Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was one of the points made in http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/metcalfe.pdf about why people find Metcalfe's law compelling despite the numerical evidence against it. Our personal perception of the size of a network is directly proportional to the value that we get from it. Extrapolating from that we estimate a square law. However we are neither aware of nor directly value the long tail of people distant from…
Your and Odlyzko's refutation still fails to consider frictional or hygenic costs. These are roughly constant for n, and set an upper size bound where marginal (actually: constant) cost exceeds marginal value. Since a novel network might be able to selectively recruit high-value nodes, this sets up the serial monopoly / collapse / new monopoly dynamic. A few other dynamics added (Gresham's law, tyranny of minimum via…
How did Google get so big?
331–340 of 417 posts
Re: How did Google get so big?
#332If I could give a six word response for the technical side: "Jeff Dean, Sanjay Ghemawat and team". To paraphrase some Cal/UC Berkeley professor that I cannot remember, he said that the problem with scaling is that when you go up a magnitude or more, you may need a qualitatively different solution for the same problem. Jeff Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat and their team have time and time again managed to design and build st…
"And now their team's attention is on AI..." is quite the hype thing to say. Just because you can build a bigger bridge doesn't mean you're a good car designer.
Googles AI blows every other companies out of the water.
> Just because you can build a bigger bridge doesn't mean you're a good car designer.
What? How is that analogous?
Re: How did Google get so big?
#333> Steve Kroft: Were any of those acquisitions questioned by the antitrust division of the Justice Department? > Gary Reback: Some were investigated, but only superficially, the government just really isn't enforcing our antitrust laws. And that's what's happened. None of these acquisitions have been challenged Granted, most of Google's 200+ acquisitions would not trigger any scrutiny, but this line is mind boggling.
I think only 2 acquisitions have had a impact. the one for adwords/adsense patent and one other. The rest have been to poach talent and other stuff or were duds.
Talent (especially vetted talent) is both scarce and hard (expensive) to identify.
Re: How did Google get so big?
#334Re: How did Google get so big?
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me it's because with Google I don't need to go to page 5 to find interesting results. I've tried to use DuckDuckGo several times, each time I've quickly found myself trawling page after page of results, reverted to Google and found the stuff I was after on page one.
100% same I wanted to love ddg but it's just not as good
Re: How did Google get so big?
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
Market share does not equal monopoly. Why aren’t Europeans building better search? It isn’t because of Google, it’s because of the risk-adverse tendencies of investors in Europe. If you pitched a search engine to a Euro-VC, you wouldn’t even get asked for a deck. Europe isn’t very innovation driven: they prefer the 2x rather than the 200x. The proof is simple: just look at the flow of European investment money: rarel…
Ok, we built our awesome EuroSearch. How do we get it on the start pages of Firefox, Chrome and Android?
Re: How did Google get so big?
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regulations do exist... Europe seems to be the only once even superficially enforcing them.
Which successful companies came out of EU in the last 20 years? How well do they stack up against US (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Uber etc) or China (Tencent, Alibaba etc)? If not many, does that mean EU entrepreneurs are hindered by the regulations? One might also argue that European model is better because it might prevent one company from dominating the market. But if that is the case, why does EU face technology do…
ASML. The entire SV depends on it.
Re: How did Google get so big?
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
if they're _purposefully_ ranking their own services above competing services, then yes, I agree they should be fined until they stop. _however_, more often than not, their own service is _exactly_ what I'm looking for - be it GPM/YouTube/Maps/etc. It's not really their fault they're head and shoulders above the competition/the de-facto provider for most of the content people search for every day (well, maybe it is t…
Exactly. I really don't understand why people try and muddy the waters around Google products. I'm not forced to use Google; Google products are just damn good. Having a monopoly in a market due to the fact that your product is just that good isn't a bad thing, and punishing companies for being successful sets an awful precedent (which is why breaking up Google isn't going to happen). From search, maps, email, YouTub…
And when they do do stuff that is so egregious but they are too big ($$$) how are you going to stop them from abuse? Isn't this why, for example, people absolutely loathe telecom/ISPs? Sure they were great when the internet first came out ("it was just that good"), but now look how abusive they are since only a few co's own the copper that runs into your house.
Re: How did Google get so big?
#339Re: How did Google get so big?
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coinbase is not the next Google. They provide no actual value, beyond making it easy to join a bubble. Google's value proposition in the early days was enormous, very obvious, and continues to this day.
If you have already accepted cryptocurrencies as the wave of the future, Coinbase provides enormous value. You can't do much in the crypto world without owning some cryptocurrencies, and they are the largest, easiest to use, and generally most trusted way to exchange $USD for Bitcoin or Ethereum. Most Americans have not accepted that premise (and I don't exclude myself...I'm on the fence as for whether crypto is a bu…
If you accept it sure. However, the utility between the internet and cryptocurrencies are vastly different.
The internet provides light speed communication and seeing as we are a species built upon communication, communicating from days to fraction of a second which is also orders of magnitude cheaper (granted, not at the start but it got there and cryptocurrencies have not solved the scaling problem (cost) yet) is hugely beneficial. The benefits are completely obvious.
Cryptocurrencies provide you the ability to incentivize people you cannot trust to spend money to secure a network in the hopes that the cost of securing the network is greater than the cost of someone oversupplying your network and stealing your money.
Also, the benefits of control not being enforceable by a central authority is a bad thing in most cases and the few that are useful are outweighed by in pretty much every use case the billions of dollars it costs to run those computers to secure it.
It has been almost 10 years since the bitcoin network started, where is its killer use case?
Lastly, the billions of dollars spent to pay for the decentralized network to secure it are mostly payed for by creating new coins. At the end of the mining timeline, they will have to rely purely on transaction fees to pay for the costs to secure the network and the billions of dollars used to do so currently at a fraction of the scale Visa does will likely never outweigh the benefits of decentralization.
TLDR: Running decentralized nodes to recompute the same transactions to protect against untrusted nodes will always be more expensive than running each transaction on a single node on a trusted server.