111–120 of 205 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even Google Wave could be another example of this. They killed it almost instantly? This was before Slack, discord, etc.
It couldn't even scale up to 200 messages, because it was all so incredibly unoptimized. It's like one guy worked on it, then it was immediately abandoned.
Similar to other commenters, I came here in anger. Google has fucked it’s users, it’s developers, and the broader ecosystem with its handling of AR. Google’s engineers should be embarrassed, and the executive teams who suddenly are pretending to ‘get it’ should be embarrassed. ARKit (iOS) works. It works well. They’ve built the groundwork by pushing out LiDAR. They’ve continued to advance the SDK. Key capabilities, l…
For example, the Metal frameworks versus copying Vulkan samples from a random Google GitHub repo.
The last migration guide from Renderscript into Vulkan compute is a sour joke.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> their messaging platforms and failure to leverage Google voice for 10yrs after the acquisition are too The Hangouts > Chat transition is exactly this. Objectively, they've made it worse and more buggy on their own Android platform. Ever since the transition I talk to friends less on Google services. Many of us jumped to Discord Don't even get me going on the Gmail rollout... Google was once an innovator (search, Gm…
> Google was once an innovator (search, Gmail, Docs) Docs was from an acquisition.
I think what matters with an acquisition is how it’s managed and how the technology is developed. I think it’s unarguable Google has put significant investment into docs and done a good job developing the product so I have no problem at this point giving them credit for it.
It seems that Google is hiring engineers so that they will be ready when Apple launches the AR/VR device. Within one year after the Apple launch, Google has copied and launched their own version. It won't run as smoothly, but it's cheaper. So, anyone who can't afford to buy the Apple product will buy the Google product. And this is how the duopoly will live forever..
Isn't it all similar to Microsoft's efforts in mobile devices? I mean gates tried really hard to create a windows on a mobile device. Nokia and co tried by the way as well. Then came apple from nowhere with the first iphone. I bet something like this happens again, so I don't think it will be facebook, google, or apple. Ok maybe apple. But I would rather bet a good working device will come unexpected and will make a…
I was having a conversation with someone connected to the upper execs there one time who explained this to me. They said that Google could generate the same amount of profit with a small fraction of the staff it currently has. The thing is though, the stock price would not be nearly as high and they have to keep the buzz going, by pushing out a lot of bets to pump up the stock. All that they need is enough perception of innovation to make wall street happy. So that is what they have done, and as a bonus a large part of salaries are paid with stock which allows them to keep the ponzi (my term not, theirs) scheme going.
Up until a few years ago most developers loved Google, but they have systematically done a lot of things to piss off a large number of them and you don't see nearly as much Google love these days. The big question is will that negative sentiment eventually affect the stock price? I know that I would personally like to see more competition in the search space (which is their bread and butter) and have less Google lobbyists in Washington DC. Also, great companies eventually do falter. The question is, will Google's fall be as fast as it's rise? Time will tell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was that just a random number you threw out? Because it's depressing if even VPs can only afford three Bay Area homes.
I'd guess a VP can afford just one? Median housing price is 3M in Palo Alto.
[0] levels.fyi
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is unfocused. That's the how the company is designed. It's a federation of VPs, each trying to build a little fiefdom and buy a third bay area house. Sometimes this works well because it fosters competition, but there's a definite lack of coherency.
Was that just a random number you threw out? Because it's depressing if even VPs can only afford three Bay Area homes.
So it seems like the tech giants may be in a race towards creating the "metaverse", or "metaverses". As a kid this would have been an incredibly exciting idea, but instead this kind of news creates a weird feeling in the bottom of my stomach. That's mostly for two reasons: 1. It seems like efforts so far towards creating the metaverse are heavily focused on reproducing the inequalities and status heirarchies we have…