Google Will Eat Itself (2005)(gwei.org)
gwei.org
Google Will Eat Itself (2005)
https://www.gwei.org/index.php
137 comments
Is it really a money loser? They get detailed information on your social relations, your daily routines, your shopping habits, where you enjoy your vices, etc. That's all useful in generating income in other contexts. It's short sighted to view it as a money loser.
Seems like location based Ads would be $$$. E.g., if Google knows that I'm not usually in Los Angeles; it knows what I like and could serve ads that'd be great for me when I google "places to eat in LA"
It's also good PR. I would think someone that thinks google maps is good is more likely to use other google products that are more profitable.
Granted, that's a pretty difficult metric to track (if you even can).
Granted, that's a pretty difficult metric to track (if you even can).
Just Street View alone will easily blow through the profits they make from those data unless they use the data for something like commodity trading.
I could imagine a scheme where companies can pay to promote themselves and end up higher or more prominent in business searches. Maps is how I usually search for e.g. plumbers.
> "Maps is how I usually search for e.g. plumbers."
I used to search for tradespeople in this way, but then I realised there's a big industry of while-labelled SEO-friendly companies which register 100s or 1000s of names like "<location> plumber" or "<location> roofer" each with a pin on the map at <location>. When you contact them you go to a call centre 100s or 1000s of miles away who know nothing about your area, they outsource the actual work to gig workers, and when they start getting negative reviews that instance just disappears.
I used to search for tradespeople in this way, but then I realised there's a big industry of while-labelled SEO-friendly companies which register 100s or 1000s of names like "<location> plumber" or "<location> roofer" each with a pin on the map at <location>. When you contact them you go to a call centre 100s or 1000s of miles away who know nothing about your area, they outsource the actual work to gig workers, and when they start getting negative reviews that instance just disappears.
That's already how it works.
Advertised businesses in Maps appear at a higher zoom level with a square icon, and up higher in results. An example in Paris: https://i.postimg.cc/26dGZCkX/09169-E16-6-CFB-44-BA-9189-693...
Advertised businesses in Maps appear at a higher zoom level with a square icon, and up higher in results. An example in Paris: https://i.postimg.cc/26dGZCkX/09169-E16-6-CFB-44-BA-9189-693...
Are you sure that's from advertising?
> gigantic money loser
That's not the right metric to use. Google has a long history of using software and services as a weapon to prevent competitors from entering a market, or to control a market even if it's not immediately/directly profitable.
Once it's no more useful it's suddenly dropped, e.g. Google Reader.
Oh, hello golang!
That's not the right metric to use. Google has a long history of using software and services as a weapon to prevent competitors from entering a market, or to control a market even if it's not immediately/directly profitable.
Once it's no more useful it's suddenly dropped, e.g. Google Reader.
Oh, hello golang!
For everyone pointing out all the indirect revenue benefits of Maps:
You're right, but in every patent infringement case against geo, the plaintiff's "damages expert" makes up a theory about this, so they can go after the AdWords money pot. Because there's no revenue in geo.
If Google endorsed one such theory, that would be bad, very bad, no good at all.
You're right, but in every patent infringement case against geo, the plaintiff's "damages expert" makes up a theory about this, so they can go after the AdWords money pot. Because there's no revenue in geo.
If Google endorsed one such theory, that would be bad, very bad, no good at all.
Can’t they just sell maps data eg restaurant listings, traffic data, to third parties? Then the user wins with the app and the network effects ensure valuable data.
They do sell API access to Google Maps which includes all that.
If it looses money, I wonder if they will shut it down one day, like they like to do.
It would make TomTom and Garmin very happy, I guess.
The value of Maps is in user information. They know what you look for, they know where you've been. They can extrapolate what you are doing and what you will do. This all helps in fine-tuning your marketing target profile, and serving you better ads.
I am learning this as I am reading the book Stolen Focus. The author goes in-depth on how tech companies are turning us into Pavlov's proverbial Dogs. We are lab hamsters who, when taught to respond correctly to stimuli, give them money.
I am learning this as I am reading the book Stolen Focus. The author goes in-depth on how tech companies are turning us into Pavlov's proverbial Dogs. We are lab hamsters who, when taught to respond correctly to stimuli, give them money.
I dislike Google Maps ever since some redesigns in the past, that made whole countries look like rainforests, and de-emphasized everything that's not a road, etc. Honestly I barely rember the last time when Google maps were useful as maps and not just for GPS navigation. Must be > 8 years already. Looking at some historical screenshots, they still had a reasonably usable design at around the time they introduced Street View.
