[xp84]

I'm not a fan of Google, and also not attached to Apple or Microsoft, so this isn't me trying to stan for Google, but I'd like to request that you give examples of what competing products are categorically better (and, by what metric(s) you're judging - code quality? stability? robust set of features?) -- for Gmail, Docs/Drive/etc, Google Calendar, Maps, Classroom, YouTube.

As far as I can tell, if judged by the marketplace (and breaking ties with which product I like better), Google has run away with the ball on all of those, and Gemini seems to at least be competitive.

The only major product I'd say they've sunk below acceptability on is Search, which is demonstrably dogshit now...though I suspect it's more that they have changed their definition of what Search is for, from "helping users efficiently find other websites that are useful to them" to "A convenient on-ramp to, many times per day, capture the current user intent and steer them toward something that earns Google some ad revenue."

[danudey]

The major differentiating factor that Google has had in every product category is that their products are free and you have to deal with ads (and they monitor your behavior for profiling you and your interests).

GMail and Google Maps were revolutionary when they came out, sure, but the vast majority of Google's products now are... fine? at best? And a lot of their "big products" were acquisitions that they absorbed in order to further the core goal of the business - to organize all the world's information and use it to serve ads to people.

Meanwhile, Google has a litany of products they've started internally, launched, ran for a while, and then let stagnate or canned entirely; anecdotally I've heard that this is because your bonuses at Google hinge on your ability to launch a product and not your ability to support a product, so it's beneficial to get something launched and then immediately leave to go launch another project rather than polish the one you just launched into something to be proud of.

I'm not sure if that's true, but it would certainly explain a lot; if Google launches something and it's bad or it doesn't click, they just give up on it. Google Wave, a half-dozen chat apps that I can think of, Stadia, and dozens of others. Things that Google launched, which had problems or didn't hit mass adoption instantly, and then just petered out and were retired with all of the time and energy and money put into them arguably wasted - products that people wanted, and wanted to succeed, but which weren't revolutionary successes at launch so they weren't worth further investment.

Meanwhile, they (and most of the industry) are pushing AI for some reason despite the fact that almost no one actually wants AI to be the only way that people interact with information.

This all reinforces what I've been saying about Google for decades: they're not creating things that users want to use, they're creating things that they want users to use. Sometimes those things align, but when they don't then it's not worth further investment (except, apparently, AI).

[harrall]

I just don’t think your opinion is shared by most people.

Gmail is the most popular email service in the world, people are always telling me how they prefer Google Docs over everything else and their only competition is Microsoft.

Yes it’s free but there is no other service that I rather switch to, and I actually pay for additional storage.

[kelnos]

> Gmail is the most popular email service in the world

That's because it's been around for quite a while, and for a long time it was the best webmail service. It's also free, unlike most alternatives. And switching to a new provider means a new email address, unless you're using a custom domain with Google Workspace (or whatever they call it these days), which is a small minority of personal accounts.

(I gave up on Gmail a few years ago and switched to Fastmail, and like it much more than Gmail. But I'm the rare person who is willing to pay for email, and had been using a custom domain with Gmail, so my non-monetary switching costs were minimal.)

[rmunn]

You're absolutely right that Gmail was the best webmail service when it launched, and for some time afterwards. How many people now commenting on HN remember when Gmail launched? Remember how revolutionary it was at the time? Every other email webapp, when you clicked on an email, would refresh the page. Gmail, when you clicked on an email, did not cause a browser navigation. It simply replaced the page contents with the contents of the email.

We're so used to setting webapps do this that we take this for granted, but Gmail was the first email webapp to do this. It's possible it was the first webapp, period, to do this; I feel like Gmail's use of XmlHttpRequest was innovative at the time.

Fast forward twenty years, and what about Gmail is innovative today? Nothing that I can think of. It's mediocre (there are lots of filtering improvements they could make that they aren't making, for example), and everything that made it good has been copied by other webmail clients. There's no particular reason except momentum to stay on Gmail.

[manwe150]

Gmail spam filtering also used to be revolutionary and an unsung hero. I haven’t put effort into finding out if other options have caught up with that (because of aforementioned tedium of changing email addressed)

[rmunn]

I have had a pobox.com email address (just a forwarding one) longer than I've had a Gmail one, and their spam filtering was pretty amazing too. Even before I set my pobox.com address to forward to Gmail, I never saw very much spam.

Now that Pobox is owned by Fastmail, I rather suspect that Fastmail is going to have the same good spam filtering. Can't speak from experience, though, as I haven't actually used my new Fastmail account yet (it still forwards to Gmail, and so far I haven't switched. Momentum, again).

[skydhash]

You can’t beat free. The Fastmail web interface is snappier than gmail. And you can’t beat dedicated mail clients like thunderbolt in terms of workflow.

Google doc is wordpad level with very good collaboration (but that’s mostly what people need). People were fine with typewriters, so they are fine with a word processor like google doc. But it’s not at the level of even Libreoffice or Apple’s page in terms of features.

