tedious discussions turn nasty because that's the only
| thing the mind has left to amuse itself with [1].
| r0m4n0 wrote:
| Came here to see a google article's comments, to explicitly
| see if an extremely predictable comment would still be here
| as it always is... Alas it is.
| dqpb wrote:
| First time, shame on you. Second time shame on [censored by
| dang].
| jjcon wrote:
| IMHO continually calling google (and their employees that are
| on HN) out on their BS is a net positive even if their BS is
| starting to get repetitive.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-14 23:00 UTC)