101–110 of 151 posts
This is my favorite Google project. I hope it becomes something that we all can use. To me, at least, this is more useful than meeting in vr with no legs.
Why do you need legs for conference calls? Also you can totally have legs in VR. Not only are there leg trackers but Meta has already announced they have worked out inferenced leg kinematics coming next year and other apps already have them (VRChat etc).
Every time a Google product release makes its way to this site, it seems as though many commenters don't read the article and instead attempt to "dunk on" Google for their history of cancelling projects, vying to express how they distrust Google because of their privacy invasiveness or their inability to commit or some anecdotal evidence dealing with support. Same with Meta products. It's an exhausting exercise to at…
This tc article sums it up really well https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/01/stadia-died-because-no-one...
If they've managed to embed the video collector at eye height or close, so the effect of looking at the screen is to be seen as looking at the other person, this is in itself useful. If it's still a non-eyeline camera and they do some adaptive smarts to make it "look" like eyeline I'd be interested how good that is. If they have leveraged peppers ghost and like techniques to make a volume appear to be "occupied" then…
The experience is as if you're looking directly at a person sitting across from you. There is no camera offset.
Being in New Zealand I remember the google balloon project, what happened to that?
Some of the laser communication link tech is being used in project taara.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because there aren't enough qualified black people to hire, but that doesn't mean that black people don't exist. Look at some harrowing stats on who takes the AP CS exam: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/still-no-african-americans...
Sure, but it also feels slightly pretentious. Is representation in PR what the community wants? Why not actually uplifting the community such that artifical representation isn't necessary?
It’s not anymore unreasonable to conclude that representation in PR _is_ what the community wants than to decide it _isn’t_ and communities aren’t monoliths anyway.
It's weird how this seems really exciting and yet the fact that it's a google project leaves me assured it will go nowhere, and therefore it's hard to take much of an interest in. Same as that cool automated phone call AI they demo'd a few years ago. Cool, but not likely to go anywhere in Google's hands. Product-wise, have they succeeded with anything in the past 10+ years? Chrome is from before then. Android is from…
It's weird how this seems really exciting and yet the fact that it's a google project leaves me assured it will go nowhere, and therefore it's hard to take much of an interest in. Same as that cool automated phone call AI they demo'd a few years ago. Cool, but not likely to go anywhere in Google's hands. Product-wise, have they succeeded with anything in the past 10+ years? Chrome is from before then. Android is from…
Do you consider Kubernetes and TensorFlow to be Google “products”, or not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For every product Google kills, it's launched dozens of wildly successful products you've been taking for granted for over a decade in some cases: Gmail, search, Drive, Photos, Chromecast, Chrome, Books, Flights, Scholar, AdSense, Calendar, Docs, Sheets, Keep, Translate, Maps... More like for every 10 products they kill they maybe let one live... Have you not seen killed by google ? > Google can and does support do…
> It's pretty fucking important to know that if you're going to splurge a bunch of money to put it in your offices. You're just being ignorant at that point. Companies don’t kill things that have support contracts and enterprise agreements. Look at GSuite. What’s been killed? Fuck even apple won’t kill the orphaned MacBook Pro with touchbar for support contract reasons.
Also, they are in the process of discontining the free tier.
Most damningly for me, they screwed up and eventually killed grand central (voip, call forwarding, voicemail) post acquisition.
The cards are definitely stacked against this when it's at Google. Because of: 1. Google's solid track record of killing things because they didn't grow quickly, after a half hearted effort. Stadia being the latest example. 2. Google being pretty bad at cracking the corporate communication space. Teams and Zoom ate its lunch. 3. Google not having a strategy behind communication tools in general. Meet, Hangouts, Chat,…
I apologize if this comes off as aggressive, but all four of your points are totally wrong and I am sick of seeing these ideas parroted all over HN. 1. Google does not have a solid track record of killing things. IF you actually go through the list of all the "products" Google has "killed", you find that 95% of them are just consolidated into other areas of the Google product stack. Stadia was a herculean undertaking…
2. G-Suite did well because it was free and had a good collaboration model. It has stagnated, and things like search and folder navigation are hilariously bad. Quip has innovated much more in this space in recent years.
3. If they rolled old chat into new chat, it put my buddy list somewhere, and didn't just delete it without prompting, right? Google voice still exists with the old feature set? Can I have my auto deleted vanity number back? Presumably Meet is always e2e encrypted, like zoom, and its predecessor from Google, right? No? No to all these questions? Wow. Maybe they don't provide feature continuity after all.
4. I am typing this on a pixel 6 pro. Meh.
The following divisions would be better off as spinoffs, IMO:
Stadia (small companies lapped it), Waymo (small companies lapped it), their MVNO, android (then it could stop being a privacy tire fire), chrome (the Mozilla model works, and this would let Microsoft and Brave upstream more easily), g-suite+gmail (no tie in to search or ads), search, double click, AdWords, YouTube.