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

Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

businessweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#51

Post by zmmmmm »

It's funny to call it "PC loses to Web" when MS doesn't actually make the PC but the software that runs on the PC. Whether you use Google or Microsoft, you are using a "PC" in the terms of the article. One might say that it is more about a three way contest where MS is losing mainly to Apple, depressing their price down lower than Google, and Google is going up for other reasons.

To the extent it is about Google, this is really about commoditization of software : Google is commodotizing the whole OS into the (free) browser. They are commodotizing office software into free Google Apps. They are showing that if you do it at scale and over the web you can operate at such efficiency that you basically give people all this stuff Microsoft charges for and still make huge amounts of money from the advertising revenue, or you can have pay model where the costs are an order of magnitude less than what MS needs to survive in its current form.

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#52

Post by therandomguy »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #32
ajross wrote: post #28

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.

Relax, why not post a full screenshot yourself? Sorry I am on a mobile device right now or I would, but the point is that the text you quoted is two ad results above. So while scanning results, it's easy to not notice the subtle background change between those two results. It's hard to see where the ads end and the results begin, that's why I highlighted the part between the ad and the search result. If someone can p…

http://i.imgur.com/QfX5I.jpg

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#53

Post by tomkarlo »

nsmartt wrote: post #49
tomkarlo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't agree with your accusation of paranoia. 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.…

It's not paranoid when you include the caveats, as you do here. But to simply say that "Privacy could cease to exist while you're wearing Google Glass" is fear mongering, or paranoia. That statement is both staggerly broad in nature and at the same time, unqualified.

At least Google Glass is an _opt-in_ form of monitoring and observation. If you don't want to wear it, you don't have to. If you want to take it off, you can. Those aspects alone mean it's a lot less worrisome than existing, and much more involuntary, invasions of our privacy.

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#54

Post by qq66 »

codeka wrote: post #48
qq66 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess I don't really understand the problem here. If the ad is just as relevant (and if you're going to click it, thinking its part of the results, then I assume it is), what's the problem? If you don't like ads, use an ad blocker.

The title of a link isn't what makes it just as relevant -- if that was the case, what's all of Google's magic sauce for? Google does a pretty good job of ranking relevance, then sells the first spot to the highest bidder. It's a competely normal and ethical business model, but I can easily imagine people being ignorant of this.

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#55

Post by marshray »

josh2600 wrote: post #47
malandrew wrote: post #42

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…

My impression is that Fiber is a project for the same reason that Chrome was developed. Not for profit per se.

Google depends on people having a good browser and a good connection to the net. Competition and progress had stagnated in the existing markets. By bringing out Chrome, they got Microsoft and Mozilla interested in security and excited about implementing new stuff again.

Hopefully they can do it for broadband too.

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#56

Post by marshray »

tomkarlo wrote: post #53
nsmartt wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with your accusation of paranoia. 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.…

It's not paranoid when you include the caveats, as you do here. But to simply say that "Privacy could cease to exist while you're wearing Google Glass" is fear mongering, or paranoia. That statement is both staggerly broad in nature and at the same time, unqualified. At least Google Glass is an _opt-in_ form of monitoring and observation. If you don't want to wear it, you don't have to. If you want to take it off, yo…

Privacy could cease to exist while you're wearing Google Glass

Sounds about right to me and I'd be extremely skeptical of any claims to the contrary. The default result of any data entering a computer system owned by someone else is that it is no longer private. Specifically the US, the government considers any data held by a commercial entity to be fair game.

Compare to:

Privacy could cease to exist while you're chatting on Facebook

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#57

Post by jebblue »

1) PC stands for Personal Computer. It is not synonymous with Microsoft or Windows. Personal Computer.

2) The web is useless with out Personal Computers or personal computing devices such as smart phones so the web hasn't lost to the PC and the PC hasn't lost to the web, they need each other.

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#58

Post by Cacen »

tomkarlo wrote: post #53
nsmartt wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with your accusation of paranoia. 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.…

It's not paranoid when you include the caveats, as you do here. But to simply say that "Privacy could cease to exist while you're wearing Google Glass" is fear mongering, or paranoia. That statement is both staggerly broad in nature and at the same time, unqualified. At least Google Glass is an _opt-in_ form of monitoring and observation. If you don't want to wear it, you don't have to. If you want to take it off, yo…

My assumption was that it wouldn't necessary to outline the caveats. As I said in my response to your criticism, it wasn't my intention to be detrimental to my own cause. I'll keep in mind that I need to provide such details when voicing concerns in the future.

As for your second paragraph, I already voiced my concerns on that. The implications of opting-in are not well-considered by the average consumer. It's taken for granted that personal data is protected.

Posting this for nsmartt because maxvisit.

Re: Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web

#59

Post by [deleted] »

r3m6 wrote: post #11
recoiledsnake wrote: post #8

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.

Yep. Google is still a one trick pony when it comes to revenue: Advertising revenue in 2011 was 97 percent of Google's revenue!

[deleted]
Post reply on HN