[phs318u]

By any definition of good usability, Gmail is not good and Google Docs are not far behind. It’s not that they are functionally bad, just really poor UX.

[andybak]

That's hyperbole. They have flaws, but at the very least, when they were launched, they were arguably best in class. I'm not sure how much me sticking with them is due to familiarity and muscle memory but I know they won we over purely on merit in the beginning.

[phs318u]

As someone who was an original invitee to Gmail it was the clarity of function that was the differentiator. They were “grown up” and acknowledged user agency vs their competitors.

But as others have mentioned, they operating model of Google as a company incentivises creating products but does not incentivise refining it. Gmail has gotten far richer in functionality but at the same time the interface has gotten far less consistent. Their competitors (mainly Microsoft but not only them) also got richer functionality, but they also paid attention to UX. While none are perfect, there are definitely some better than others. Familiarity definitely breeds inertia though, I’ll grant that.

[soco]

We probably talk to different sets of people, as I don't even know anybody who ever used Google Docs.

[hparadiz]

I've been at multiple companies where Google Drive and Docs/Sheets are the only thing people use.

[coldtea]

That's because the execs force them.

[hparadiz]

LMAO Why the fuck would I wanna install office on my mac.

[andybak]

That's really surprising to me.

[anthonyskipper]

You should checkout startups. They would blow your mind.

[wvenable]

> GMail and Google Maps were revolutionary when they came out, sure, but the vast majority of Google's products now are... fine? at best?

Is that... good? I mean take maps -- what more can possibly be done to that product that wouldn't just make it worse? It's done. The fact that's the default choice for mapping and just works is fantastic really. There aren't any competitors doing anything revolutionary either because there isn't anything revolutionary to be done.

[bmurphy1976]

Maps is far from done. At the very least it's still riddled with usability issues. One bug-bear I have in particular: when I zoom into a very specifically chosen area, search for a Chinese restaurant, and it zooms out to half the state. Maddening. And it's rife with problems like this.

[no-name-here]

I’ve never experienced that issue - which platform/what location? I just tested and I was unable to replicate that issue.

[sakex]

I worked at google for 3 years and can confirm what you've heard. Obviously, every org is somewhat different.

[xahrepap]

I think it’s a major feature gap that Gmail (paid or free) cannot create filters on headers.

I also can’t do wildcard filters on “to” or “from”. For example, in my GApps I have it set up to route all emails not associated with a specific user to my primary user. So that it’s easier to make throwaway emails. I want to filter all to:`[e-mail]` to a certain folder. No can do.

It just feels restricted.

[no-name-here]

> I want to filter all to:`[e-mail]`

You can filter based on the to: field, yes.

For many years I’ve been creating filters on free Gmail for to:, from:, subject:, etc. I set them up on desktop web.

Perhaps there is something more specific you’re trying to do?

> a major feature gap that Gmail (paid or free) cannot create filters on headers.

You can create filters on header fields like from:, to:, and subject:, so I am guessing you mean something different than “cannot create filters on headers”?

[shellwizard]

I think he refers to mail headers. Those are normally hidden away from you, at least on a PC browser you can see them:

1. Open the specific email.

2. Click the three vertical dots (More options icon) next to the "Reply" button.

3. Select "Show original" from the dropdown menu.

[no-name-here]

Mail headers also include to:, from:, subject:, etc, as well as more obscure items too, which is why I think OP commenter meant something very different than “cannot filter on headers”.

Also, more items that might help OP (as I can’t edit parent comment) - they mentioned wanting to use wildcards on to: field. Those header fields do allow specifying just part of the header, like just the domain, or one part of the to address. (But those match at word boundaries and I’m not aware of being able to match sub parts of words or more complex items.)

Regardless, I don’t think I’d call this a “major” feature gap - maybe minor or more of a niche feature.

[rustystump]

This so much this. Gmail overall is pretty meh and then it has these stupid footguns that make it awful.

[josephg]

> but I'd like to request that you give examples of what competing products are categorically better

Personally I much prefer Fastmail to Gmail. The site is way faster and more cohesively designed. Fastmail supports jmap, and way more imap extensions (including push support on Apple mail). They have helpful humans handling support requests. And they do all of that with what seems like 1/10th or less the number of employees.

The only thing I like more about Gmail is their native mobile apps. Fastmail’s official mobile app is a web view.

[luma]

> Gmail, Docs/Drive/etc, Google Calendar

MS is the overwhelming favorite in each of these markets if you only consider paying users.

[rustystump]

Funny. Search is the only thing that is outstanding as it is the big revenue arm, that and youtube.

The last time i tried using gmaps i got ads and the thing could figure out where i was on the roads. It was comical as i always remembered google maps being better than apple. Today tho, apple beats them hands down.

Googles products that do not get cancelled are pretty mediocre in todays market. They can build useful things but if it doesnt have ads in it, it gets axed

[Gander5739]

> the thing could figure out where i was on the roads

Is this missing a "not"?

[rustystump]

Yes.