111–120 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say that making a game addictive is the holy grail of gaming, no?
I'd say the holy grail is to improve people's lives, potentially even make the world a better place.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_mcgonigal_gaming_can_make_a_be...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google bought DoubleClick. They were tainted from then on, as far as I'm concerned. DoubleClick had a known shady history, and executives from DC moved into positions of influence within Google.
Just curious, what terrible things has DoubleClick done since being bought by Google? If anything, I'd say Google 'tainted' them and not the other way around.
Of course, it's not all bad -- Chrome is very much an old-Google product, pouring innovation into a category that was content to slowly iterate. Android is another example of good-for-Google, good-for-everyone innovation. But those examples are getting fewer and further between, while copycat products are getting more common.
Can you imagine working on Farmville? I mean, it would be like going into work every day to refine the equivilent of the Fisher Price moo farm toy [1] except a) for adults and b) relatively juvenile. Imagine the meetings, mostly run by marketing idiots. "Okay, we need the new chewy coco grove coconut tree special item out by next Monday. So that means everyone's coming in on saturday." But how can you argue with 85 m…
"Okay, we need the new chewy coco grove coconut tree special item out by next Monday. So that means everyone's coming in on saturday."
Surprisingly accurate portrayal of actual meetings here though.
I think Google's worry about Facebook (partly justified, partly not) is starting to cause them to make pointless (and time wasting) decisions. If I had 5mins with Sergei and Larry, I would say (after taking a long sip from the free organic drink I just got from the snack bar we're standing next to) "Look, the real enemy is not FB but Apple (and sometimes your own engineering hubris, e.g. Buzz), so focus all your troo…
It's interesting how the internet exploded and had content popping up all over the place and now the content has ended up self aggregating to a few sites like FB and youtube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a pretty disappointing track record when it comes to consumer hardware. I bet it is not in their DNA.
I think that their hiring and internal quality-control process excludes it, actually. For building Google's search engine, you need people who know search and sorting algorithms backwards, forwards, inside-out, and upside down. You need hardcore A/B testing based on statistical significance, and rigorous respect of the data you collect. To make the iPhone and the iPad, you need neither of those. You need one guy who…
Just as hardware and marketing is not in Google's DNA, so to the race to the bottom commodity pricing is not in Apple's DNA. Apple simply cannot compete on price.
We geeks get caught up in the tech side of things and don't even blink at paying upwards $2,500 for the total cost of a contract-locked smart phone for two years. But give the average non-tech person a choice between a $2500 iPhone, or a $200 unlocked Android that they can use on any carrier. It's obvious which choice the majority of consumers will make.
Just throwing this out there: I consider it unethical to invest in Zynga. Edit: They are essentially using psychology, social and otherwise, to ultimately trick people out of their money. A classic on the topic: http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/31/scamville-the-social-gaming...
I think Google's worry about Facebook (partly justified, partly not) is starting to cause them to make pointless (and time wasting) decisions. If I had 5mins with Sergei and Larry, I would say (after taking a long sip from the free organic drink I just got from the snack bar we're standing next to) "Look, the real enemy is not FB but Apple (and sometimes your own engineering hubris, e.g. Buzz), so focus all your troo…
Sure, those things might be somewhat embarrassing, but I doubt they have a significant effect in the long term. (Except, that is, when they turn out to be a good idea and succeed.)
Also, for Apple to be a real competitor to Google, they would have to threaten Google's core money-maker, online ads, especially search ads. It's possible iAds will end up being such a competitor, and were I Google, I'd be concerned. But I'd be much more worried that for many people, "the internet" would become "facebook," and thus I wouldn't be able to show them ads.
Does this mean we can finally abandon the idea that Google's mission is "to organize the world's information"?
In my opinion Google is all over the place, everywhere at the same time which could lead to overextension of resources and finances. This could ruin Google at some point in the future, they are losing focus.
And this particular case seems to very strategic for Google. It's believed (inside Google too) that Facebook could be the major thread to Google, if people start searching in Facebook first and go to Google only as a second option. Thus, attacking Facebook directly is very strategic move.
And it seems to fit nicely to Android strategy too.
Does this mean we can finally abandon the idea that Google's mission is "to organize the world's information"?