Kinda wonder if this is in part because of: "this way we've found we can make users use GPS more often and be more precisely tracked/monetized" by degrading uses where you can easily orient and navigate yourself without turning on GPS.
Kinda wonder if this is in part because of: "this way we've found we can make users use GPS more often and be more precisely tracked/monetized" by degrading uses where you can easily orient and navigate yourself without turning on GPS.
Google Maps started to devolve into a mess post-Marissa Mayer. [1] I wonder why this isn't talked about more widely. Early 2010s Google Maps were unparalleled with regards to UX - not a cluttered mess we have right now.
Google was technologically a few years ahead of everybody - they had vector map tiles in late 2010 while Mapbox released their version only in 2014. HERE also used vector tiles at best from 2013 (app release date, so a lower bound, not sure what tech they started with)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20238332
Google was technologically a few years ahead of everybody - they had vector map tiles in late 2010 while Mapbox released their version only in 2014. HERE also used vector tiles at best from 2013 (app release date, so a lower bound, not sure what tech they started with)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20238332
I had an office right around the corner from her two offices (one for her assistant) in GWC-1.
She had a pretty short tenure, and was mainly focused on "Google Local" (remember that? didn't think so) and not Maps. Giving her serious credit for the Maps UX is seriously wrong.
She also acquired Zagat, and in fact that was the only time I actually spoke to her.
She had a pretty short tenure, and was mainly focused on "Google Local" (remember that? didn't think so) and not Maps. Giving her serious credit for the Maps UX is seriously wrong.
She also acquired Zagat, and in fact that was the only time I actually spoke to her.
Related:
Google Will Eat Itself (2005) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24008297 - July 2020 (85 comments)
Google Will Eat Itself (2005) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19784400 - April 2019 (65 comments)
Google Will Eat Itself - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7410732 - March 2014 (126 comments)
GWEI: Plot to make Google eat itself - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2628328 - June 2011 (21 comments)
GWEI - Google Will Eat Itself - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=273337 - Aug 2008 (13 comments)
Presumably loosely related?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Will_Eat_Itself
Google Will Eat Itself (2005) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24008297 - July 2020 (85 comments)
Google Will Eat Itself (2005) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19784400 - April 2019 (65 comments)
Google Will Eat Itself - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7410732 - March 2014 (126 comments)
GWEI: Plot to make Google eat itself - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2628328 - June 2011 (21 comments)
GWEI - Google Will Eat Itself - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=273337 - Aug 2008 (13 comments)
Presumably loosely related?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Will_Eat_Itself
It did indeed make my brain unearth old memories of enjoying PWEI. Had completedly forgotten about them until this GWEI link.
I remember Pop Will Eat Itself! They opened for Nine Inch Nails back when I was in high school (the early half of the 90s), and I remember the local radio station here playing one of their songs for the firs time. I bought their CD after that.
Here's a recent mirror if the site's still getting hugged to death: https://web.archive.org/web/20220612225118/https://www.gwei....
The short description from the page itself is:
"We generate money by serving Google text advertisments on a network of hidden Websites. With this money we automatically buy Google shares. We buy Google via their own advertisment! Google eats itself - but in the end "we" own it!"
The short description from the page itself is:
"We generate money by serving Google text advertisments on a network of hidden Websites. With this money we automatically buy Google shares. We buy Google via their own advertisment! Google eats itself - but in the end "we" own it!"
Huh. I thought it was commentary on how Google will grow to become such a large organization that it cannot function effectively. Seems to me we're well past that.
There isn't a single google product I'd recommend to anyone.
They seem pathologically incapable of innovation. A trick pony hasn't come out of the barn in a decade, they've killed off or left to stagnate numerous products, and they're driving youtube into the ground.
Their core user-facing feature, search, is arguably the worst it's ever been. Garbage results thanks to over-thesaurus-ing your search terms and "quick cards" that are laughably terrible accuracy-wise.
The risks of relying on Google for anything are enormous. Even if you're a 1,000 seat organization using their products, stories abound about how they don't care what happens to you. Even at 10,000 seats they still don't seem to care.
There isn't a single google product I'd recommend to anyone.
They seem pathologically incapable of innovation. A trick pony hasn't come out of the barn in a decade, they've killed off or left to stagnate numerous products, and they're driving youtube into the ground.
