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

Google and Ambient Computing

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 106 posts

Re: Google and Ambient Computing

#21

Post by icandoit »

gambler wrote: post #14

A handful of oligopolies coercing me to use overcomplicated always-connected gadgets that are orchestrated by "AI" that I don't control, can't train, and whose main objective is to manipulate my behavior and siphon as much of my private info to its corporate master as possible. All of this to solve "problems" that I never had, while a choir of corporate shills drones on and on that problems I actually have are not re…

I don't like the always-on surveillance either.

But if people choose these products because the convenience is worth it in their estimation, revealed preferences and all that.

Maybe this suggests a counter-product? An offline, all data is local, product opportunity. Who will build it?

Re: Google and Ambient Computing

#22

Post by username90 »

icandoit wrote: post #17
username90 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is good at innovating in computer science and computer engineering. Google is not particularly good at innovating product ideas. This makes sense given how they find and hire talent.

But they are innovating. New products all the time. They just aren't staying around to collect the (relative to Google) meager profits. I wish more companies knew when to call it quits.

They create products but lack the leadership needed to follow through when the initial exciting moments are over. I'd say that if you can't follow through on your innovations then you aren't good at innovating. They can do it on the tech side, lots of successful projects there.

Re: Google and Ambient Computing

#23

Post by mfer »

icandoit wrote: post #21
gambler wrote: post #14

A handful of oligopolies coercing me to use overcomplicated always-connected gadgets that are orchestrated by "AI" that I don't control, can't train, and whose main objective is to manipulate my behavior and siphon as much of my private info to its corporate master as possible. All of this to solve "problems" that I never had, while a choir of corporate shills drones on and on that problems I actually have are not re…

I don't like the always-on surveillance either. But if people choose these products because the convenience is worth it in their estimation, revealed preferences and all that. Maybe this suggests a counter-product? An offline, all data is local, product opportunity. Who will build it?

> But if people choose these products because the convenience is worth it in their estimation, revealed preferences and all that.

"is worth it" requires people to be fully aware of what's going on.

I've described what some of these devices are doing based on product announcements, patents, investigative news stories, and that sort of thing. I've had numerous people tell me that I'm wrong. That they don't believe companies are doing this.

This has caused me to come to the conclusion that people aren't aware of the trade-offs or what is going on.

That lack of understanding concerns me.

Re: Google and Ambient Computing

#24

Post by yellow_postit »

icandoit wrote: post #21
gambler wrote: post #14

A handful of oligopolies coercing me to use overcomplicated always-connected gadgets that are orchestrated by "AI" that I don't control, can't train, and whose main objective is to manipulate my behavior and siphon as much of my private info to its corporate master as possible. All of this to solve "problems" that I never had, while a choir of corporate shills drones on and on that problems I actually have are not re…

I don't like the always-on surveillance either. But if people choose these products because the convenience is worth it in their estimation, revealed preferences and all that. Maybe this suggests a counter-product? An offline, all data is local, product opportunity. Who will build it?

Many (most?) that buy them don’t understand the value exchange they are signing up for. Look at all the breathless articles about how humans listen to Alexa, Cortana, Siri, Google, etc assistant chats. That’s an standard expectation from anyone that gets close to working with supervised learning but from the reporting and interviews it seems many didn’t know. How could they with the ever growing legal soup of privacy policies and tos.

I’d love to see a counter product but more than that I’d like to see more standardized and short/brief lay person understandable policies. Maybe like a nutrition label but for consumer data.

Re: Google and Ambient Computing

#25

Post by VikingCoder »

phkahler wrote: post #9

Google is failing to organize the world's information in a way that is useful to me. I wanted to look up how to split a NURBS surface in half. You know, the math behind computing the new point and weights. All I got was a bunch of stuff from CAD vendors talking about how to manipulate NURBS in their own tools. Since then, I've seen more of this trend. It's hard to find information about how anything works now because…

Splitting a NURBS surface "in half" is an insanely complicated operation, and the way you do it almost certainly depends on your intended use case.

If you can't find a library (or engine) in your domain that has the operation, then you're kind of S.O.L., and have to start from first principles.

I don't blame commercial results and SEO for this. It's not like you used to be able to see a menu of rich choices for this, and now they're lost in the noise of companies with a mission.

