Live data from Hacker News

Google is FUBAR

extremetech.com

31–40 of 278 posts

Re: Google is FUBAR

#31
post #22

It just occurred to me a main reason they chose "Don't be evil" as their slogan. The foundation of the company is a slippery slope that will forever motivate it to get more personal information and to do more with it -- generally meaning profiting from that personal information in ways people don't know about. Also, they will forever be asked or demanded that information from governments and other companies who want…

    > The problem with that situation is that the
    > motivation never goes away, but the effort
    > to resist it can fade.
But what they're doing isn't evil. Some people don't like the change of aesthetic, but that's hardly the same as evil.

I think choosing the motto 'don't be evil' was a dumb idea though, because there's a permanent population of people with too much time on their hands trying to show off by casting things as being evil.

I use Google, and I'm looking forward to the improved functionality.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#32
post #12

> Nothing happens on an Apple device without Cupertino’s knowledge, and as a result Apple can perfectly tailor its devices for it users (and ratchet up record-breaking quarterly earnings in the process). Are Apple's devices "perfectly tailored for it[s] users"? I don't see any of that tailoring when I use them. The reason why Apple ratchets up record-breaking earnings is that they build things people want; they build…

> If they break search, they will die.

Agreed. And if they don't innovate search, they will die.

Big change has to happen. Whether this is the right move remains to be seen.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#34
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently when Apple has a unified ecosystem, the purpose is to "perfectly tailor its devices to its users" but if Google does it, it's "maniacal" and "tyrannical"? The state of tech blogging is so, so poor.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I might have outdated knowledge since I don't really use Apple products a whole lot), but you can use a Mac or iPod/iPad without having your personal data stored with Apple. Apple and Google are in two different businesses. When Apple has a unified ecosystem, they limit what you can install/do right out of the box (they sell hardware that's tightly integrated with their own software). When Go…

> Apple and Google are in two different businesses. When Apple has a unified ecosystem, they limit what you can install/do right out of the box (they sell hardware that's tightly integrated with their own software). When Google has a unified ecosystem, they collect more information about you through different services.

Spot on. For example Google knows my exact porn-searches the moment I make them, either through their search-engine logs or directly through Chrome. Now imagine if it were to surface that Apple somehow logs and sends back to some server in Cupertino all porn-related searches made by MacBook-owners... (I chose "porn" as an example because it's a sensitive topic, I could as well have chosen "drugs", "depression", "cancer cure", "tax evasion" and so on).

Re: Google is FUBAR

#35
post #12

> Nothing happens on an Apple device without Cupertino’s knowledge, and as a result Apple can perfectly tailor its devices for it users (and ratchet up record-breaking quarterly earnings in the process). Are Apple's devices "perfectly tailored for it[s] users"? I don't see any of that tailoring when I use them. The reason why Apple ratchets up record-breaking earnings is that they build things people want; they build…

OTOH, we might discover adding a social dimension to search results may yield better results for a substantial chunk of the general population. If I am looking for a how-to, knowing whether my geek friends found it useful would be a good indicator.

It has to be carefully balanced to avoid forming social echo chambers and perpetuating instantaneous events, but, in the end, it may prove useful.

And it's a bit of exaggeration when people gets worried about privacy when they voluntarily submit the data to the very machines they fear.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#36
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently when Apple has a unified ecosystem, the purpose is to "perfectly tailor its devices to its users" but if Google does it, it's "maniacal" and "tyrannical"? The state of tech blogging is so, so poor.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I might have outdated knowledge since I don't really use Apple products a whole lot), but you can use a Mac or iPod/iPad without having your personal data stored with Apple. Apple and Google are in two different businesses. When Apple has a unified ecosystem, they limit what you can install/do right out of the box (they sell hardware that's tightly integrated with their own software). When Go…

Yes, I'd agree with you that tight integration for Apple and Google provide different kinds of "systemic risk".

For Google, the risk is they control too much of your information.

For Apple, when Apple owns the entire software and hardware stack, the market price of hardware skyrockets (the opposite of the effect Microsoft had by commoditizing hardware), and by its monopoly on App Stores for iPads/iPhones, it is able to gouge content creators for ~30% of the price of books/apps.

