Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How did Google get so big?

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 417 posts

Re: How did Google get so big?

#391

Post by maym86 »

sievebrain wrote: post #384
maym86 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep actually I retact part of my original comment. Thanks for the correction. The dumping part is still valid because any OS that isn't free and relies on licencing can't complete with an OS that makes it money from a secondary business like search and advertising. Google gave away Android to make sure it dominated mobile advertising. Any OS reliying on profits directly from licencing the OS cannot complete.

Your comment is still false. Google allows Android forks with their services installed. You just can't break the API, which makes sense, otherwise apps from the store wouldn't reliably work.

No, the dumping part is valid. Free OS with free services to kill competition.

Re: How did Google get so big?

#392

Post by TimJYoung »

dredmorbius wrote: post #273
btilly wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was one of the points made in http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/metcalfe.pdf about why people find Metcalfe's law compelling despite the numerical evidence against it. Our personal perception of the size of a network is directly proportional to the value that we get from it. Extrapolating from that we estimate a square law. However we are neither aware of nor directly value the long tail of people distant from…

Your and Odlyzko's refutation still fails to consider frictional or hygenic costs. These are roughly constant for n, and set an upper size bound where marginal (actually: constant) cost exceeds marginal value. Since a novel network might be able to selectively recruit high-value nodes, this sets up the serial monopoly / collapse / new monopoly dynamic. A few other dynamics added (Gresham's law, tyranny of minimum via…

This is sort of what I was inquiring about in my other post on this topic. Very nice work on the content in those links, thank you.

Are we forever resigned to serial monopolies when it comes to certain aspects of the internet ? Or, would it be wiser for us to construct multiple, smaller networks wherein the connections are more valid/constructive for the individual participants ? Very intriguing questions...

Re: How did Google get so big?

#393

Post by erikpukinskis »

Liron wrote: post #278
dsnuh wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They certainly must have him insured... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate-owned_life_insurance

No, there's no point for Google to pay a third party to insure any risk of $1B or less.

Are there any risks at all worth insuring for Google? What’s the point of insurance if you have $100B in the bank?

Re: How did Google get so big?

#394

Post by zjaffee »

whoahnoway wrote: post #283
zjaffee wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't google search as much as it is the fact that google search and their ad products allows them to promote their own products at a cost far less than their competitors.

There shouldn't be a problem. If I offer two services and I advertise service 2 on the website for service 1 I'm just doing what makes sense.

What you are saying isn't normally a problem, the problem is the fact that google is by far the largest digital advertiser, where their core product is information retrieval. If you are able to manipulate information retrieval in your favor that's an unfair advantage.

Re: How did Google get so big?

#395

Post by wallflower »

ginger123 wrote: post #132
wallflower wrote: post #8

If I could give a six word response for the technical side: "Jeff Dean, Sanjay Ghemawat and team". To paraphrase some Cal/UC Berkeley professor that I cannot remember, he said that the problem with scaling is that when you go up a magnitude or more, you may need a qualitatively different solution for the same problem. Jeff Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat and their team have time and time again managed to design and build st…

I disagree with passion. The vision of Larry Page and Sergey Brin is responsible for Google's success. Jeff Dean, Sanjay Ghemawat executed Page and Brin's ideas, but they were not the key decision makers. Did Dean and Ghemawat decide to buy and then build Android? Did they decide to build Google Maps? Did they decide to buy YouTube?. The answer is no. Page and Brin would have hired other smart people if Dean and Ghem…

I agree, as I was not talking about the overall success of Google, just the success of Google's secret sauce (their backend infrastructure) that enabled it to sell ads and deliver search results with a high level of quality. If you read some of the books about early Google, they (Jeff, Sanjay et al) were really, really struggling to do stuff like index the web without the crawler collapsing mid-way. That's how MapReduce became to be developed.

Yes, Danger/HipTop, YouTube, and Keyhole are arguably the three smartest acquisitions that Google made.

Re: How did Google get so big?

#397

Post by gretch »

smt88 wrote: post #387
gretch wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think the kind of reply he gave is pretty combative for the interviewing for a job at said company? You recommend that as a path forward for people who interview at your company or at Google in the future? Look I understand sometimes people don't want to work at a certain company. But typically it's better to decline the interview than to show up and be smug or righteous about it.

So his options are 1) be delusional about a company's product, or 2) work for another company? No one at Google has qualms about working at an ad company? No one at Facebook does? For some people, a job is a job. It doesn't have to be a calling or a mission. I personally wouldn't work in ad-tech for personal reasons, but clearly most of our industry would. Are 100% of those people fine with what their company does? C…

I understand your ideological stance, I really do

But read his reply again: >"Sure, everyone thinks you're a tech company or a search company or whatever - but Google is an advertising company, and thats it. All the other stuff distracts from the fact that youre just the most profitable ad company."

"an advertising company, _and thats it_" (emphasis mine) "your _just_ the most profitable ad company" (emphasis mine)

Really? It's that far in 1 direction

If you really think that, fine it's your opinion and you are entitled to that, but I encourage you to seek multiple perspectives in the future.

I've already conceded that google is an ad company from a rev perspective since it's 87% ads. But you can't concede to me (the interviewer) that maybe there's something else going on and your legit view of the other people at the company is that they are just "distractions"?

Like seriously, you don't have to put up these tough walls. I'm just an internet stranger. Just be real for a moment. Is that what you really think? It's the last time I'll ask.

Re: How did Google get so big?

#398

Post by kimdotcom »

ebikelaw wrote: post #329
kimdotcom wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did Google succeed and Yahoo fail?

At the same time google was stocking every level of their org chart with legendary engineers, Yahoo appointed a demented Scientologist from Hollywood as their CEO. Yahoo for some reason thought they were in the show business. They could not have succeeded on that premise and it’s a miracle the company even survive the reign of Terry Semel.

Good insight.

I wonder if Snap suffers from similair thinking.

Re: How did Google get so big?

#399

Post by alluro2 »

bepotts wrote: post #253
stuckinarut wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth noting they have been fined int he EU for this behaviour. They destroyed some guys business with their self promotion. Google has too much power. They should be broken up for hte good of society.

So what? Businesses are born and die every day. Every major US tech company is being fined in the EU nowadays. Poor EU regulation shouldn't dictate US policy.

So if your business doesn't stand a chance and goes under due to unfair competition, you'd be fine with it, since "businesses are born and die every day"?

And what exactly would "US policy" be in this context?

Post reply on HN