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

Google is the new Bell Labs

davidlitwak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#61

Post by mcintyre1994 »

nemothekid wrote: post #42
dlitwak wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Candy Crush, we're holding that up as a development that Apple is responsible that we want to be proud of, seriously? Regardless, an app store wasn't groundbreaking. They executed much better on what Blackberry was already doing with smartphones. The point isn't necessarily what has come to pass yet, it's the focus on things that don't necessarily have a path to revenue yet. Everything Apple does is product and reven…

Yes, Candy Crush, especially when King is apply major pressure to Nintendo, a 30 year incumbent, on their home court[1]. I understand most people don't understand the video games industry. Second, don't take execution lightly. Execution is everything. Again, the last few major tech products in silicon valley aren't moonshots. Most of the them are ideas that could have built 2001. Square could have been released on Wi…

Candy Crush is fundamentally built on Facebook's platform. If you want to say Apple are great for providing APIs that Candy Crush could use to produce its app (if it's native), why aren't Google great for providing APIs to allow the same for many more devices (if it's also native)?

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#62

Post by panic »

nl wrote: post #55

For all those that are arguing that Google isn't Bell Labs because Bell Labs invented more stuff and gave it away: there is a reason for that: Xerox PARC. Xerox PARC is the Bell Labs of the computing industry, and its spectacular failure to do anything to help Xerox hangs heavy over commercial research labs in computing. Google is determined not to let its lab projects be another Xerox PARC. For better or worse that…

Xerox PARC may never have produced the modern computer if there had been an explicit profit goal. The "spectacular failure" here was not in the goal of the lab -- the problem was how Xerox management dealt with its results.

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#63

Post by alayne »

hdevalence wrote: post #37
alayne wrote: post #7

Bell Labs invented fundamental technology like the transistor and the laser. I wouldn't put Google Maps in that league. They did not invent autonomous vehicles or wearable computers, though they have made strides in commoditizing the technology.

Moreover, Bell Labs' position as part of a state-regulated monopoly meant that the research created at Bell Labs was publically available. For instance, UNIX was given away, since Bell was prohibited from selling it. I doubt that Google's research will have the same public benefit; it seems much more likely that Google will keep it for themselves.

To be fair, Google's army of researchers does publish a sizable number of papers and participate in conferences. I don't want to make it sound like they are a vacuum or not contributing to human knowledge. I am just having issues with comparing them to Bell Labs.

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#64

Post by redial »

I don't get the Apple hate. And at the risk of getting downvoted, I'm gonna paraphrase Steve Jobs,

    We have to get out of our heads that for Google to win Apple has to loose.
This idea that Apple only got right the timing, and that without them smartphones would be the same, computers would be the same and tablets would be the same seems crazy to me. Timing IS everything, and they made theirs by creating a lot of the technology we take for granted now. They drove the industry here, almost entirely by willpower. AT&T helped them reluctantly, Verizon didn't want anything to do with the iPhone (and I suspect they still don't) and the music industry did't even saw it coming; once they realized what was happening, they tried their best to stop it.

They make phones and tablets NOW. They didn't five years ago and who nows what they'll be making 5 years from now. What did Google have five years ago? Search, Maps, Gmail and Youtube. What do they have today? Search, Maps, Youtube, Gmail and thanks in part to Apple, Chrome and Android. Everything else is a research project.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love Google. I use Gmail, Youtube and Maps religiously. Google Glass IS the future. Every one of their research projects is a vector for change in the world, but let's not pretend that they work in isolation. Technologies feed on each other, ideas spring new ideas, companies inspire other companies, to create and to compete. To reinvent.

I am glad to live in the time of Apple and Google. Don't ruin it with hate.

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#66

Post by selmnoo »

redial wrote: post #64

I don't get the Apple hate. And at the risk of getting downvoted, I'm gonna paraphrase Steve Jobs, We have to get out of our heads that for Google to win Apple has to loose. This idea that Apple only got right the timing, and that without them smartphones would be the same, computers would be the same and tablets would be the same seems crazy to me. Timing IS everything, and they made theirs by creating a lot of the…

> I don't get the Apple hate. And at the risk of getting downvoted, I'm gonna paraphrase Steve Jobs,

That comes from the same guy who, in private, said:

    I'm going to destroy Android [...] I will spend my
    last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every
    penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this 
    wrong

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#67

Post by rayiner »

hdevalence wrote: post #37
alayne wrote: post #7

Bell Labs invented fundamental technology like the transistor and the laser. I wouldn't put Google Maps in that league. They did not invent autonomous vehicles or wearable computers, though they have made strides in commoditizing the technology.

Moreover, Bell Labs' position as part of a state-regulated monopoly meant that the research created at Bell Labs was publically available. For instance, UNIX was given away, since Bell was prohibited from selling it. I doubt that Google's research will have the same public benefit; it seems much more likely that Google will keep it for themselves.

My developing theory is that monopolies can be great for innovation. What do ATT, Google, Xerox, and the old HP have on common? They are/were, if not outright monopolies, insulated from competition by virtue of network effects, brand or trademark monopolies, or simply a lack of competent competition. They weren't like the Acers of world, in highly competitive markets, struggling to make 1-2% profits on their revenues. They had steady sources of cash from products that had little market competition.

This allowed them to bankroll things like Bell Labs and Xerox PARC. Freed from living on the margin, they had the security to invest in blue sky projects.

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#68

Post by kayoone »

selmnoo wrote: post #66
redial wrote: post #64

I don't get the Apple hate. And at the risk of getting downvoted, I'm gonna paraphrase Steve Jobs, We have to get out of our heads that for Google to win Apple has to loose. This idea that Apple only got right the timing, and that without them smartphones would be the same, computers would be the same and tablets would be the same seems crazy to me. Timing IS everything, and they made theirs by creating a lot of the…

> I don't get the Apple hate. And at the risk of getting downvoted, I'm gonna paraphrase Steve Jobs, That comes from the same guy who, in private, said: I'm going to destroy Android [...] I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong

source?

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#69

Post by redial »

selmnoo wrote: post #66
redial wrote: post #64

I don't get the Apple hate. And at the risk of getting downvoted, I'm gonna paraphrase Steve Jobs, We have to get out of our heads that for Google to win Apple has to loose. This idea that Apple only got right the timing, and that without them smartphones would be the same, computers would be the same and tablets would be the same seems crazy to me. Timing IS everything, and they made theirs by creating a lot of the…

> I don't get the Apple hate. And at the risk of getting downvoted, I'm gonna paraphrase Steve Jobs, That comes from the same guy who, in private, said: I'm going to destroy Android [...] I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong

He said and did lots of things that we will consider wrong. That doesn't make what I paraphrased any less true.

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#70

Post by Nimi »

rayiner wrote: post #67
hdevalence wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moreover, Bell Labs' position as part of a state-regulated monopoly meant that the research created at Bell Labs was publically available. For instance, UNIX was given away, since Bell was prohibited from selling it. I doubt that Google's research will have the same public benefit; it seems much more likely that Google will keep it for themselves.

My developing theory is that monopolies can be great for innovation. What do ATT, Google, Xerox, and the old HP have on common? They are/were, if not outright monopolies, insulated from competition by virtue of network effects, brand or trademark monopolies, or simply a lack of competent competition. They weren't like the Acers of world, in highly competitive markets, struggling to make 1-2% profits on their revenues…

I thought it's part of established economic theory that monopolies have an incentive to invest in infrastructure, as they are best positioned to reap the results.

Explains Google's Internet balloons, and many other investments.

Post reply on HN