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

The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

robinsloan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 258 posts

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#121

Post by gvb »

llimllib wrote: post #112
ajross wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But again, Google did all that stuff too (almost 1:1, even -- remember that G+ is a facebook clone). And somehow they also found time to make self driving cars, a first tier mobile operating system, ChromsOS, a Dropbox clone, these ridiculous glasses, etc... Facebook just looks pretty lame in comparison, sorry.

> Google did all that stuff too (almost 1:1, even -- remember that G+ is a facebook clone That misses qq66's point; G+ isn't a 1:1 clone exactly because it doesn't do anything like a quarter billion photos per day. I'm not doubting G's potential to handle Facebook scale, but they're very far away from it right now.

What about Youtube? Picassa? Indexing the whole internet? That is some amazing scale.

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#122

Post by katbyte »

llimllib wrote: post #112
ajross wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But again, Google did all that stuff too (almost 1:1, even -- remember that G+ is a facebook clone). And somehow they also found time to make self driving cars, a first tier mobile operating system, ChromsOS, a Dropbox clone, these ridiculous glasses, etc... Facebook just looks pretty lame in comparison, sorry.

> Google did all that stuff too (almost 1:1, even -- remember that G+ is a facebook clone That misses qq66's point; G+ isn't a 1:1 clone exactly because it doesn't do anything like a quarter billion photos per day. I'm not doubting G's potential to handle Facebook scale, but they're very far away from it right now.

I would say the scales youtube and google search operate at show that they could easily handle google+ at facebook's scale.

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#123

Post by planetguy »

pemulis wrote: post #61
Splines wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you make wearing a headpiece cool? I wear glasses and imagine some teeny tiny thing embedded in one of the arms. What could 20/20 people do that would be socially acceptable? Maybe a bluetooth headset looking thing?

Make them exclusive. Only let a handful of people wear them, so that they become a social status symbol. Make them so rare that people share photos of them "in the wild" like they were pictures of celebrities. The early announcement and slow public roll-out are necessary for pragmatic reasons -- you can't test Glass in the real world if you're trying to keep it secret -- but I think it's also a brilliant marketing st…

Nope, as far as I'm concerned they're still gonna be dorky. Wearing electronics on your face is irredeemably dorky, and I don't see any way around that.

Electronics in your pocket: cool

Electronics in your hand: cool

Electronics hanging out of your ears: cool

Electronics on your head, face, or built into your clothing: irredeemably uncool.

I can't explain why in words, all I can tell you is that the world sees these things differently. If you don't understand why computer-enabled glasses are unavoidably dorky then I can't explain it to you, but I'm pretty sure it's the case.

edit: That's not to say they won't sell well, to certain people. I envisage engineers on building sites walking around with 'em, or travelling salesmen, or police officers, or... I dunno, there's gotta be lots of good use cases for these sorts of things. But the very utility of 'em makes 'em desperately uncool, like Bluetooth earpieces.

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#124

Post by katbyte »

confluence wrote: post #120
mkinsella wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting point. However, I'll disagree with Amazon.com. Purchasing real world products is much more than just a database frontend.

If you're talking about warehousing/logistics - that is true. However they only did it because they had to reduce costs and simplify processing. I'm pretty sure Amazon would be much happier to just dropship by making an API call to third party logistics - which is essentially an inventory database from Amazon's point of view - but they are just too big now . I think they still do that with long tail items (don't stor…

Would not having a 3rd party handle the logistics cut into their profit margins? I would assume because they do it in house and at such a large scale they save money vs hiring a 3rd party that would want their own cut raising logistic costs.

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#125

Post by planetguy »

toemetoch wrote: post #81
grandalf wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A camera that takes images comparable to a picture taken on a current iPhone? For every frame (such as in a video) the amount of work involved to reduce boredom increases. Raw video of people's lives is utterly, unimaginably boring, even if the person is a celebrity. Still photos work b/c they capture a whole moment, with just enough detail to inspire the imagination and to ground the imaginings in reality. My person…

It's not the device, it's the applications people will crave. Think about these apps for your glasses: - adBlocker to remove ads from your view - first person shooter missions with google maps integration. All you need is an empty cow-pasture. - architects/renovators guiding people through their new/renovated house before the contract' signed. - ... You're suffering from a serious lack of realism if you discard them…

adBlocker to remove ads from your view

I hate ads, but not quite enough to go round blocking portions of my vision just to avoid seeing 'em. I envisage myself getting run over by an advertising-covered bus.

first person shooter missions with google maps integration. All you need is an empty cow-pasture

Sounds fun, but niche. Laser Tag isn't a big industry.

architects/renovators guiding people through their new/renovated house before the contract' signed

That's more the sort of application I'd envisage.

