41–50 of 70 posts
Funny APPL has a market cap (624B) that is bigger than Google (248) and "wintel" (248 + 115 = 363) combined . Seriously, that Google has lapped the larger part of what was the Microsoft / Intel juggernaut of the last century is notable of course, but I wonder if its the wrong question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget the work on self-driving cars. Once that becomes more commonplace technology, I think you'll see the stock increase dramatically. Every industry with the logistics of moving stuff from point A to point B not on rail could eventually be affected by the work they are doing. Once you can automate that you've effectively reduced tons of problems to automated packet-switching.
And Glass, and Fiber, and Android, and whatever else GoogleX might be working on......Google is quite diversified in its strategies.
This isn't about bandwidth. It's about content. The only thing standing
between YouTube and the CableTV providers is bandwidth.
If Google cracks the bandwidth nut, they can essentially replace TimeWarner,
Comcast, etc. in one fell swoop because they can easily replace 100% of the
services those companies offer at a fraction of the cost.
...
I think Google has a kind of purpose and drive which will take it very very far. They want to "organize the world's information", but that's less than half the story - an even bigger challenge is making all this information not only understandable and usable to humans but making it all work seamlessly together - a monumental task they are barely getting started at. Unrelated (but necessary) they also seem to be doing…
There is a lot I don't like about Google, but Google Maps, Project Glass, and the automated cars are nothing but inspiring. Just the fact that they transported us to other countries so everyone with an internet connection could go to Paris is laudable. And now they're going to explore the final frontier of Earth underwater. After iPhone and iPad, like them or not, Google is the one of the "big" companies the most inv…
As you get information regarding what you're seeing, Google is logging everything you see.
A map with with a line detailing everywhere you've been over the course of years. A video displaying everything you saw on your real trip to Paris or wherever else-- not based on what you saw that day, but based on the information Google has about that area, those landmarks, etc.
Privacy could cease to exist while you're wearing Google Glass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a lot I don't like about Google, but Google Maps, Project Glass, and the automated cars are nothing but inspiring. Just the fact that they transported us to other countries so everyone with an internet connection could go to Paris is laudable. And now they're going to explore the final frontier of Earth underwater. After iPhone and iPad, like them or not, Google is the one of the "big" companies the most inv…
Though Glass is amazing, it will give a whole new meaning to tracking user information. As you get information regarding what you're seeing, Google is logging everything you see. A map with with a line detailing everywhere you've been over the course of years. A video displaying everything you saw on your real trip to Paris or wherever else-- not based on what you saw that day, but based on the information Google has…
Taking a paranoid and oversimplified approach to privacy makes it's more difficult to have the complex, nuanced discussions necessary to actually protect privacy in meaningful ways.
PC loses to Web ads is more likely. I think Google's got better at getting people to click on ads. For example, one of the following is a search result and the other is an ad. How many people can differentiate between them on various monitors? http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png I remember the time when Google differentiated itself by clearly marking ads, now it's no longer true for high value keywords.
Saying that the PC loses to the web is like saying that cars lose to the new highway. Sure, maybe everyone is replacing their car with a motorcycle, but then the car is losing to the motorcycle, not the highway.
The PC as a platform for running your applications and holding your data is on its way out, being replaced by the web. The PC, the box you run your browser on, will remain, but the applications you run will only see the browser on one side and their Unix-like OS on the other.
Funny APPL has a market cap (624B) that is bigger than Google (248) and "wintel" (248 + 115 = 363) combined . Seriously, that Google has lapped the larger part of what was the Microsoft / Intel juggernaut of the last century is notable of course, but I wonder if its the wrong question.
Tiny correction since I see this mistake often (and I was making it myself in the past): the symbole for Apple is AAPL, not APPL. Not intuitive like Apple is supposed to be, huh? :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Glass, and Fiber, and Android, and whatever else GoogleX might be working on......Google is quite diversified in its strategies.
Oh yeah, forgot those too. I'm especially bullish on Fiber. I made this comment about Fiber a few weeks ago: This isn't about bandwidth. It's about content. The only thing standing between YouTube and the CableTV providers is bandwidth. If Google cracks the bandwidth nut, they can essentially replace TimeWarner, Comcast, etc. in one fell swoop because they can easily replace 100% of the services those companies offer…
The reality is that as long as we have privately owned and operated metro networks, google's bandwidth access will be limited to the few metro areas that consent to their access requirements (and that's assuming the big telcos aren't able to successfully lobby against this incentive, as they've been successful in doing in the past).
The answer is publically owned, and privately operated metro networks. This is a dream that will never come to pass in America, and Google's ambition will remain just that: an unrealized dream.
Sorry for being such a Debbie downer, but bandwidth in the US is a really massive problem that won't be solved by one search engine or one company. We really need a national reform effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might be easier to tell the ad from the search result if you hadn't cut out the part that reads, and I quote: "Ads related to mesothelioma:" Stop this trolling. You're quite simply lying to people with that kind of nonsense. It doesn't belong anywhere, much less here.
I looked at the original search and while this text is there, and there's a colored highlight over the ads, I could imagine myself clicking the ad accidentally in a hurry, or someone less knowledgeable about the way Google runs Adwords to confuse the two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though Glass is amazing, it will give a whole new meaning to tracking user information. As you get information regarding what you're seeing, Google is logging everything you see. A map with with a line detailing everywhere you've been over the course of years. A video displaying everything you saw on your real trip to Paris or wherever else-- not based on what you saw that day, but based on the information Google has…
Recording alone is doesn't equate to a loss of privacy. If you kept detailed written notes on everywhere you go, as long as those notes don't get disclosed to anyone else, you haven't lost any privacy. Taking a paranoid and oversimplified approach to privacy makes it's more difficult to have the complex, nuanced discussions necessary to actually protect privacy in meaningful ways.
Keeping detailed notes on everywhere you go isn't something that would be done as lightly as putting on a pair of glasses. You would consider the implications of the existence of that data before keeping it. With something like Glass, that part of the process gets skipped.
The argument for trusting Google with your data is that their privacy policy keeps your data safe. I don't doubt that Google has the best of intentions, but that doesn't mean my data is safe. A snooping employee, a change in policy that isn't necessarily over the line but isn't comforting either, security breaches, subpoenas (in the spirit of http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/8/twitter-fight...). There are a lot of ways that having that data in someone else's pocket can backfire.
Yes, it would be fine if there were some guarantee that no one could ever see my data. There isn't. It was not my intention to oversimplify anything. The last thing I want is to cause damage to the cause.
Edit: grammar
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh yeah, forgot those too. I'm especially bullish on Fiber. I made this comment about Fiber a few weeks ago: This isn't about bandwidth. It's about content. The only thing standing between YouTube and the CableTV providers is bandwidth. If Google cracks the bandwidth nut, they can essentially replace TimeWarner, Comcast, etc. in one fell swoop because they can easily replace 100% of the services those companies offer…
I think that you're ignoring the reality of getting into the telco business. Google is hardly the first company to jump into the bandwidth market, but without the corporate welfare they got in KC, they wouldn't have been able to build their network. The reality is that as long as we have privately owned and operated metro networks, google's bandwidth access will be limited to the few metro areas that consent to their…
Google (or whoever else) could simply create their own suburbs/towns/cities from scratch, streamlined construction and all, on cheap land bought in bulk in the desert out west. Not everyone would move, but many people would, especially if it was all managed by what they perceive as a trustable tech-savvy company like google. The might even cost them nothing if they would simply ask for pre-sale deposits.
It's a crazy idea but there's nothing difficult technically or financially to make it happen. There's probably at least 1 million customers who would sign up day 1.