Their core user-facing feature, search, is arguably the worst it's ever been. Garbage results thanks to over-thesaurus-ing your search terms and "quick cards" that are laughably terrible accuracy-wise.
The risks of relying on Google for anything are enormous. Even if you're a 1,000 seat organization using their products, stories abound about how they don't care what happens to you. Even at 10,000 seats they still don't seem to care.
This is such a tired take, they're doing plenty of innovation in AI and bringing them to consumers with innovative products like Google Home.
I really love my Google smart home speaker and it's been extremely useful day to day.
Being able to just say "Google set an apartment in my calendar to meet John for coffee next week at 3pm" is infinitely more convenient than opening my phone or laptop and clicking through the UI to do so. Or "Google remind me to cancel my subscription in 10 days" or "Set a timer for 10 minutes" etc etc.
Likewise Firebase has made it infinitely easier and smoother to deploy a web app. Google Domains is probably the most seamless way to purchase and register a domain.
Waymo is innovating like crazy and possesses the most advanced autonomous driver agent.
Wing is innovating drone delivery in rural and suburban areas.
They are innovating to the highest degree and anyone who claims otherwise is deluding themselves.
(I'm not affiliated with Google in any way, but I do hold stock)
I really love my Google smart home speaker and it's been extremely useful day to day.
Being able to just say "Google set an apartment in my calendar to meet John for coffee next week at 3pm" is infinitely more convenient than opening my phone or laptop and clicking through the UI to do so. Or "Google remind me to cancel my subscription in 10 days" or "Set a timer for 10 minutes" etc etc.
Likewise Firebase has made it infinitely easier and smoother to deploy a web app. Google Domains is probably the most seamless way to purchase and register a domain.
Waymo is innovating like crazy and possesses the most advanced autonomous driver agent.
Wing is innovating drone delivery in rural and suburban areas.
They are innovating to the highest degree and anyone who claims otherwise is deluding themselves.
(I'm not affiliated with Google in any way, but I do hold stock)
Try out GCP sometime…lemme know how you feel when they want you to pay 3% of your annual spend for the privilege of being able to email them as to why their (pick a service, but BigQuery is usually my source of frustration) is degraded. The response and escalation for that 3% is essentially whenever they feel like it.
Stay away from Google. AWS has its issues but not with that level of hubris and indifference.
Stay away from Google. AWS has its issues but not with that level of hubris and indifference.
Also, as Google seems to have a habit of summarily cancelling people's accounts across every one of its services at once, each time you add another Google service to what you use, you're increasing your risk of suddenly having your online life or business destroyed at their whim. Basically, use only the Google services you absolutely have to.
How is that different from what AWS does? The pricing is similar (even higher at some break points, but I guess for very high spends GCP is slightly more expensive as AWS charges you 3% for more than 1M per month, vs 4% for the whole thing in GCP), and the support experience in AWS is also utterly crap. We have to go to our TAM if we need an escalation, or anything that doesn't involve blaming us.
BigQuery is so many light-years ahead of Redshift, though, even everyone on AWS still tends to use BigQuery.
You should try Azure sometime. It’s a cloud service run by some scrappy upstart in the Pacific Northwest.
I heard they have some of the best support for developers, despite not having the name cachet around HN that the bigger players have.
I heard they have some of the best support for developers, despite not having the name cachet around HN that the bigger players have.
I did not expect to hear their support lauded by anyone. They prevent solutions to problems from ending up on their forums, aren't widespread enough to have solutions on stack overflow, and have documentation that is often simply inaccurate (i.e. they've changed the names of things, or moved options, etc.)
Here's an example. We have an issue, find other people on their forums that have also had it, but no solution is visible. We file a ticket. They say it's a known problem with a known workaround and tell us the workaround. Why isn't it shared? Because they wouldn't share the solution unless you're paying for support.
Some of their systems are a mess too. There are multiple ways of getting logs out of function apps, and only the most pain in the ass way that requires the most configuration is going to contain all the logs. Other viewers and ways of reading the logs will be partial.
Resource groups are a great idea though.
Here's an example. We have an issue, find other people on their forums that have also had it, but no solution is visible. We file a ticket. They say it's a known problem with a known workaround and tell us the workaround. Why isn't it shared? Because they wouldn't share the solution unless you're paying for support.
Some of their systems are a mess too. There are multiple ways of getting logs out of function apps, and only the most pain in the ass way that requires the most configuration is going to contain all the logs. Other viewers and ways of reading the logs will be partial.
Resource groups are a great idea though.
