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

71–80 of 106 posts

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#71

Post by nl »

panic wrote: post #62
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.

Xerox PARC may never have produced the modern computer if there had been an explicit profit goal.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

The "spectacular failure" here was not in the goal of the lab -- the problem was how Xerox management dealt with its results.

Yes, I agree 100%.

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#72

Post by sifarat »

Just because everyone is not making alpha releases of their products, does not mean they are not working on ground-breaking technology (which works) either. If you understand Apple, you will get my point.

I don't want to take any credit away from Google. But there is a thin line between a gimmick and something earth shattering. Unless, I practically see, the practical use of these products (by google) I am more inclined to think, they are merely cheap gimmicks.

Google at best, can replicate a feature. But sadly that trick is no longer working. read: G+ and all they have resorted to gimmicks like this.

Oh yea, I am an Apple asshole but that does not make my above point invalid.

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#73

Post by rst »

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.

Actually, Unix was made available only under closed-source license (most notably as "Unix System V" and its commercial derivatives, including AIX and Solaris). This lead to, among other things, a nasty lawsuit against the University of California at Berkeley, who eventually did make their BSD Unix variant publicly available, after carefully excising most of the AT&T-copyrighted code.

Wikipedia has some information on the relevant history. As usual, treat with skepticism, but it will confirm the basics:

on System V: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_V

on BSD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#74

Post by melling »

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

And what actions did he take? Unless Apple is willing to sell cheaper phones, they're giving up a large segment of the market, and Android will thrive. And I'm sure they know this.

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#75

Post by dannyr »

todd3834 wrote: post #15

Just because Google doesn't put as much work into keeping their future ideas secret, you can't assume Apple doesn't have equally ambitious ideas. You just won't find out about then until Apple thinks it is worthy of your attention.

That's assuming all the initiatives Google are working on are public.

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#76

Post by nl »

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.

But Google is (historically) a software company, so we should compare its contributions in the software field at the moment.

Here's a random list:

Page Rank

Map/Reduce

Statistical Language Translation

Unsupervised image feature extraction[1]

Go

Dart

Large scale software defined networking.

The list could go on..

[1] http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.6209

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#77

Post by czr80 »

It's fascinating how successful Google has been at marketing itself to geeks - it doesn't matter that none of the really cool stuff has actually shipped (and perhaps will never ship). The dream is there, and that's enough to get the kids in to work on improving advertising (while dreaming of changing the world).

Is that cynical? Probably, don't mind me. It's just reading these comments you'd think self-driving cars, say, were a done deal, and yet when I read things like this they seem an awfully long way away:

>The Google car has now driven more than half a million miles without causing an accident—about twice as far as the average American driver goes before crashing. Of course, the computer has always had a human driver to take over in tight spots. Left to its own devices, Thrun says, it could go only about fifty thousand miles on freeways without a major mistake. Google calls this the dog-food stage: not quite fit for human consumption. “The risk is too high,” Thrun says. “You would never accept it.” The car has trouble in the rain, for instance, when its lasers bounce off shiny surfaces. (The first drops call forth a small icon of a cloud onscreen and a voice warning that auto-drive will soon disengage.) It can’t tell wet concrete from dry or fresh asphalt from firm. It can’t hear a traffic cop’s whistle or follow hand signals.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/11/25/131125fa_fact_...

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#78

Post by jasomill »

nemothekid wrote: post #44
dchichkov wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many researchers are working at Apple Research? Like zero? Because there's no Apple Research? How many researchers are working at Google Research? Like a thousand? I'd say that makes all the difference.

Don't you think its little hard to believe that a 500B publicly traded company doesn't have an R&D team? I think you should rethink your post. Just because Apple doesn't advertise their research division doesn't mean they don't have one.

Apple shuttered the Advanced Technology Group, its research division, as a part of Jobs' consolidation and refocusing in the late '90s, and, as I understand it, research as an activity separate from product development hasn't really been part of the corporate culture since then. This does not mean lots of product-focused R&D doesn't go on throughout Apple, of course.

Re: Google is the new Bell Labs

#80

Post by michaelochurch »

alaskamiller wrote: post #36

Google is Oak Ridge. When I was growing up in Silicon Valley traffic was light, places were far, and there was nothing in between. Silicon Valley was rarely the place you wanted to be, we all wanted out having been here our whole lives. We wanted New York, we wanted Los Angeles, we wanted anywhere but here. Over the years that has changed. You ask most people that work at Google the significance of the Googleplex and…

Slowly but surely, we got our wish. Los Angeles came to us. New York came to us.

Los Angeles never struck me as a place to elevate, and I like the real New York better.

Silicon Valley was better when it was a place the MBA-culture carpetbaggers and thugs considered an outpost and avoided as much as they could. The weather and the scenery were just as good or better (due to less buildup) and people were able to focus on building things, not having to listen to endless conversations about Y Combinator and vesting schedules and Mark Pincus.

Post reply on HN