←back to thread

20 years of Google Scholar

(blog.google)
412 points thepuppet33r | 1 comments | 18 Nov 24 18:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
thepuppet33r ◴[18 Nov 24 18:01 UTC] No.42175024[source]▶
Yes, Google deserves to be distrusted and avoided as a whole, but Google Scholar is a genuinely net good for humanity.
replies(3): >>42175704 #>>42180078 #>>42181021 #
insane_dreamer ◴[19 Nov 24 04:21 UTC] No.42180078[source]▶
Google Maps is a net positive as well
replies(1): >>42180135 #
robertlagrant ◴[19 Nov 24 04:39 UTC] No.42180135[source]▶
Some more:

- Google Search

- YouTube (more debateable, but I think it's a marvel)

- Google Books

- ChromeBooks

- Android

- Google Calendar

- Google Earth

- Google Drive

- Google Docs

- Waze

- Android Auto

- Google Pay

- Kubernetes

- Go

- VP8 / VP9

I'd rather take all those products than leave them.

replies(1): >>42186501 #
insane_dreamer ◴[19 Nov 24 18:14 UTC] No.42186501[source]▶
ok, but Search aside (which is Google's primary product; we were talking about side project), many of these are also-rans; they didn't really change the landscape the way Google Maps (and of course Search). OK, maybe Android, but that wasn't developed by Google. Neither was YouTube (groundbreaking), or Waze (not groundbreaking).

The only one I would take from your list would be Kubernetes and Google Earth, and Kubernetes being more of a dev tool would really count as far as impact and usefulness to society (Go would fit there).

Google Books _could_ have been great, but Google didn't take care of it. Same with Google Reader.

replies(2): >>42186807 #>>42192032 #
1. robertlagrant ◴[20 Nov 24 09:04 UTC] No.42192032[source]▶
I don't see why NIH affects anything. They're google products now. And as a further point: do you think Android and YouTube have the same codebases as they did when they were acquired? Of course not.