Azure's UI is so shockingly bad, confusing and complex it puts AWS to shame.
Seriously?
I thought it made way more sense.
I kind of wonder if this is a case of what-I-already-know bias for both of us.
I thought it made way more sense.
I kind of wonder if this is a case of what-I-already-know bias for both of us.
I found similar. Their documentation often refers to things that simply don't exist. Pictures of how menus used to look and no longer do. Multiple ways of doing the same thing that give slightly different results, with no real reason for the difference.
I have heard though, that it makes more sense for people coming out of sysadmining Windows Server networks.
I have heard though, that it makes more sense for people coming out of sysadmining Windows Server networks.
They also unfortunately have some shockingly bad issues with securing their services
> I really love my Google smart home speaker and it's been extremely useful day to day.
There's lots of uncertainties on my life, but the fact I don't want a "Google smart home speaker" isn't one of them.
In fact, I just had a realization. If you have to say something is "smart", then it's shit. Then reason is, when a product is useful you don't need to call it smart to sell it.
There's lots of uncertainties on my life, but the fact I don't want a "Google smart home speaker" isn't one of them.
In fact, I just had a realization. If you have to say something is "smart", then it's shit. Then reason is, when a product is useful you don't need to call it smart to sell it.
Discounting that... "Smart Speaker" is the class of product being sold? A "speaker" still is a regular old box that you hook up to your phone or HiFi.
People clearly get something out of these and they've been around for a while.
People clearly get something out of these and they've been around for a while.
The term is mostly used for speakers with a built-in assistant (Google Assistant, Alexa, etc.), where the assistant is one of the main reasons for wanting a smart speaker.
It's great for things like setting alarms, kitchen timers (don't have to touch anything with your hands, just talk), checking the weather, and controlling the other smart devices like lights, with just your voice.
It's great for things like setting alarms, kitchen timers (don't have to touch anything with your hands, just talk), checking the weather, and controlling the other smart devices like lights, with just your voice.
Your list is:
- item they are at parity with on Amazon (Alexa)
- worse cloud product struggling to compete
- a registrar without any up-sell. Literally no innovation, just a sales funnel into google @ work
- waymo is innovating, this may be one of the only spots, but they seem to be behind cruise as far as difficult scenarios
- how is wing innovating? I’ve heard no news here
Google is a bloated beast that has grown headcount by 90% in the last 5-10 years and it wasn’t by suddenly finding a trove of people that met the bar set when Gmail was a 20% and search was useful.
- item they are at parity with on Amazon (Alexa)
- worse cloud product struggling to compete
- a registrar without any up-sell. Literally no innovation, just a sales funnel into google @ work
- waymo is innovating, this may be one of the only spots, but they seem to be behind cruise as far as difficult scenarios
- how is wing innovating? I’ve heard no news here
Google is a bloated beast that has grown headcount by 90% in the last 5-10 years and it wasn’t by suddenly finding a trove of people that met the bar set when Gmail was a 20% and search was useful.
The voice assistant stuff is fraught - phrases work for a while and then stop working, and you have to work out the new phrase they've chosen. Like, recently, "Walk to [X]" stopped working a majority of the time, so now I'm not sure what phrasing to use when I want it to show a walking route. Same goes for adding things to a calendar or starting a timer - it works until it doesn't. As with search, things just change so much that you just can't trust it.
Almost none of the other things you mention are likely long-term significant. Firebase is going to continue at low popularity until it vanishes. Waymo can't make much progress when the current zeitgeist is that everyone can produce self-driving cars. Drone delivery keeps getting tried by lots of companies and never delivers. Google Home is copying Amazon's (Alexa) success just as Android was copying Apple's (iPhone).
AI is the lone exception in what you mention - the sheer size and scope of their AI projects has been impressive. As with Google Translate, though, the output is now polluting the very data sources that they use, making future efforts harder.
Almost none of the other things you mention are likely long-term significant. Firebase is going to continue at low popularity until it vanishes. Waymo can't make much progress when the current zeitgeist is that everyone can produce self-driving cars. Drone delivery keeps getting tried by lots of companies and never delivers. Google Home is copying Amazon's (Alexa) success just as Android was copying Apple's (iPhone).
AI is the lone exception in what you mention - the sheer size and scope of their AI projects has been impressive. As with Google Translate, though, the output is now polluting the very data sources that they use, making future efforts harder.
