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

161–170 of 258 posts

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

#161

Post by markmark »

falling wrote: post #39
51Cards wrote: post #33

"Google is getting good, really good, at building things that see the world around them and actually understand what they’re seeing." That statement spells it for me. With Google I see research, I see pushing tech boundaries and hardware experiments, I see new ways to interpret the world. With Facebook I see a huge lump of data but nothing really too groundbreaking. I don't deny Facebook's momentum... it's huge and i…

With Google you see research (which is of course commendable), but so far they haven’t been able to produce profit from anything else than ads, so I would call that research awesome, useful, beautiful, but not (yet) future proof for the company.

You hear this a lot (Google is an advertising company, they make 95% of their money from ads). But by that metric many companies are ad companies. Pretty much every web site on the web is just an ad company, because that is how they actually make money, most of the television and radio industries are just ad companies, because that is how they make money.

From http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html if I'm reading it right, 69% of their revenue comes from ads on their own sites. For mine that deserves to be counted as "technology company revenue" not "advertising company revenue". If they didn't have their own ad arm they still would have made a big chunk of that 69% by using some other company to show ads on gmail, youtube and their search page, but if they were only an advertising company they would have just made the 27% that was pure "advertising on other sites" revenue. Just because youtube makes money by showing ads, doesn't make youtube not profitable.

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

#162

Post by manpreets7 »

planetguy wrote: post #123
pemulis wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A lot of people used to carry pens on their shirts. Many still do. Now using bluetooth earpieces is commonplace. I am sure people will get used to using very tiny gadgets on their clothing or ears if they assist them in meaningful ways.

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

#163

Post by sopooneo »

StavrosK wrote: post #89
51Cards wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one little thought I would add to that is that when Google first started working on a self driving car everyone went "WTF is a search company doing..". Now, X years later... it's a different story. People have started to really think about self-driving vehicles and autonomous travel. I don't see Glass at this point... but I didn't see practical self driving cars 6 years ago either, let alone states licensing them…

Google isn't a search company, it's an AI/ML company.

Google itself didn't help, so could you? What is AI/ML? I suppose the AI part is artificial intelligence?

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

#164

Post by detst »

taligent wrote: post #154
detst wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that's a waste, then I don't really know what else is meaningful in life. The "strong tie"? I'm just not so sure changing the "weak tie" is such a net positive for society. I'm not going to claim that FB doesn't have its positives but I'd rather see a society building strong ties with fewer people than weak ties with many. (and, frankly, doing nothing but wasting time for hours per day)

How is communicating with people on Facebook a greater waste of times than playing games, being on here, chatting with friends, watching movies etc. It's funny because your entire comment is self contradictory. On one hand you criticise socialising using Facebook and on the other want to build stronger ties. Socialising = Stronger ties.

I explicitly stated that FB has its positives. But wasting hours doing anything is bad. FB stalking people != stronger ties. It's a problem many people face, along with excessive gaming, etc.

I criticize the assertion that changing weak ties, in the way FB does, is a net positive for society. It's one thing to reconnect with an old friend, it's another to spend time everyday browsing through pictures of people you haven't seen in 10 years. Too much of the latter happens on FB.

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

#165

Post by cpenner461 »

sopooneo wrote: post #163
StavrosK wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google isn't a search company, it's an AI/ML company.

Google itself didn't help, so could you? What is AI/ML? I suppose the AI part is artificial intelligence?

I think you're right for AI, and I'd gander Machine Learning for the other.

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

#166

Post by ajross »

ececconi wrote: post #92
ajross wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of truth to this (though I'm generally a big skeptic when people talk about "research" in the abstract; and I remain genunienly "WTF are they thinking!?" about Glass). Google tries stuff, fails a lot, and stumbles on as many successes as they engineer. Facebook has executed really well on their core stuff, but... what else? I mean, they've been on a huge hiring binge now for four years. What do they hav…

Connecting people and giving them a new way to communicate with each other is a big waste to society? Facebook has fundamentally changed the idea of the weak tie for many people. If that's a waste, then I don't really know what else is meaningful in life.

To be clear: I didn't say that Facebook was a waste. I said that Facebook's engineering effort was wasted, relative to the societal benefit (pick your definition) we see from the equivalent people at Google. And by extension, I made the point that Facebook hiring all these people was a net loss to society, because it didn't do anything but make an already good product a little better.

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

#167

Post by planetguy »

manpreets7 wrote: post #162
planetguy wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A lot of people used to carry pens on their shirts. Many still do. Now using bluetooth earpieces is commonplace. I am sure people will get used to using very tiny gadgets on their clothing or ears if they assist them in meaningful ways.

A lot of people used to carry pens on their shirts

Isn't "pens in the front pocket" a defining characteristic of a 1950s-era nerd?

Now using bluetooth earpieces is commonplace

Sure, among two classes of people: travelling salesmen and complete toolbags.

I am sure people will get used to using very tiny gadgets on their clothing or ears if they assist them in meaningful ways.

Oh sure, I'm just arguing that it'll never be cool.

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

#168

Post by ori_b »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #136
fennecfoxen wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Go to youtube right now and watch any number of first person downhill skiing videos. What does Glass add to that?

Convenience

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

#169

Post by ori_b »

jwallaceparker wrote: post #111

re: Google Glasses I can never wear a pair of glasses that has a 3G connection. For better or for worse, I experience heightened ElectroSensitivity to the point where a 3G device that's operating within a few feet of me gives me a headache. Most mobile carriers are already starting to deprecate their 2G networks. Wearable wireless devices like Google Glasses will be a hazard for me, and many others. Within the next f…

I find that hard to believe. Have a friend put a box beside you. Ask him to flip a coin every day for a week. If it comes up heads, he will put a 3g phone in that box. Otherwise, it should be empty.

I will bet you that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

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

#170

Post by frou_dh »

pessimizer wrote: post #21
dfxm12 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate how a picture taken with a camera you wear like glasses "devalues humanity and values voyeurism and narcissism over family" compared to a picture taken with a more (I guess) traditional camera?

A camera is alienating, and a camera that you constantly wear is even more alienating; like a locked cell is more imprisoning than a locked country. Recommendation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mirror_%28TV_series%29#3...

Thanks for reminding me about Black Mirror. Watched all 3 for the first time today. Bloody good, all.
Post reply on HN