Re: Google and Ambient Computing

#26

Post by Santosh83 »

> Our users tell us they find the Google Assistant to be smart, user-friendly, and reliable, and that’s so important for ambient technology. Interactions need to feel natural and intuitive. Here’s an example: if you want to listen to music, the experience should be the same whether you are in the kitchen, you are driving in your car, or hanging out with friends. No matter what you are doing, you should be able to just say the name of the song and the music just plays without you having to pull out a phone and tap on screens or push buttons.

This may be an unpopular sentiment, but at least for me, I find a certain indefinable pleasure in manual tasks, to a certain extent. Slipping a CD into a player or a cassette into a deck or having to browse through a shelf to find the book I want. I don't think people will realise the "ambience" of these minor things we do hundreds of times a day almost unconsciously until practically everything becomes voice/thought activated and almost anything you want is delivered right to where you are. I believe that there is a certain happy medium between entirely manual and being too automated. Obviously this will be different for different tasks but we must keep in mind that the aim of corporations will always be to make them fully automated because that way they and their services become indispensable for the world. Our aim should be to try to tread the happy medium where automation makes significant difference but does not turn us into instantly-gratified, grown-up children.

Re: Google and Ambient Computing

#27

Post by WC3w6pXxgGd »

gambler wrote: post #14

A handful of oligopolies coercing me to use overcomplicated always-connected gadgets that are orchestrated by "AI" that I don't control, can't train, and whose main objective is to manipulate my behavior and siphon as much of my private info to its corporate master as possible. All of this to solve "problems" that I never had, while a choir of corporate shills drones on and on that problems I actually have are not re…

You're no coerced in any way. Don't use Google.

Re: Google and Ambient Computing

#28

Post by yellow_postit »

icandoit wrote: post #16
TeMPOraL wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, great. Except for the users who Google got hooked on a given service, who then have troubles finding alternatives as Google tends to suck the oxygen out from the room whenever they release something.

They can't find someone to take their money in exchange for a useful service. That isn't a Google problem. That's our opportunity. I can't think of a single company known for riding Google's coat tails. Why aren't people responding to the enormous wealth of Google by emulating them? We don't have to be beholden to a few huge tech companies there is space for so many more players. I try to see things I can do when oth…

Ad companies like Google tend to be winner take most markets. Thats why you see it referred to as the duopoly of Google and FB, together they have ~60% of the digital ad market.

Re: Google and Ambient Computing

#29

Post by greggman2 »

jacquesm wrote: post #20
icandoit wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like that they have a "take the flag, but dont hold the ground if it isn't worth it" approach. Learn lots and fail fast. Smaller companies can find a niche for themselves in "we are basically X that google used to do". Let someone else make the market and create your marketing, right? Maximizing profits (and innovation) over time may mean closing something profitable now, and focusing on new potential profits. That…

I hate it. It means that I'll never be able to trust some new service they launch because (1) if I adopt it it will likely get killed and (2) even if they don't they are going to let it suffer a slow death. I'm more than happy to wait for years if I have to in case something develops accidental mass market traction in which case Google will likely support it long term. I wonder if Google realizes how much this works…

I found it fun to use cassettes, laser discs, CDs, DVDs, mini discs, mp3 players even though I no longer use any of them. Also found it fun to go Atari -> Amiga -> DOS PC -> Windows. And Atari 2600 -> NES -> SNES+Genesis -> PS1 etc..

I agree it sucks when support ends but I enjoy it checking it out while it exists.

Re: Google and Ambient Computing

#30

Post by uoaei »

magashna wrote: post #15
mey wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://killedbygoogle.com/ I am rather curious about Stradia's longevity.

I'm still very pessimistic about the network resources that they expect the average user to have. The recent hubbub was about places that have data caps. I'm still not convinced that the latency is there for an enjoyable experience. I'll be incredibly surprised if it isn't a complete flop.

Every time something like this comes up, I imagine a bunch of giddy "world-changers" sitting behind Mac Pros with Retina displays and T3 lines, building something that works great under those conditions, and then convincing each other that they've helped people over $16 microbrews.

I know this is a caricature but it's how I get my kicks.

To wit, the conditions that the engineers inhabit in their lives has basically zero resemblance with the technology experience of the vast majority of people. Designing websites for 4K screens only, expecting <20ms latency over home lines when everyone else in the house is streaming video to their own personal devices, etc. One thing we can do collectively as an industry is put in place guidelines which steer development to minimalism and attention to the resources available to the median user.

Post reply on HN