> "Google set an apartment in my calendar to meet John for coffee next week at 3pm"
(emphasis mine)
Was this what you meant or did you just get a taste of what Google has been doing to me for over a decade, autocorrect words to something ridiculous without telling me?
(emphasis mine)
Was this what you meant or did you just get a taste of what Google has been doing to me for over a decade, autocorrect words to something ridiculous without telling me?
I lost count of the "innovations" that don't last more than one Google IO.
So they've caught up to Apple and Amazon, and are making it easier to register a domain, something that was already incredibly simple.
And they have some other products in areas that won't see the light of day for years.
Cool.
And they have some other products in areas that won't see the light of day for years.
Cool.
So, a speech-to-text and vice versa with a limited set of options, a website to buy domains from and "inovations", that you cannot buy yet, and might be cancelled before they ever come to consumer-ready completion?
That doesn't sound like a lot.
Google had an XMPP compatible chat client, that they killed of and revived with a new product every few years, so from gtalk, to wave, duo, alo, meet, chat, or whatever else it was called.
Youtube stopped promoting independent producers, and is basically just a frontend to legacy media.
Google apps was a great free tool for your own domain, but nope, not free anymore.
Google maps started featuring ads everywhere and is a pain to try to find thing X with lidl logos everywhere.
Google reader, great product, dead.
Google cardboard... great, cheap VR "for the masses"... dead.
Google fusion tables.. dead.
Google search results are 50% pinterest, 50% unrelated.
Google inbox, dead.
The audio only chromecast.. dead.
Google mytracks, great tool, killed by google (luckily an opensource replacement exists).
Picasa.
Google+ was a great idea... create bubbles, share stuff to only specific groups... too much forced integration everywhere, people hated it, dead.
Google nexus/pixel phones were great in the nexus 4/5/5x era.. now they're expesive and "meh".
Android privacy features are broken... no way to change unique ids, and most of the permissions are not granular enough, and people have been complaining for years about that.
The only thing google is really great at, is taking a chat service, making a new one and killing the old one... everything else is building nice prototypes and killing them.
That doesn't sound like a lot.
Google had an XMPP compatible chat client, that they killed of and revived with a new product every few years, so from gtalk, to wave, duo, alo, meet, chat, or whatever else it was called.
Youtube stopped promoting independent producers, and is basically just a frontend to legacy media.
Google apps was a great free tool for your own domain, but nope, not free anymore.
Google maps started featuring ads everywhere and is a pain to try to find thing X with lidl logos everywhere.
Google reader, great product, dead.
Google cardboard... great, cheap VR "for the masses"... dead.
Google fusion tables.. dead.
Google search results are 50% pinterest, 50% unrelated.
Google inbox, dead.
The audio only chromecast.. dead.
Google mytracks, great tool, killed by google (luckily an opensource replacement exists).
Picasa.
Google+ was a great idea... create bubbles, share stuff to only specific groups... too much forced integration everywhere, people hated it, dead.
Google nexus/pixel phones were great in the nexus 4/5/5x era.. now they're expesive and "meh".
Android privacy features are broken... no way to change unique ids, and most of the permissions are not granular enough, and people have been complaining for years about that.
The only thing google is really great at, is taking a chat service, making a new one and killing the old one... everything else is building nice prototypes and killing them.
I mean... You kinda defeated your own point. You listed great number of great google innovations, and are (as far as I can tell) actually upset at people / users / market for not embracing them and allowing them to succeed?
FWIW I'm with you. People just don't seem to like the things I like so they die and I don't have things I like. But I don't find that google's fault or lack of their innovation. They seem to go more crazy than vast majority of companies to try crazy things - and you missed out on as many dead innovative things (Google goggles etc) as you listed :)
FWIW I'm with you. People just don't seem to like the things I like so they die and I don't have things I like. But I don't find that google's fault or lack of their innovation. They seem to go more crazy than vast majority of companies to try crazy things - and you missed out on as many dead innovative things (Google goggles etc) as you listed :)
Creating a product that operates at a loss (by funding it with ad money from search), effectively evaporating small players in that niche, only to kill the product in several years, leaving a smoldering hole where an ecosystem used to be?
Or, in cases like Picasa buying a product, only to shut it down and force existing users onto a new platform (Photos in that case) with no feature parity.
If that's innovation, it's a rather sad kind. Google could do with less of that.
And as a xoogler: Google is long past trying crazy things. New things — sure, crazy — nope. Crazy won't fly in a project proposal.
FWIW most of the things mentioned in the parent comment (Waymo, Wing, etc) are not Google.
