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

The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

robinsloan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 258 posts

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#231

Post by azundo »

AJ007 wrote: post #206
ajross wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of truth to this (though I'm generally a big skeptic when people talk about "research" in the abstract; and I remain genunienly "WTF are they thinking!?" about Glass). Google tries stuff, fails a lot, and stumbles on as many successes as they engineer. Facebook has executed really well on their core stuff, but... what else? I mean, they've been on a huge hiring binge now for four years. What do they hav…

For a long time we heard the same thing about Google - they have a search engine that makes a lot of money with PPC ads, but what else? Facebook's time will come. The IPO money could make that happen sooner rather than later (if they don't blow it buying mobile apps.)

I think the difference could be that Google is headed up by researchers, and thus the interest and fascination in pushing boundaries with research. While Zuckerberg is a visionary, I'm not sure the same type of commitment to research that is not immediately useful will ever happen within Facebook's walls.

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#232

Post by lmm »

confluence wrote: post #158
alan_cx wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that really the only thing a computer can do is store, manipulate and present data, what else would make sense to store that data? Aren't RAM and hard drives pretty much databases?

I was merely pointing out that there isn't anything special with most of these sites. No hate. I love them, and use most of them on a daily basis. Just pointing out something I found highly curious.

You might as well say "Most top 100 websites I see are just /code running on a computer/"

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#233

Post by ocirion »

Symmetry wrote: post #22
rjv wrote: post #3

I agree that all of the Google X projects of today will ultimately be what defines Google tomorrow. The fact that they have the guts to tackle projects that are incredibly risky for a business but meaningful for humanity is a major reason I'm happy to use their products. I love the geek factor.

I'm not sure it's that risky for them. Google tends to try a bunch of different stuff, but doesn't seem too shy about cuttings its losses and failing reasonably fast when needed.

What happens when they fail one too many times and the seemingly endless supply of R&D money runs out?

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#234

Post by mkr-hn »

aptwebapps wrote: post #208
zitterbewegung wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is currently an Ad company that drives you to those ads using AI/ML.

And someday soon they may literally drive you to their advertisers using AI/ML ...

Cable box popups in the near future: "Press OK on your remote to go to Pizza Hut."

You'll give your car the order on the way, and it'll contact the local Pizza Hut's system to place it.

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#235

Post by wisty »

ajross wrote: post #67
51Cards wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one little thought I would add to that is that when Google first started working on a self driving car everyone went "WTF is a search company doing..". Now, X years later... it's a different story. People have started to really think about self-driving vehicles and autonomous travel. I don't see Glass at this point... but I didn't see practical self driving cars 6 years ago either, let alone states licensing them…

Oh, I'm willing to be surprised. And I'm willing to give Google a lot more benefit of the doubt than I am most entities at being able to execute on this stuff. But still... Glass? Seriously?

How many google ads do you see on your phone? How many google ads would you see if they were in your HUD glasses?

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#236

Post by confluence »

lmm wrote: post #232
confluence wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was merely pointing out that there isn't anything special with most of these sites. No hate. I love them, and use most of them on a daily basis. Just pointing out something I found highly curious.

You might as well say "Most top 100 websites I see are just /code running on a computer/"

Correct. I shared this thought because I believed that the realisation that most websites are simply database frontends was an unique, interesting and somewhat liberating thought.

I apologize if it feels like I'm stating the obvious, but it was a startling realisation to me.

I always kept each site/company in their separate boxes, when in fact they all do rather similar things, with different branding.

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#237

Post by temphn »

gcb wrote: post #12

Glass will be google's newton pad. a new world promise, but in reality totally uncool and only used by a few san francisco hippies-yuppies. And then forgotten. With a chance of a decade later becoming a game changer.

This is a good comment. Google Glass is technologically amazing, but the demo video was incredibly distracting. You only want augmented reality when you want it. You don't want random notifications and messages from other people cropping up and making you walk into a lamppost.

On the other hand, if they can lick the distraction problem or even make the tool something that improves focus (say by reminding you unobtrusively of what you need to get done that day) it could be very cool in subsequent iterations. I don't think the product manager is thinking about minomizing distraction though.

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#238

Post by bertzzie »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #86
swalsh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sir I challenge you to a bet, $100 to our respective favorite charities. In my opinion Google Glass is set to be a game changer from the start. I wager that when google glass is launched, it will be a cultural icon no more than 1.5 years later. It's clear WHY google needs glass. Owning the channel between my eyes and the world is a huge potential pot of money. Targeted ads have a lot of potential to disrupt the ad sp…

What does "cultural icon" mean? Is the Segway a cultural icon even though only ~30,000 of them exist? Pretty much everyone knows what it is but most people have not benefited from them. I would be willing to take this bet if we determine some objective criteria.

"Cultural icon" means Glass will be the next iPhone, I think.

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#239

Post by alexqgb »

jrockway wrote: post #139
T-Winsnes wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember my parents called all mp3 players "iPod" long before the appstore was announced. The first generations of iPods might have been easier to use than the other mp3 players at the time, but that alone does not explain the huge adoption by the general population. Marketing definitively had a lot to do with it, probably more than the quality of the product.

Indeed. The iPod was just a worse Nomad. (I already posted CmdrTaco's iconic summary in another comment in this article, so I will avoid it here.) But nobody bought Nomad, and everyone bought an iPod. Why? Because Apple told people to buy an iPod, and people tend to do what they're told.

For me, the fantastic thing about the first iPod was immediate access to any track, combined with shuffle play. It changed the experience of listening to music. It was like my entire collection had a single, superfluid interface. And the thing FELT great.

Even if you credit marketing with bringing this to people's attention, it's a mistake to think that marketing closes the deal. That credit goes to the experience, which was as imaginative, compelling, and well-designed as the object itself. As the (very) old ad agency joke goes "Nothing destroys a bad product faster than good advertising." Clearly that's not happening here.

I will never understand people ignore the product itself while insisting success is "just" marketing (as though this were an invariably witless task). Usually this is followed by "to people who are idiots." Perhaps you just don't appreciate things that are carefully considered and well made. There are people like this, and there always have been. And they suck. Or as Shakespeare put it "you blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things."

Re: The futures of Facebook and Google are embedded in these two images

#240

Post by gaius »

confluence wrote: post #236
lmm wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might as well say "Most top 100 websites I see are just /code running on a computer/"

Correct. I shared this thought because I believed that the realisation that most websites are simply database frontends was an unique, interesting and somewhat liberating thought. I apologize if it feels like I'm stating the obvious, but it was a startling realisation to me. I always kept each site/company in their separate boxes, when in fact they all do rather similar things, with different branding.

Yes, since the 1970s or perhaps earlier, most computer software has been "forms" (screens for a user to enter some information to be stored in a DB) and "reports" (screens that present information stored in a DB to the user). That's it. Green screens, client-server, web sites, etc are all variations on a theme.

The "social network" aspects of FB could perfectly well have been done on an IBM mainframe with 3270 terminals running IMS, 40 years ago.

Post reply on HN