71–79 of 79 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Google Glass come out of X?
Is Glass considered mainstream yet? I thought it was still for developers mainly.
Disney is a classic example of a company that made huge leaps and transformed itself from a single revenue stream to a very diverse one. Can you think of what the board of Disney said to Walt when he decided to open a brick and mortar theme park when their only product to date had been a few animated films? Or how what they said when he unveiled the original vision of EPCOT as a real city with a theme park bolted on.…
> * you think of what the board of Disney said to Walt when he decided to open a brick and mortar theme park when their only product to date had been a few animated films?* I read an article on Walt once that covered this.. he went to all his friends and family and told them his plan. Every single person told him he was nuts and it would never work. That was how he knew he was on to something - the fact it had never…
I'm glad that Google has enough money to take on risky projects. So much of what they do fails - they essentially only have advertising. But to be honest nothing in that article seemed that world-changing or interesting. Even the nanoparticles are mundane and not much more of an extension of the work that's been going on since the 90s on bio-chips for detection. But nanoparticles for drug deliver is interesting but t…
> Even the nanoparticles are mundane and not much more of an extension of the work that's been going on since the 90s on bio-chips for detection.
Using antibodies and tailored cancer treatment is still a reactive treatment. As the article states, the Google X Labs is aiming for "constant monitoring" of your body with these nanoparticles - hence creating a "proactive" ability to constantly monitor your body of potential issues. If achievable, that's pretty remarkable.
> In comparison, Elon Musk seems like the true visionary.
Both Page and Musk are visionaries. The logic you use to criticize Page's "mundane" ideas can be equally applied to Musk - serious attempts at modern electric cars have been around since the 90s [1][2], and space travel has been around since the 60s. Your logic would dictate that Musk is merely extending the work in those fields.
Your criticism of Page's "moon shot" ideas not being world-changing/interesting greatly misses the point.
Page and Musk have different areas of strengths, but I don't think you can call one of them a "true visionary" compared to the other. They've already both proven to be incredibly prescient on more than occasion.
As for self-aware AI, we're a long ways away from that. Neither Page nor Musk nor anyone else is remotely close to self-aware AI.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_Propulsion_tzero
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
But while the company still earns the majority of its revenue from advertising, during his tenure Page has helped to diversify the business. Notably, YouTube is expected to generate nearly $6 billion in revenue this year Maybe I am being pedantic but aren't revenues from Youtube also based on advertising? To the broader point though, why aren't more investors also putting money toward these "moonshots?" Is it because…
That probably should have said 'search advertising'. YouTube is a different type of advertising. Google needs to plan for a day when search advertising comes under attack from the next big thing. Maybe traditional search fades away, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The joke is that it's a time machine. Someone brings a working one of those to office and I wouldn't care if it's powered by a butter churn.
You'll care if it's powered by something with a little more kick, like plutonium.
But while the company still earns the majority of its revenue from advertising, during his tenure Page has helped to diversify the business. Notably, YouTube is expected to generate nearly $6 billion in revenue this year Maybe I am being pedantic but aren't revenues from Youtube also based on advertising? To the broader point though, why aren't more investors also putting money toward these "moonshots?" Is it because…
Because only ultra-large, incredibly-rich companies can afford to have seriously large investments fail quite this often. Which is not to say they're a bad idea! This is how blue-sky research works.
I'm glad that Google has enough money to take on risky projects. So much of what they do fails - they essentially only have advertising. But to be honest nothing in that article seemed that world-changing or interesting. Even the nanoparticles are mundane and not much more of an extension of the work that's been going on since the 90s on bio-chips for detection. But nanoparticles for drug deliver is interesting but t…
No, that one's coming out of MIT. Gosh, don't you read journals ;-)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can you possibly know (unless you're a member of Google leadership team)?
Because they're a public company and are therefore required by the SEC to provide a certain level of disclosure about the sources of their revenue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously I would consider Musk an Co have achieved several of their goals. Each one being the step on the way to a bigger goal.
Maybe, but so has Page—a self-driving car, a box where you can basically ask a question, the first major piece of wearable electronics after the watch—this aren't trivial. And yet, it doesn't impress me much more than Musk's existing achievements have—they're both in edison territory at the moment—brilliant businessmen—not Gutenberg, world-changing level yet.