281–290 of 368 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing I can't understand is why Facebook is still around. But, at the same time, Twitter is still around, too. I guess people got tired switching platforms.
low effort intelligence collection. I wouldn't mind "investing" into those companies if I were an agency employing who are basically incompetent crooks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google+ comes to mind and the time when thousands of engineers couldn't stir the interest of public to turn to the service
Google+ failed because Google didn't know what they wanted it to be. I don't think that's down to engineering. That's a product and marketing problem. AR is a little different because it's not a product; Facebook's AR apps might fail, but Zuck's vision could still succeed if Facebook create (or acquire) tools for creating an AR ecosystem.
all they really need is a collection of millions of AR-related patents allowing to sue any entity doing anything AR-related
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google+ comes to mind and the time when thousands of engineers couldn't stir the interest of public to turn to the service
Google+ failed because Google didn't know what they wanted it to be. I don't think that's down to engineering. That's a product and marketing problem. AR is a little different because it's not a product; Facebook's AR apps might fail, but Zuck's vision could still succeed if Facebook create (or acquire) tools for creating an AR ecosystem.
Google search was minimalist. Android followed everyone else in the market, and hasn't iterated core UX much since. G Suite office apps were acquired, and mostly cloned Office online. Same with Gmail.
Maps is about the only heavily-used app, and I wouldn't call its design revolutionary (or even good).
Chrome is about the best example I can come up with, and it's mostly iterated and improved on the back end.
Maybe I'm missing something major? But it's not a market they compete in or are particularly good at.
(This isn't to say that the initial lift of desktop apps to the web wasn't a technical tour du force; just that blue sky GUIs have never been something they're known for)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh, I just want my heads up life display because...why not? Assuming that your heads-up live display contains a public facing camera here's: Why not! I don't like sitting in a bar (or a strip club, or in any other semi-public, or even public dodgy or non-dodgy place) and you hang there with your heads-up live display recording my image. I don't like the fact that it's uploaded to some tech behemoth' server for furth…
Those bars and strip clubs already have plenty of CCTVs, you are being recorded. Police have body cams, cars have dash cams, almost every phone has a camera capable of taking video, the chance that you are being recorded if someone wants to is already very high. A glass cam will probably work out the same way CCTV has: people are worried about the potential for privacy abuse, but in the end these fears don’t come to…
>A glass cam will probably work out the same way CCTV has: people are worried about the potential for privacy abuse, but in the end these fears don’t come to pass.
The first two Cs in CCTV don't stand for instantly uploading everything to a 3rd party for analysis.
CCTV is fundamentally different than the "instantly send the data to a central server" model that currently dominates because CCTV is not reviewed except when it needs to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UX of that process you describe (without something like facebook) sucks. It's surprising you haven't realized this once you've tried to do that for more than say ~10 people in the list. If the UX sucks, it means it takes more time and energy to do the same thing, it means that I will not be doing the same thing, I will end up sending to less people or less information. Which means that facebook effectively allows…
It is the low cost of Facebook (and social media) messaging that makes me not use it to send messages to people I love and care about. I still call them on the phone. When it comes to relationships, my communication theory is simple: the cost of the medium is the information. Goes without saying in this setting, there's only few people I call "friends."
It's about the connection itself, it's about the energy and attention one puts into the relationship, not whether one allows oneself to use facebook for it or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Full of himself"? Way too mild an indictment. In the last 24 hours Facebook bought a story in a publication, pretended it wasn’t sponsored, their COO posted it, then when they got caught, they denied knowing anything about it. And what was that ad/story about? Their commitment to stopping disinformation. All the while we've learned that they have utterly sold the company to international electioneers.
Citations to your references would be appreciated. It's the first step to overcoming the state of internet disinformation, as well as helping society overcome the fear of missing out just because someone doesn't already know your references.
This is not the comment to be fighting this battle with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sigh! Where to start? OK, let me give it a shot. Luddites complained about the automated loom as well Now that's a really bad case of whataboutism. I'm not complaining about technological advance. I'm complaining about tech, which is a massive invasion of privacy. Have you ever been lying on a beach and some asshole lets his drone flying around? I don't know about you, but I really don't fancy to be half naked on som…
We have had CCTVs around for the last 30 years, where are the massive privacy violations that you guys predicted 30 years ago? Very very few people had google glass to begin with, the glass hole term was invented and perpetuated by a bunch of conspiracy theorists, enough to get 3.9 million hits on google (for Tech Luddism is as old as technology itself. It isn’t surprising that you don’t want this, that you don’t wan…
Using the “conspiracy theorist” argument is a typical way of trying to put a negative label on a group of people you disagree with these days. 3.9 million results doesn’t sound like a group of 10 mentally unsound people spewing a BS conspiracy. It provides evidence that a large portion of people don’t agree with the tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We didn't adjust to these. They were valueable. Everything since 2010 comes with warnings, and a whole bouquet of side effects I used to want more, now I want less. Even if I can make my own HUD I wouldn't make it. For some jobs though I'd be happy to try: emergency, medicine
We certainly had to adjust to those technologies, and all of them came with side effects in addition to being valuable, the same as the new tech we've seen in recent years. In the 90s all anyone could talk about was how terrible TV was, the ballooning amount of time people spent watching instead of being social or going outside, etc. And I certainly spent more time actually watching and focusing on ads (commercials)…
Can't deny that TV started to slip off on the wrong side of things but even then it wasn't as it is today.
The point is, most consumer technology is at penny stock level of progress in term of deep value.
Funny the way that he included "Decentralizing Opportunity", and then followed up by envisioning a scarily centralized future for e-commerce. Thats a shame because a re-decentralization of the web is one of the things that really should happen. True decentralization will happen when anybody can host a functional website on their mobile phone(s) without depending upon the services of a corporate behemoth.
I think Zuck is too full of himself. People often get confused that their success means that they are wise, and that we should listen to them. Should we as well follow the thought leadership of drug cartels and the Saudi monarchs?
Please stay on topic and refrain from ad hominems that add nothing to the discussion. If you have disagreement with his predictions, focus on that in your reply.
Your comment adds nothing to the discussion and just lowers the quality of discourse. It's a shame it is the most highly voted comment.