Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by polshaw » Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 2:31 AM UTC

nsmartt wrote: post #43

kmfrk wrote: post #36

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…

> A map with with a line detailing everywhere you've been over the course of years...

Sort of like.. hmm.. cell phones?

You lost this privacy years ago, at least to governments.

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

#62

Post by xibernetik » Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 2:32 AM UTC

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…

Opt-in for the user, but not opt-in for the people around them. I don't get to choose to not be recorded. Compounded with modern law stating if you're in public, you can be legally recorded, and that it's already difficult enough as is to explain to people you'd rather they not tag you as being at a location or to take photos and instantly upload them... It's really worrisome. The only reason it isn't is because it's not popular.

If you "have nothing to hide", it's not a big deal. If you're fighting for custody of your child, transgender, gay, a targeted minority, visit a psychologist regularly, or even just happen to do a few things one day that could be misconstrued, all of a sudden, the potential of it taking off becomes a very big deal - sometimes much more so than current privacy issues.

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

#63

Post by madrona » Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 3:35 AM UTC

cooldeal wrote: post #24

jamesaguilar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are limits to the amount of due diligence companies should have to do to ensure that people know they are clicking on ads. Anyone who is interested in avoiding clicking on ads will easily identify Google's, or not see them at all via a software solution. For the rest, there's not much short of an acknowledgement overlay that will get the message across reliably (for text ads -- image ads are easier, but google…

>There are limits to the amount of due diligence companies should have to do to ensure that people know they are clicking on ads. There are also limits on disguising search results as ads. >For the rest, there's not much short of an acknowledgement overlay that will get the message across reliably (for text ads -- image ads are easier, but google doesn't have them) Really? Just increasing the contrast or adding a bor…

Which search engine does it better?

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

#64

Post by arbitrarywords » Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 6:49 AM UTC

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…

I can't remember exactly when, but they clearly changed the colour difference to be much more subtle at some point. At home I see the difference, but on the work dell monitors you can only tell where the ads stop if you view the screen from a very low angle...

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

#65

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 7:11 AM UTC

jebblue wrote: post #57

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.

[deleted]

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

#66

Post by nostrademons » Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 8:14 AM UTC

paul wrote: post #16

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #14

Weak signal given the size of the companies and their volatilities. Let's observe the quoted, albeit stale, Google market capitalisation of $249.2 billion with a current vega-weighted mean implied volatility (market's opinion of what Google's volatility will be) of 31.12% and the quoted Microsoft market cap of $248.7 billion with an IV index of 22.51%. The question is, assuming these two Gaussian random variables var…

It's still a rather remarkable milestone. In a relatively short amount of time, the #1 "unstoppable" company in tech was passed by both it's smaller competitor (Apple) and an entirely new company (Google).

It makes me wonder if both Apple and Google will, in a relatively short amount of time, be surpassed by a company that doesn't exist yet.

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

#67

Post by nsmartt » Tue, Oct 02, 2012, 12:44 PM UTC

polshaw wrote: post #61

nsmartt wrote: post #43

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…

> A map with with a line detailing everywhere you've been over the course of years... Sort of like.. hmm.. cell phones? You lost this privacy years ago, at least to governments.

Yes, like cell phones, but no.

Privacy hasn't died yet. The problem isn't that Google Glass exists or that cell phones exist. The problem is awareness. The problem is the same for cell phones.

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

#68

Post by brlewis » Wed, Oct 03, 2012, 8:27 PM UTC

qq66 wrote: post #54

codeka wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bid is only one factor. See http://support.google.com/adwords/bin/answer.py?hl=en&an...

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

#69

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Oct 04, 2012, 7:07 AM UTC

marshallp wrote: post #50

josh2600 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's an "out there" way to skirt all of that. 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 wou…

Yeah, because ditching the urban infrastructure we'd developed from the 1600s to 1940 worked out so well for us in the last half of the 20th Century.

Better to create urban islands to both increase the re-urbanization trend and make the US overall more efficient, and extend those out.

Transportation, distribution and logistics, communications, and other infrastructure would be radically simplified.

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

#70

Post by tomkarlo » Sat, Oct 06, 2012, 12:04 AM UTC

xibernetik wrote: post #62

tomkarlo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Opt-in for the user, but not opt-in for the people around them. I don't get to choose to not be recorded. Compounded with modern law stating if you're in public, you can be legally recorded, and that it's already difficult enough as is to explain to people you'd rather they not tag you as being at a location or to take photos and instantly upload them... It's really worrisome. The only reason it isn't is because it's…

In that respect it's no different from the hundreds of security cameras most of us pass by each day. If you're doing something in the presence of someone else's view, and you know they're pointing a camera of any type at you, it's hard to argue you have an expectation of privacy.

It's really hard to point at Glass and say it's materially different from the broad array of recording devices already out there. If you're someone trying to avoid being recorded, those are a much bigger problem - they're pervasive, generally have better viewpoints (can see more total area) and often have built-in illumination as well.