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

Everything we know Google is working on for the new year

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: Everything we know Google is working on for the new year

#71

Post by freehunter »

lozf wrote: post #61
nl wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I predict 2015 may be the year that autonomous vehicles go big. I'd be interested to hear what you define "go big" as. It's going to be years before driverless cars are seen at all regularly outside the areas Google (and others) are testing them in, and at least a decade before they are common enough to start having a real impact on the road. The economics of car buying alone will show you that: eg, how many 5 year-o…

Self driving cars just have to be safer than Humans -- probably not that difficult. The annoying part will be entering our destination in to Google Maps Car Interface, and having the car tell us: "Because we searched for Chairs the other day, we'll be making a quick stop at our Sponsor: Furniture Warehouse to see their fantastic selection, with free delivery... After all your appointment isn't for another 45 mins and…

It doesn't just have to be safer, it has to be 100% safe, at least until public consciousness has accepted it. Gasoline cars burst into flames quite often, including when involved in a high speed collision. Car fires around here hardly ever make the radio traffic report, let alone nightly news, regional news, or national news. But when a Tesla catches on fire after a high speed collision, it's national news for days, with pundits wondering if electric cars are safe to drive after all. Doesn't matter that the car detected the fire and kept it contained away from the passenger compartment.

Brand new things can rarely get away with being just a little better. They have to be massively, undeniably better, with a lot of money and marketing and pretty faces and charismatic spokespersons in order to overcome public fear and FUD from the existing competitors. Look at Microsoft's commercials: it doesn't matter that the Surface is better than the Macbook Air (as is claimed in the commercial). It's not better enough, and no one at Microsoft is Steve Jobs, so people aren't willing to take the risk. Better isn't good enough, especially when you're telling a person that they're worse than a robot.

Re: Everything we know Google is working on for the new year

#72

Post by cpeterso »

toddkaufmann wrote: post #22
derekp7 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate this so much -- I'll search for some topic, and start getting ads all over the internet related to that topic. Case in point -- a few weeks ago I clicked on an article regarding "Computer Scientist Barbie", and clicked through the Amazon link. Guess how many Barbie advertisements I'm getting now.

Why are you getting ads ? Install adblock and/or ghostery. Fewer distractions, fewer cycles going to adware. I don't see ads in search results or gmail, and not a lot of other places either. Noticeably different on a tablet though, where it doesn't run. At the other extreme is adnauseum, which clicks on every ad link in the background (so you don't have to).

Firefox for Android supports browser add-ons, including Adblock Plus.

Re: Everything we know Google is working on for the new year

#73

Post by brymaster »

StavrosK wrote: post #60
brymaster wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So we're trying to show you ads that you want to see, rather than ads that try to provoke you into clicking (like Buzzfeed articles) Huh, really? Then why aren't you actually doing that? http://imgur.com/a/KGsQh

> trying

No, I don't think so. It will be 2016 and we'll still be having this conversation. Money.

Re: Everything we know Google is working on for the new year

#75

Post by jodrellblank »

kbenson wrote: post #41
jodrellblank wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The limit of "really relevant ads" is automatically emptying your wallet and delivering things you "want". Even if you didn't want them until you saw the ad.

"want" is a superset of "useful/life enhancing" which is itself a superset of "need". We probably know our needs, and getting things we want but don't really help us may not be a good outcome, but discovering things that help us in our lives that we weren't aware of is definitely a good thing. I would like to see more of that.

It's not necessarily a superset of useful or life enhancing; e.g. an alcoholic and alcohol.

The best case for an Ad vendor is if they can convert you into a productoholic, trigger your desire, and then satiate it. "ad mortem", as it were.

Ad vendors don't want the best for you. They want the most profitable for them. When everything is terrible, improved ads could be good for both - they profit from things you were going to buy anyway. At any other time, discerning individual nuances of your life is difficult and intensive, blanket trying to change what you want instead is much cheaper.

Re: Everything we know Google is working on for the new year

#76

Post by kbenson »

jodrellblank wrote: post #75
kbenson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"want" is a superset of "useful/life enhancing" which is itself a superset of "need". We probably know our needs, and getting things we want but don't really help us may not be a good outcome, but discovering things that help us in our lives that we weren't aware of is definitely a good thing. I would like to see more of that.

It's not necessarily a superset of useful or life enhancing; e.g. an alcoholic and alcohol. The best case for an Ad vendor is if they can convert you into a productoholic, trigger your desire, and then satiate it. "ad mortem", as it were. Ad vendors don't want the best for you. They want the most profitable for them. When everything is terrible, improved ads could be good for both - they profit from things you were g…

> It's not necessarily a superset of useful or life enhancing; e.g. an alcoholic and alcohol.

Sure it is. "Want" is a superset in that it contains useful/life enhancing things as well as other things that are not that.

> The best case for an Ad vendor is if they can convert you into a productoholic, trigger your desire, and then satiate it. "ad mortem", as it were.

The best case for an ad vendor is to maximize profit from you while minimizing negative outcomes to themselves in doing so. Whether that is maximizing profit over the short term or a longer term, and whether some methods produce more negative outcomes for them (such as public displeasure and possible resulting legislation) is really their decision to make, but I don't think a model as simplistic as what you proposed really covers the reality of the situation. I'm sure mine isn't all that much better though.

Post reply on HN