Google runs the largest advertising network on the web.
They already pay for much of the content you see online.
Only they have the ability to say "pay $1-$3 a month, and we'll replace those ads with a thank you", and have it actually affect a significant fraction of what you see.
I take it as saying something like "why does it have to be Google that does this; someone should have done this a long time ago", maybe.
Google starts a lot of cool projects, it'd be neat to see other companies taking the same initiative in certain areas (I'm sure there are, I just am not well versed in that area).
I don't know of any other companies who control as many display ads on the web, which can be replaced by a "thank you for donating."
There already are other similar services, like Flattr, but it becomes hard to ensure that you get a steady revenue stream by serving ads to some people and getting donations from others, and being able to turn off the ads for those people who donate.
That's subjective. I don't recall a single product from them that came after search and didn't suck. But the real problem with them is these solutions are being pushed down people throats whether they like it or not similar to what Microsoft was doing in the 90s. This is just another example.
I say GMail and Google Maps are examples of products that were both significantly prettier and better (feature and UX-wise) than any alternative available at that time. But you're right, it's subjective.
No one seems to do any kind of pushing. You're free to not use GMail or Google Maps or whatever; people use it because it sucks less than alternatives.
