Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm ok with that. My issue with Google isn't Single-Sign-On, it's forcing every product into a social-network mold. Although I'm a happy user of Facebook and Twitter, I think SV's social obsession has largely been fruitless. Social does not improve most products and can actually harm them. And now I'm worrying about how "social" is going to be slapped on to my fire alarm.
Can't you create a Google Plus account without adding any friends so that it's only used a Single-Sign-On?
Google to Acquire Nest
481–490 of 590 posts
Re: Google to Acquire Nest
#482Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, and like Android and Youtube. Sarcasm aside, Google has actually done pretty well with acquisitions compared to other companies. (Say ones that begin with "M" or "Y"). You can see the list in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisition...
YouTube was fine when Google wrote checks and got out of the way. Now Larry and co. have their hands all over it and YT is slowly going to shit... from the G+ spam to the annotation spam and of course you need to sign in to keep them turned off (lol maybe!), to "hey let's make you rebuffer the whole video you just watched" to just horrid performance drops in general to "hey we found a way to make YT comments even wor…
Re: Google to Acquire Nest
#483Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I beg all HN users to stop doing Google+ jokes as they're just as unfunny as they're unoriginal.
I'm not convinced they're as much jokes as real concerns by people who have already been burned by this (see: YouTube -- I'm not going to argue about whether or not G+ integration has made these products better, but it's not unreasonable to not want your real-name associated with comments you made under a pseudonym, and to be so annoyingly pestered to do so!)
So no the jokes are not real concerns and are mostly silly intellectually lazy exaggerations.
Re: Google to Acquire Nest
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
This all breaks down to one thing. The government can detain you indefinitely and is equipped to kill you. No private enterprise can do either of these things legally. The government holds deadly force. Private enterprise is going to do some horrifying things with your data, but barring a cyperpunk dystopia, it lacks the capability to end your life.
What exactly are you wishing for here? That the government be prevented from accessing information on you under all circumstances? To my knowledge, a subpoena is usually pretty reasonable circumstances, and it was subpoenas specifically that we were discussing. If you feel otherwise, I would like to hear more.
And yes, while it doesn't matter what they can and cannot do with your data now (unless you're a criminal not much, obviously), if the government ever becomes excessively authoritarian and dictatorial, keep in mind they can retroactively go through all the data they ever gathered on you and find something to string you up with.
Re: Google to Acquire Nest
#485Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm trying to think of a tech acquisition that was favorable, or at the very least not unfavorable for the consumer. It seems like tech (maybe all ) acquisitions almost always favor the buyer and not the consumer. Does anybody have any good examples?
Here are just a few examples: - Keyhole (now Google Maps) - Android Inc. - Motorola Mobility - GrandCentral (now Google Voice) - NeXT - Siri In general, an acquired company initially became successful by bringing value to consumers. When that company is acquired, it gets more resources to bring more value to customers.
Re: Google to Acquire Nest
#486Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, and like Android and Youtube. Sarcasm aside, Google has actually done pretty well with acquisitions compared to other companies. (Say ones that begin with "M" or "Y"). You can see the list in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisition...
YouTube was fine when Google wrote checks and got out of the way. Now Larry and co. have their hands all over it and YT is slowly going to shit... from the G+ spam to the annotation spam and of course you need to sign in to keep them turned off (lol maybe!), to "hey let's make you rebuffer the whole video you just watched" to just horrid performance drops in general to "hey we found a way to make YT comments even wor…
Could they get any worse? Seriously does any normal thinking person really participate and contribute comments in that quagmire? I sometimes I thank Google and Yahoo for creating those honey pots for the internet brain-dead to vent their steam and vitriol, keeping them well away from stuff I like to constructively participate in.
Re: Google to Acquire Nest
#487Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you implying that google did a disservice to the competition by creating a desire for a product and then retiring it with months of warning for competitors to develop their product and attract google's large user base while allowing users to easily migrate their information to those services?