IMO, tight integration of BOTH of these companies is bad for society, but I found the author's singling out of Google to be unwarranted.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#37
post #22

It just occurred to me a main reason they chose "Don't be evil" as their slogan. The foundation of the company is a slippery slope that will forever motivate it to get more personal information and to do more with it -- generally meaning profiting from that personal information in ways people don't know about. Also, they will forever be asked or demanded that information from governments and other companies who want…

>It just occurred to me a main reason they chose "Don't be evil" as their slogan. The foundation of the company is a slippery slope

They came up with the "don't be evil" thing when they were young idealistic hipsters who just wanted to be different from the suit-wearing status quo. They had no idea of how big they would eventually become so it had nothing to do with reminding them of the "slipperly slope".

The moment large amounts of money becomes involved the whole "don't be evil" think goes out the window pretty fast.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#38
post #12

> Nothing happens on an Apple device without Cupertino’s knowledge, and as a result Apple can perfectly tailor its devices for it users (and ratchet up record-breaking quarterly earnings in the process). Are Apple's devices "perfectly tailored for it[s] users"? I don't see any of that tailoring when I use them. The reason why Apple ratchets up record-breaking earnings is that they build things people want; they build…

I couldn't agree more with the part about the search.

It looks like they're in a bad position already if they plan to deploy such a feature. I'm guessing they're having some internal issues, they must be concerned with their situation as a company.

'Don't be evil' went down the drain in the meantime.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#39
post #5

I'm really surprised that Google is moving towards a more integrated/proprietary/closed platform. Their advantage was always that they were able to make the chaos of the web sensible to navigate. As a trendsetter in terms of openness they were protecting their own best interests by influencing others to be open (and thus crawlable) as well. I guess Google has decided that the content stored in the walled gardens of o…

What do you mean by Google is moving towards a closed platform?

Re: Google is FUBAR

#40
Although I don't like the way Google is starting to control too much online, I believe that using the social network and other information to influence search and other services is the future.

Google’s move towards social search could be the most significant change in the way we use the web since the beginning of Google itself. Consider that with this move, Google is actually moving away from their flagship Pagerank algorithm.

Google has already mentioned it wants to hold our online identity and others have speculated that Google wants to be a “reputation engine” (http://rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2011/08/breaking-g...).

It is not difficult to see that the next step is to make search results dependent on reputation and on the trust friends and +1’d organisations have in particular websites.

Difficulty to establish identity and trust is one of the main shortcomings of the web compared to the real world, especially when doing business. It is much easier to judge character and establish trust in a local face to face relationship than on the web. Locally we can observe others interacting with a person of interest or ask questions to neighbors who are likely to have some knowledge about each other.

I have been interested in algorithmic trust metrics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_metric) for a while. If I was starting grad school over, I think I might have picked this field for my research. Things like Subjective logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_logic) are similar to the way humans establish trust in real life and search engines could improve their results by using it. There are ways to quantify not only direct relationships but also indirect ones where one can trust an entity because some other trusted party, trusts them. The fact that we are all connected by few degrees of separation (some say at most six) makes this truly powerful.

It is probably too computationally expensive to generate a complete global trust network for each google+ user but a team of smart engineers should be able to cluster users with similar opinions or apply the relevant algorithms greedily. Although it is a computationally difficult problem, Google might just be the company that has enough servers to throw at the problem.

The trust network paradigm isn’t limited to search. When plugged into a global trust engine, people or organisations that do transactions online, on eBay for example, could forgo the need to rely on vast amounts of random customer feedback to establish trust but instead users could request to see a trust path from themselves to a target person before doing business. This means that new eBay users could bring their reputation from elsewhere with them when just starting to sell. Inversely, it may become possible for google+ users to "+1" eBay’s reputation system and their search results would then contain things that people with good reputation on eBay have +1’d or linked to.

The transition from rankings based on random websites’ link contents which often include SEO manipulations to rankings based on individually chosen trusted sources has the potential to be revolutionary. I can’t wait for the day when each search result is accompanied by text stating “recommended this because you +1’d this guy who +1’d this organisation who links a lot to this site.” The mechanism could be used in every kind of relationships and might help picking new employees, friends, doctors or even politicians.

I hope Google doesn't become a monopoly in this, like many people I am unconformable with their growing reach. However, if they manage to provide a transparent trust network and provide better search results based on it, it will add a lot of value to the web.

tl;dr I suspect Google wants all its services integrated with social because it is trying to build a trust network.

Post reply on HN