• Cynicus Rex@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    What would happen if people deserted Google products in droves?

    Mail:

    Cloud:

    • Mega [referral URL]

    Maps:

    Meet:

    Calendar:

    Here’s an exhaustive list of Mostly excellent “free” software that I use.

    Please also consider supporting the myriad of developers who offer their superior products for free, open source, without ads.

    “What if I paid for all my free software?
    I’ve always felt guilty by taking for granted the rare breed of virtuous humans that provide free excellent software without relying on advertising. Let’s change that and pay, how much would I “lose” anyway?” —https://www.cynicusrex.com/file/takemymoney.html

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      19 days ago

      Matrix is general-purpose chat. Meet will be replaced with Jitsi.

      Also why not nextcloud for storage on someone else’s computer.

      • unfinished | 🇵🇸@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        Sorry but no, MEGA is good. It’s consistently rated among the best for privacy, performance and price. Imho Proton Drive is the best and most promising though.

        • ColdWater@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days ago

          Good if you use mega as your main cloud drive but bad for anyone else who got capped at 5gb and have to download inside the browser or use their app

        • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days ago

          Do you disagree with their reason?

          Responsible financial diversification requires holding some assets outside of the traditional government controlled banking system.

          They didn’t say they were going all in. They aren’t continuously promoting - at least not that I’m aware. They were just being open and honest about how they’re handling their finances.

          • Cynicus Rex@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            19 days ago

            ”Do you disagree with their reason?

            Responsible financial diversification requires holding some assets outside of the traditional government controlled banking system.

            They didn’t say they were going all in. They aren’t continuously promoting - at least not that I’m aware. They were just being open and honest about how they’re handling their finances.”

            I absolutely disagree.

            1. “Responsible” and “Bitcoin” is an oxymoron due to the inherent multi-level marketing pyramid/Ponzi scheme aspect of crypto“currencies”.
            2. Money corrupts; bitcoin corrupts absolutely.
              Disregarding all of bitcoin’s shortcomings, a financial instrument that brings out the worst in people—greed—won’t change the world for the better.” —https://www.cynicusrex.com/file/cryptocultscience.html
            • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              18 days ago

              “Responsible” and “Bitcoin” is an oxymoron due to the inherent multi-level marketing pyramid/Ponzi scheme aspect of crypto“currencies”.

              First, you’re removing the next two words “financial diversification” from the statement. Your own personal opinions and emotions aside, financial diversification is not a bad idea. It’s all about percentages and risk calculations. I would agree with you if they went “all in” on crypto, but they didn’t say that.

              Second, you’re lumping in bad people with good tech that has solved a very specific problem - the ability to transfer funds without relying on a central bank or authority. Is email bad because the majority is spam? No. Is the internet bad because the dark web exists and thousands if not millions of crimes are being carried out on it? No. Are encrypted messengers bad because they allow criminals to send message? No. Same concept here. There can exist a good technology that gets abused by bad people.

              “Money corrupts; bitcoin corrupts absolutely.

              You can stop at “money corrupts”. bitcoin is money and money corrupts.

              Disregarding all of bitcoin’s shortcomings, a financial instrument that brings out the worst in people—greed—won’t change the world for the better.”

              Disregarding all of the U.S. Dollar’s shortcomings[1], a financial instrument that brings out the worst in people—greed—won’t change the world for the better.”

              Fixed it for you.

              [1] The US spent 877 BILLION dollars on its defense budget (as much as the next 10 countries combined!) to ensure the USD keeps its power.

              • Cynicus Rex@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                17 days ago

                “Responsible” and “Bitcoin” is an oxymoron due to the inherent multi-level marketing pyramid/Ponzi scheme aspect of crypto“currencies”.

                First, you’re removing the next two words “financial diversification” from the statement. Your own personal opinions and emotions aside, financial diversification is not a bad idea. It’s all about percentages and risk calculations. I would agree with you if they went “all in” on crypto, but they didn’t say that.

                Gambling or buying into a pyramid scheme doesn’t belong to the category of financial diversification, let alone responsible financial diversification. Responsible financial diversification is investing in skills, property, purchasing cooperatives, official/institutional crowdfunding projects with sustainability in mind—not purely profit, ethical index funds, et cetera.

                Second, you’re lumping in bad people with good tech that has solved a very specific problem - the ability to transfer funds without relying on a central bank or authority. Is email bad because the majority is spam? No. Is the internet bad because the dark web exists and thousands if not millions of crimes are being carried out on it? No. Are encrypted messengers bad because they allow criminals to send message? No. Same concept here. There can exist a good technology that gets abused by bad people.

                All whataboutism fallacies. Crypto“currencies” incentivize greed. Not so for email, the Internet, messengers, et cetera. The only legitimate usecase for these alternative currencies is financing whistleblowers, journalists, individuals who have to break unethical laws and are therefore disconnected from the banking system.

                “Money corrupts; bitcoin corrupts absolutely.

                You can stop at “money corrupts”. bitcoin is money and money corrupts.

                Bitcoin more so because of its multi-level marketing / pyramid scheme aspect. When one buys USD or EUR one doesn’t try convincing their peers to buy it too so their own wealth goes up.

                Disregarding all of bitcoin’s shortcomings, a financial instrument that brings out the worst in people—greed—won’t change the world for the better.”

                Disregarding all of the U.S. Dollar’s shortcomings[1], a financial instrument that brings out the worst in people—greed—won’t change the world for the better.”