Google did a disservice by creating a free service with which other companies (who need to make a profit) couldn't compete. The only way to make any money in the RSS space was to create something that interfaced with Google Reader (which I know because I spent a lot of time trying to find a good one that didn't). There are parallels to the Internet Explorer/Netscape issue. Google provided a free service to everyone,…
"except instead of taking advantage of their monopoly". Woww way to telegraph the fact that you completely misunderstood the Internet Explorer/Netscape issue. Parallels with IE/Netscape are meaningless if the monopoly _gets thrown away_.
Re: Google to Acquire Nest
#488Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything I just said is the exact opposite of reality, so yes.
Poe's law explains why sarcasm doesn't work on the internet: "Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing." [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law (edit: Poe's Law always reminds me of this SNL skit where Fred Armisen tells Jimmy Fallon that the right way to tell a joke is to use a "catch phrase": http://v…
Re: Google to Acquire Nest
#489Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody, aside from the people on XDA and /r/Android. And maybe a few on HN.
If i'm not mistaken, Google has been dipping it's toes in home automation for some time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_PowerMeter http://mobilesyrup.com/2013/12/17/google-dipping-its-toe-int... To acquire home statistics. Can you imagine the personal data gathering? And the $ value attached to that data? All sweetened with sugar for you to buy the product, connect, and give your data for free. Oh how I would lo…
Re: Google to Acquire Nest
#490Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You could get the same benefit from a device for $30 of electronics. … in theory but there's no evidence that most people actually see those benefits: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revis... I was going to say that you should start a company to produce that competitive $30 thermostat but then you confirmed that you have no idea what you're talking about: > The price doesn't justify the energ…
"but in much of the country people pay many hundreds of dollars every month during the winter or summer. If a smarter thermostat saves 10% of that" Not mathematically / thermodynamically possible, sorry. I live in a cooler area but not the real cold areas up north. During the recent polar vortex, which momentarily was centered over my house (and I'm not kidding) we got down to -15. (70 - -15) = delta t of 85 degrees.…
Beyond that, you're completely missing the point about a smarter thermostat: the savings don't come from the temperature outside is -15° and your heater is running almost constantly. You have to deal with that by adding insulation or living in a colder house. Where many people can save money is waste: when the heating or cooling would have run without benefit – e.g. it's 40° outside and you're paying to keep it over 65° but it'd really be perfectly fine if it drifted down to 50° for the 8+ hours in the middle of the day when everyone's at work. A serious miser will religiously turn it off before they walk out the door but most people won't. Many people even leave the thermostat set at a comfortable temperature because they dislike coming home to a very cold/hot house.
Those people are the ones who will benefit the most from something programmable but unfortunately most of the devices on the market have horrible UIs and none of the $30 ones will do things like detect when you aren't home, which is significant for people who don't have rigidly predictable schedules. Again, it doesn't have to be a game-theoretical optimum – only better than what most people are doing now.
> Unfortunately my heating bills over a very long term only average maybe $100/month, which I'm sure sounds insane to coasties
Head to New England and your new neighbors will complement you on your frugality, as most people have heating bills 4-8 times that high in the winter. Toss in, say, a spike in heating oil costs and anything which reduces inefficiency starts to look pretty cheap. Hint: none of them had McMansions, either – it's just cold during the winter in Connecticut.
> So I can save about $1/month or $12/year. At $300 retail, it'll pay for itself by 2039. Even worse, most will be purchased using a 30% interest rate credit card, making payback time infinite. The 30% interest on the credit card to pay for the $300 thermostat would be $90/year but I'm only saving at best $12/year. Whoops.
When you need to make up numbers so the math makes your argument seem less arbitrary it's time to accept that other people are allowed to make decisions in life without your approval. You're overstating the purchase price by nearly 25% and assuming the worst possible purchase method – and you're doing that for an amount which the average American household spends on cable tv / internet / smartphones every couple of months.
> The final killer problem is I intentionally don't live in a McMansion so I can have a better lifestyle, such as not shivering in the winter. I've already decided to own a 25% smaller house to save 25% on my heating bills, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in saving 10% on my bill by shivering. I'm not paying thousands of dollars a month to shiver in a house when I could be warm and toasty in a hundreds of dollars a month apartment. Nope not happening non-starter totally uninterested. Selling snow to eskimos. Nope.
You do seem to need a lot of external validation for your decisions. Hopefully the smug feelings will keep you warm.