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

401–410 of 417 posts

Re: How did Google get so big?

#401

Post by orarbel1 »

nostrademons wrote: post #315
jonny_eh wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coinbase is not the next Google. They provide no actual value, beyond making it easy to join a bubble. Google's value proposition in the early days was enormous, very obvious, and continues to this day.

If you have already accepted cryptocurrencies as the wave of the future, Coinbase provides enormous value. You can't do much in the crypto world without owning some cryptocurrencies, and they are the largest, easiest to use, and generally most trusted way to exchange $USD for Bitcoin or Ethereum. Most Americans have not accepted that premise (and I don't exclude myself...I'm on the fence as for whether crypto is a bu…

"There were only 36M users online, roughly the same order as the number of Bitcoin users in the U.S."

When you say "users", what do these users "use" Bitcoin for besides speculating on its price?

Do you know of any real usage?

Re: How did Google get so big?

#403

Post by TomMarius »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #388
TomMarius wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't separate a technology from it's use. Technology is created to be used. False. Every day, dozens of thousands of people in academia engage in basic research (actual term), something that does not lead to "usable technology" most of the time. > some knowledge is good and some knowledge is bad Are you saying that guns kill people? I thought that people kill people, using guns.

>Are you saying that guns kill people? I thought that people kill people, using guns. I don't understand why you're resorting to metaphor, I think what I said was pretty clear. Can you support the statement that all knowledge is good?

So our knowledge about guns is bad because guns kill? I can't explain it more, sorry. I think the explanation I've given is very obvious - technology can be used badly, but it's always the people who do it, not the technology itself. Technology is neutral, you can simply not use it - knowing it still might prove important for development of other technologies, e.g. for prevention, reparation, ... after the original technology is used, in case of nuclear weapons for example (how would we know how to prevent and treat radiation illness without knowing anything about nuclear physics), and at the very extreme, the technology itself will do nothing - until people start using it. People are bad, not technology.

Re: How did Google get so big?

#404

Post by dredmorbius »

euyyn wrote: post #344
dredmorbius wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences http://newtechnologyandsociety.org

That's kind of a poor reply. "Sometimes things have unintended consequences". And a link to a book that says that technology alone won't save the environment, more things will be needed.

They may not be the answer you're looking for, but they're the answer.

At least read the pagers linked. I strongly recommend the book in its entirety.

Re: How did Google get so big?

#405

Post by nostrademons »

orarbel1 wrote: post #401
nostrademons wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have already accepted cryptocurrencies as the wave of the future, Coinbase provides enormous value. You can't do much in the crypto world without owning some cryptocurrencies, and they are the largest, easiest to use, and generally most trusted way to exchange $USD for Bitcoin or Ethereum. Most Americans have not accepted that premise (and I don't exclude myself...I'm on the fence as for whether crypto is a bu…

"There were only 36M users online, roughly the same order as the number of Bitcoin users in the U.S." When you say "users", what do these users "use" Bitcoin for besides speculating on its price? Do you know of any real usage?

Bitcoin is presently used for illegal activity, remittances, currency in countries undergoing hyperinflation (Zimbabwe, Venezuela), as a way to make oneself feel wealthy, and of course price speculation.

Ethereum is currently used for startup fundraising via ICO, for tokens in collectible games (Cryptokitties), to distribute ad revenue from browsing the web (Brave), to incentivize participation on curated social news sites (Steemit), for decentralized prediction markets (Augur), to get paid for donating computing power (Golem), and of course for speculation. Possibly others I'm not aware of too.

Re: How did Google get so big?

#406

Post by dredmorbius »

TimJYoung wrote: post #392
dredmorbius wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Are we forever resigned to serial monopolies...?

That's an excellent question, and one I'm considering.

The dynamic I describe seems to produce those. And monopolies and networks are tightly related.

In particular, it seems to me that very nearly all monopolies have a network element, expressed physically or logically. You may have to squint at times to see it.

But is the converse true? Do all networks create monopolies? Here I think the answer is no, in which case the question becomes "why not".

That might hold some clues.

Open protocols, counterveiling networks, various forms of friction, and holding specific control points open, all seem to help.

Re: How did Google get so big?

#407

Post by fixermark »

Merad wrote: post #312
fixermark wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your customers already know how to get to your website: yourdomain.com. Do you mean "Some day, for whatever reason, Google stops directing traffic to your website of people who don't know who you are, for free?" Sounds like it's time to spend some money on advertising. Their ability to kick a bunch of traffic towards you or refrain from doing so makes them a market-maker, but they share that with newspaper and televi…

You haven’t interacted with many average users, have you? When instructed to go to “yourdomain.com”, they’ll bring up google and search for yourdomain.com. If it doesn’t appear in google search results, it effectively doesn’t exist to an enormous segment of users.

I'm the past, we solved problems like this by having industry groups pony up money to educate consumers about options.

Sounds like it's time for companies that can't get in Google search results to start doing ad spots about search engine choice.

Re: How did Google get so big?

#408

Post by perl4ever »

nostrademons wrote: post #315
jonny_eh wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coinbase is not the next Google. They provide no actual value, beyond making it easy to join a bubble. Google's value proposition in the early days was enormous, very obvious, and continues to this day.

If you have already accepted cryptocurrencies as the wave of the future, Coinbase provides enormous value. You can't do much in the crypto world without owning some cryptocurrencies, and they are the largest, easiest to use, and generally most trusted way to exchange $USD for Bitcoin or Ethereum. Most Americans have not accepted that premise (and I don't exclude myself...I'm on the fence as for whether crypto is a bu…

1996 was exactly when it was obvious the web was taking off. That was right when the transition was happening from online services like AOL that gave you some Internet access as an aside, to ISPs that just connected you directly via PPP. I was hired to answer tech support calls for some guys that had started an ISP in their apartment and within a month or two they'd grown exponentially and expanded to real offices.

Re: How did Google get so big?

#409

Post by charleslmunger »

maym86 wrote: post #391
sievebrain wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wouldn't this line of thinking mean all open source code just dumping? The linux kernel, with lots of its development done by either volunteers or employees of companies who use it, is also given away for free. How can a paid licensed OS compete with what is essentially a co-op of developers across organizations giving the code away for free?

Is Firefox also dumping, since it's available for free, funded by donations and the default search provider?

Re: How did Google get so big?

#410

Post by maym86 »

charleslmunger wrote: post #409
maym86 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wouldn't this line of thinking mean all open source code just dumping? The linux kernel, with lots of its development done by either volunteers or employees of companies who use it, is also given away for free. How can a paid licensed OS compete with what is essentially a co-op of developers across organizations giving the code away for free? Is Firefox also dumping, since it's available for free, funded by donations…

This only becomes an issue when you are a monopoly as this is when it hurts the consumers ability to choose alternatives. If Android truely is the best option let the customer decide without trying to stifel competition.

Firefox and Linux don't work to stop competition in the same way. Neither care if manufactures provide other options or flavors and Linux especially has commercial forks like OSX and Android.

Post reply on HN