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

SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–158 of 158 posts

Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

#151

Post by etruong42 »

raldi wrote: post #112
aros wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's necessary to repeat this point because of the constant churn of new users who are otherwise ignorant of Google's business model. I still hear people say, "I'm so glad Google is nice enough to give us free apps!"

I don't believe you actually ever heard anyone say that.

I've heard folks say things to that effect. "Google is awesome. They have the best search and email and smartphone software. For free! And they're fighting corrupt ISPs!"

It's nice when Google does things that benefit a lot of people, but they're a for-profit corporation and not motivated primarily by altruism. People might not fully understand that or its significance and simply enjoy Google products, but I think it's useful knowledge.

Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

#152

Post by aros »

raldi wrote: post #112
aros wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's necessary to repeat this point because of the constant churn of new users who are otherwise ignorant of Google's business model. I still hear people say, "I'm so glad Google is nice enough to give us free apps!"

I don't believe you actually ever heard anyone say that.

Fortunately, what you believe doesn't dictate reality.

Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

#153

Post by raldi »

etruong42 wrote: post #151
raldi wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe you actually ever heard anyone say that.

I've heard folks say things to that effect. "Google is awesome. They have the best search and email and smartphone software. For free! And they're fighting corrupt ISPs!" It's nice when Google does things that benefit a lot of people, but they're a for-profit corporation and not motivated primarily by altruism. People might not fully understand that or its significance and simply enjoy Google products, but I think it…

But did you also hear them say, "...and they're doing it as a charity" and then get shocked when you revealed that Google is actually a for-profit organization that makes money via advertising?

Because that's the part I'd find hard to believe.

Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

#154

Post by etruong42 »

raldi wrote: post #153
etruong42 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard folks say things to that effect. "Google is awesome. They have the best search and email and smartphone software. For free! And they're fighting corrupt ISPs!" It's nice when Google does things that benefit a lot of people, but they're a for-profit corporation and not motivated primarily by altruism. People might not fully understand that or its significance and simply enjoy Google products, but I think it…

But did you also hear them say, "...and they're doing it as a charity" and then get shocked when you revealed that Google is actually a for-profit organization that makes money via advertising? Because that's the part I'd find hard to believe.

It's a nuanced point. aros said some people believe Google is "nice" which isn't wrong in my experience. I didn't interpret aros' words to mean that people explicitly deny Google is a for-profit corp nor espouse that it is a charity, but people have expressed warm fuzzies about Google.

My takeaway was that many people produce warm feelings about an entity that doesn't necessarily reciprocate or find those warm feelings important in it of themselves.

I personally like Google (so far). E.g. I could have seen them siding with ISPs, trying to dismantle net neutrality, and using their capital to stifle innovation keeping them at the top.

But if sometime in the future, Google enacts policies that aren't so "nice", people may do well to avoid confusion by remembering that Google isn't inherently "nice", but they are inherently "for-profit".

Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

#155

Post by meric »

eru wrote: post #127
meric wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. They will always have more capability than a non-military satellite, and so will be more expensive. If it didn't have more capability than a non-military satellite, then it isn't a military satellite.

Why? The military might go far a carefully selected subset of capabilities, and get a cheaper price or more reliability out of it.

I meant it had to be different to non-military satellites in some important ways. Otherwise it'd be just a non-military satellite. Imagine buying a consumer-grade computer. It's cheap to get one with 16gb ram, but if you want a 64gb ram one, it would probably vastly more than the 64/16=4 times as expensive. Each step you go out of the non-military satellite capability curve (with multiple dimension including features, reliability), it gets exponentially more expensive. If the a research-grade computer wasn't different from a consumer-grade computer in some aspect (by having a lot of ram, cores, processing speed), it would just be a consumer-grade computer.

A computer that is substantially cheaper would be hobbyist-grade computer.

Of course I'm only talking about traditional military rather than forces like A* Qda which might make do with whatever they can get their hands on, which is probably what you're referring to.

I suppose a very cheap satellite could be terrorist-grade. ;)

Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

#156

Post by eru »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #137
eru wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you spent the money in getting your candidates into senate etc.

The Senate doesn't vote for the military's acquisition process.

Senate was just a filler for `important political position that gets to decide stuff'. Sorry, I'm not too familiar with the intricacies of the American machine.

Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

#157

Post by eru »

meric wrote: post #155
eru wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? The military might go far a carefully selected subset of capabilities, and get a cheaper price or more reliability out of it.

I meant it had to be different to non-military satellites in some important ways. Otherwise it'd be just a non-military satellite. Imagine buying a consumer-grade computer. It's cheap to get one with 16gb ram, but if you want a 64gb ram one, it would probably vastly more than the 64/16=4 times as expensive. Each step you go out of the non-military satellite capability curve (with multiple dimension including features…

You could argue the same the other way 'round.

Just assume that military is the standard, and in order to qualify as consumer, you need to add extra features.

So far your argument is symmetric.

Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash

#158

Post by meric »

eru wrote: post #157
meric wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant it had to be different to non-military satellites in some important ways. Otherwise it'd be just a non-military satellite. Imagine buying a consumer-grade computer. It's cheap to get one with 16gb ram, but if you want a 64gb ram one, it would probably vastly more than the 64/16=4 times as expensive. Each step you go out of the non-military satellite capability curve (with multiple dimension including features…

You could argue the same the other way 'round. Just assume that military is the standard, and in order to qualify as consumer, you need to add extra features. So far your argument is symmetric.

Yes, except currently military radars and GPSes are more expensive and more capable than versions you can buy in the shop. Same applies for Humvees, Tanks, guns, and even malware. All of the ones used by the military and intelligence agencies cost vastly more to buy and at the same time have more capability than their corresponding consumer versions. So it's only a symmetric argument if you view "military" and "consumer" as symbols in a program without any of the background context, which I did not intend for you to do.
Post reply on HN