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

Google, Mighty Now, but Not Forever

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: Google, Mighty Now, but Not Forever

#11

Post by frandroid »

magicalist wrote: post #6

This article is pretty bad, based entirely on some analyst who says "Google doesn’t create immersive experiences that you get lost in", whatever that means, and some really tenuous comparisons to other companies. The hilarious thing is that this was only written in February and this analyst's view of Microsoft's impending obsolescence is already trending in a radically opposite direction. Shows exactly why lines like…

I find the comparison compelling, but if you want to criticize it, it's because Microsoft _has_ managed to diversify more than it is given credit for, so that today it has something like 15 separate $1bn+ annual revenue businesses.

But one doesn't need to diversify to be successful. Apple is working well with few products.

The comparison with Microsoft works well at the research level. Microsoft's research led to a tablet as a early as 2001, but without the proper vision, was not able to turn it into a viable product until Apple ate its lunch. Both Microsoft and Google are lacking visionaries to work towards new possibilities, rather than just new technologies.

Re: Google, Mighty Now, but Not Forever

#13

Post by elihu »

magicalist wrote: post #6

This article is pretty bad, based entirely on some analyst who says "Google doesn’t create immersive experiences that you get lost in", whatever that means, and some really tenuous comparisons to other companies. The hilarious thing is that this was only written in February and this analyst's view of Microsoft's impending obsolescence is already trending in a radically opposite direction. Shows exactly why lines like…

> "Google doesn’t create immersive experiences that you get lost in", whatever that means,

I read that as "Google doesn't create immersive experiences that you get lost in, like all of the 1999-era search engines with cluttered, spammy front pages that it completely dominated then and has no reason to emulate now."

Re: Google, Mighty Now, but Not Forever

#15

Post by hyperion2010 »

The idea that advertising will survive in a world with even weak intelligence is amusing to me. The second a user has a digital representative that can collect enough data to make informed decisions and gather data on various products and has a modicum of data on what their human actually needs advertising depts will be replaced with far more service oriented equivalents that don't try to exploit things like habit formation to get people to buy products they don't need.

Re: Google, Mighty Now, but Not Forever

#16

Post by ksk »

Personally, I don't understand this obsession with making money from research. IMHO research should be primarily about exploration and discovery, never about products or money. Why can't you just invest a part of your profits for the express purpose of just doing something interesting? If along the way, that interesting idea manages to be made into a product, then sure go do that, otherwise, you just contributed something interesting to the human knowledge pool.

I guess at some level merely the existence of money minded people offends my sensibilities. :)

Re: Google, Mighty Now, but Not Forever

#17

Post by Htsthbjig »

What is the biggest market in the world?

Energy and Cars...

Google is not aiming at brand advertising. They are aiming at becoming an essential company for physical cars in the future, like Apple became with phones in the past.

Lots of companies would love to "sink" growing 19 percent in profits per year as a big company.

It is of great help to have Captain obvious tell us that because the world is finite, all companies growth must stop some day, specially big ones.

Re: Google, Mighty Now, but Not Forever

#20

Post by magicalist »

frandroid wrote: post #11
magicalist wrote: post #6

This article is pretty bad, based entirely on some analyst who says "Google doesn’t create immersive experiences that you get lost in", whatever that means, and some really tenuous comparisons to other companies. The hilarious thing is that this was only written in February and this analyst's view of Microsoft's impending obsolescence is already trending in a radically opposite direction. Shows exactly why lines like…

I find the comparison compelling, but if you want to criticize it, it's because Microsoft _has_ managed to diversify more than it is given credit for, so that today it has something like 15 separate $1bn+ annual revenue businesses. But one doesn't need to diversify to be successful. Apple is working well with few products. The comparison with Microsoft works well at the research level. Microsoft's research led to a t…

> I find the comparison compelling, but if you want to criticize it, it's because Microsoft _has_ managed to diversify more than it is given credit for

Actually I would criticize it as anyone using a hugely successful company as a cautionary tale should have more to back themselves up than the gut instinct of two tech bloggers, because clearly it could turn around as quickly as they are claiming Google is going the other way.

If in fact instinctive feelings on which companies are hot right now are so fickle...maybe not write entire articles based entirely on them?

Post reply on HN