                Fixed it for you.

                [1] The US spent 877 BILLION dollars on its defense budget (as much as the next 10 countries combined!) to ensure the USD keeps its power.

                Whataboutism fallacy again.

      • Reddfugee42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 days ago

        Oh yeah it’s easy to confuse an envelope for a bulbous pin if they’re the same color. I nearly mailed a letter in a turkey baster the other day so I get it

        • ngwoo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 days ago

          Let me just write down my appointments on this cartoon old-timey video camera

  • 0ops@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    18 days ago

    Color is the first thing the eyes tend to notice, then shape, then lines and details. The new icons all look the same at the edge of my vision, I have to look at them straight on to distinguish them. Individually each one is fine but together, like what the hell?

    I don’t rawdog Google icons anymore anyway, I use an icon pack

  • Xylight@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    For mostly all of my app-launching things I always prefer searching for text than searching for an icon. In pixel launcher, I always use the app drawer search, but an even better solution is in something like Niagara launcher.

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    People simultaneously justifying their jobs but not willing to make significant, meaningful changes

  • Donebrach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    I was yelling about how windows 11 swapped out text listingzs for copy, paste, etc from its contextual menus for stupid icons just the other day. Modern UIs are becoming so “streamlined” to the point of uselessness.

  • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    i think they did need to unify the design and branding but i also agree they went too far with it. if they had only chosen 1-2 colors for each app icon that would have helped a lot.

    gmail - red

    drive - yellow

    maps - green

    meet - blue

    calendar - lighter blue

    problem solved

        • TedZanzibar@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 days ago

          Yes, but the original post is suggesting that they’re ambiguous enough to all be squares. Running with that concept, making a bunch of squares different colors doesn’t fix the issue for those of us who can’t easily identify those colors.

        • TedZanzibar@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 days ago

          Nope. The icons are honestly good enough as they are, but the original post was being disingenuous in suggesting they’re no more distinguishable than squares.

          Running with that logic, having each square a different color does not solve the problem for those of us who can’t easily distinguish those colors.

      • jaybone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 days ago

        Most software pretty much doesn’t give a fuck about the visually impaired despite everyone talking big shit about accessibility. So I could certainly give a fuck what color someone’s logo is.

        • TedZanzibar@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 days ago

          Except that the original post was contesting that those shapes are indistinguishable from each other. My point, therefore, is that the solution offered in the post I replied to would still be indistinguishable to 300 million people.

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            20 days ago

            the squares are there for comedic effect. the shapes are not actually indistinguishable. but at a glance, color is a much faster tool we use to identify these icons. so the problem here is that it takes longer for us to decipher a Google app icon, and the solution would be to differentiate the colors.

            also this would help colorblind people as well, because removing unnecessarily complicated colors would make the shapes easier to identify as well.

            • TedZanzibar@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              19 days ago

              Yes I understand the meme and I’m not trying to get into an argument. I’m just trying to educate as to why relying on color as the primary differentiator is not a solution to the problem as proposed.

              at a glance, color is a much faster tool we use to identify these icons

              Think about what you’re saying here, and consider how ridiculous it would sound if you said that to someone who was completely blind.

              Sure, to a “color normal” person, something’s color is a great differentiator, but even when using a colorblind friendly pallette it’s just far easier for us to distinguish different shapes than colors. We’ve spent our whole lives adapting to a lack of color information so asking us to be able to work purely on color alone is like asking a blind person to see.

              Again, and this part is really important and oft overlooked - this applies even when a designer has gone out of their way to choose a colorblind friendly pallette. It’s just not that easy for us. I honestly couldn’t even tell you what Google’s corporate pallette is without looking and I’m sure that information is second nature to normies.

              • pyre@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                19 days ago

                this image has two groups:

                at first glance did you separate it into red v blue or circles vs squares?

                you’re absolutely making things up. we’ve evolved to differentiate shades as well, which supercedes colors. even for colorblind people this kind of image should be differentiated by color or shade first.

                not to mention not all people have perfect vision, in fact people with blurry vision probably outnumber colorblind people, and that would make the shapes not extremely reliable, especially when most icons would be more or less squares and circles with small details changed.

    • SuperSaiyanSwag@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      And that’s why I don’t really hate it. I hate Google, but I think it’s a neat design choice. I still hate Microsoft’s icon design a lot though, they can’t seem to stick with one thing.

    • pewpew@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      And the interface of their apps are still incoherent af. I don’t know how, but they manage to make things worse every time

      • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 days ago

        To me, that’s just the case for camera and calendar. Maps is IMHO perfect (except the unnecessary G) and the red-and-white envelope is quite well-known.

    • Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      I think what really bothers me about the aesthetics is that the shapes are broken up by the coloration. For example, the pin icon for Google Maps looks almost like a hook, because the yellow has little contrast on this white background.

  • PmMeFrogMemes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    oh noooo icons sharing a common design language and color scheme? the absolute horror.

    if you can’t tell the difference between these icons i have a great educational resource for you

    • putty@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      nah I still recognized all of them as google products bc they use the same 4 colors, but in different interesting ways. gmail was all red but a letter shape. Maps was a red pinhead. drive was a triangle but used all the colors but red. Calendar was a less noticeable shape but instantly recognizeable as a tabletop day calendar. now everything has to use all 4 colors and the shapes are so small that the colors can’t do enough on a phone screen to differentiate themselves.

      They already had a common design language and color scheme. Now they have a samey-ness to them that takes away visual interest.