Or how about this? Imagine a store you'd walk into, get issued a pair of glasses, then you could walk around, look at things, and have information about 'em magically appear? How cool would that be? Answer: awesomely cool... the first time. In year one, that store would be the coolest thing on the planet. But the fiftieth time you go in there.... meh.

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#126

Post by cbr »

gcb wrote: post #70
swalsh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sir I challenge you to a bet, $100 to our respective favorite charities. In my opinion Google Glass is set to be a game changer from the start. I wager that when google glass is launched, it will be a cultural icon no more than 1.5 years later. It's clear WHY google needs glass. Owning the channel between my eyes and the world is a huge potential pot of money. Targeted ads have a lot of potential to disrupt the ad sp…

1. i don't believe in paying third party charity 2. you think all that for the same reason I also think all that: Wishful thinking... but deep inside i can see the truth. we are the hippies-yuppies who will buy it :) put yourself on the shoes of people hearing about the newton back then: handwriting recognition!! how wouldn't want that instead of a 3x4 phone keyboard? Turned out 99.9% prefered T9. it's all the same.…

> i don't believe in paying third party charity

Why? Some are really good: http://givewell.org/international/top-charities/

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#127

Post by albertzeyer »

Google needs to have some sort of brain interface to project glass. I.e. control it via your mind.

The speaking out loud is distracting. It wont work. It's too complicated. And nobody wants to talk with his glasses (like noone wants to talk to Siri in public). People will not use it.

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#128

Post by groaner »

qq66 wrote: post #79
gfosco wrote: post #2

It is unfortunate they are both scary companies. They both know too much about their users, and their users connections. Even if you don't have a Facebook account, there is probably still some evidence of you in their system. Unlike Facebook, it would be pretty hard to not use Google at all, but it's at least possible to use their services and remain unidentified. Photos are over-rated, but tell that to the ~500 mill…

It's effectively impossible to avoid being visible to Facebook, since hundreds of thousands of websites implement the Facebook "Like" button which makes huge amounts of your browsing activity visible to them (by IP address if you're not logged into Facebook).

Not if you invoke the nuclear option and put every facebook domain (including the fbcdn stuff) in your hosts file as 0.0.0.0

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#129

Post by icebraining »

llimllib wrote: post #112
ajross wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But again, Google did all that stuff too (almost 1:1, even -- remember that G+ is a facebook clone). And somehow they also found time to make self driving cars, a first tier mobile operating system, ChromsOS, a Dropbox clone, these ridiculous glasses, etc... Facebook just looks pretty lame in comparison, sorry.

> Google did all that stuff too (almost 1:1, even -- remember that G+ is a facebook clone That misses qq66's point; G+ isn't a 1:1 clone exactly because it doesn't do anything like a quarter billion photos per day. I'm not doubting G's potential to handle Facebook scale, but they're very far away from it right now.

Youtube handles 3.7x10⁹ frames per day (assuming 12 fps video, which is a low estimate). That's 3.7 billion frames that have to be converted and checked against an enourmous database of copyrighted content.

You're right that G+ doesn't, but FB doesn't have anything on Google on scaling.

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#130

Post by fennecfoxen »

guelo wrote: post #114

I'm not sure I understand this article. What is it that he imagines actors and athletes doing that they don't do with Twitter now? People hold up their phones pretty close to their face when capturing photos and videos so it is already the first person POV. And it is pretty easy to do, I'm sure it will be harder taking pics with Glass than a phone, it is more flexible taking pictures with your hands than your face. T…

He imagines that the feed from, oh, say, a baseball player? (football is too violent) will, someday, be wearing one of these, and then you'll get to see the game from their perspective while they're doing other things, and it'll be awesome.

... I'll believe it's awesome, with copious amounts of editing. If you're just watching it raw, it'll be disorienting and shaky and distracting. :P I'm also dubious exactly what baseball team would bother to wear these things in the general case. Presumably they would just be a distraction to the players. Maybe someone like, oh, downhill skiiers would have a better time of things?

Post reply on HN