Yes, they're owned by the same holding group. But if you work at Google, you don't have access to projects, employees, and spaces.
Or, in cases like Picasa buying a product, only to shut it down and force existing users onto a new platform (Photos in that case) with no feature parity.
If that's innovation, it's a rather sad kind. Google could do with less of that.
And as a xoogler: Google is long past trying crazy things. New things — sure, crazy — nope. Crazy won't fly in a project proposal.
FWIW most of the things mentioned in the parent comment (Waymo, Wing, etc) are not Google.
Yes, they're owned by the same holding group. But if you work at Google, you don't have access to projects, employees, and spaces.
I partly agree. But only partly because Google has tried crazy things recently too. Stadia seemed pretty crazy in my eyes and it's the kind of thing that most people wrote off but I had hoped that Google could prove them wrong. They didn't and have killed it off for the most part (it still exists but I think it's back to the drawing board). A while back Google was working on building a modular smart phone with Project Ara. They killed it before it got to consumers.
It seems like Google still attempts crazy things now and then but the crazy things don't succeed like they used to. Maybe there's just not as much blue ocean for crazy things in tech to succeed like there used to and the crazy things are crazy for a reason and no one's trying it.
It seems like Google still attempts crazy things now and then but the crazy things don't succeed like they used to. Maybe there's just not as much blue ocean for crazy things in tech to succeed like there used to and the crazy things are crazy for a reason and no one's trying it.
Is stadia really that crazy? OnLive existed well before stadia and was basically the same thing.
It is. The lag for steam play just over wifi is insufferable. Encoding the video takes too long for latency intensive applications like video games.
There's a difference between "very complicated to accomplish" and "crazy" in my book.
For example, balancing a bowling ball on the tip of a pencil is technically very challenging, but accomplishing that isn't exactly what people would call "crazy" - more like "OK, but why would you do that".
The problem that Google faces now is that the fun and crazy things that could be done with the wealth of personal data that it collects are increasingly seen as creepy by the people providing that data, immoral by the journalists, and illegal by legislatures.
Saying this as someone who would have absolute loved to do some of the crazier things while working there. It's for the better that it was not an option, at least at the time.
Google has a lot of power now, and with great power comes great responsibility. And responsible behavior tends to lean away from "crazy".
For example, balancing a bowling ball on the tip of a pencil is technically very challenging, but accomplishing that isn't exactly what people would call "crazy" - more like "OK, but why would you do that".
The problem that Google faces now is that the fun and crazy things that could be done with the wealth of personal data that it collects are increasingly seen as creepy by the people providing that data, immoral by the journalists, and illegal by legislatures.
Saying this as someone who would have absolute loved to do some of the crazier things while working there. It's for the better that it was not an option, at least at the time.
Google has a lot of power now, and with great power comes great responsibility. And responsible behavior tends to lean away from "crazy".
Stadia isn't crazy. It's just dumb.
Is it new? No. Streaming games has been done for a good while now.
Is it exciting? Games on subscription? Already done.
Even exclusive games were done. And done better by Epic store.
Works with existing collection? Nope.
Working on any device? So does GFNow but works with current Steam collection (unless publishers is greedy).
Does it solve any interesting issues? No. But adds non-repairable console. Basic issue can't be fixed easily - Network congestion, speed of light.
On launch it was universally panned by hardware reviewers like Gamers Nexus, and others.
It's not like Google graveyard was a secret at that point.
Is it new? No. Streaming games has been done for a good while now.
Is it exciting? Games on subscription? Already done.
Even exclusive games were done. And done better by Epic store.
Works with existing collection? Nope.
Working on any device? So does GFNow but works with current Steam collection (unless publishers is greedy).
Does it solve any interesting issues? No. But adds non-repairable console. Basic issue can't be fixed easily - Network congestion, speed of light.
On launch it was universally panned by hardware reviewers like Gamers Nexus, and others.
It's not like Google graveyard was a secret at that point.
>But only partly because Google has tried crazy things recently too.
Our definitions of "tried" and "crazy" clearly differ.
>They killed it before it got to consumer
By that definition, I "tried" building a spaceship yesterday. I just killed it before it got to the launch. Crazy, huh?
>Maybe there's just not as much blue ocean for crazy things in tech to succeed like there used to
Or maybe a company abandoned by its founders that ditched its "Don't Be Evil" motto for something incomprehensible ("Respect the opportunity", pardon me? Should I also "Be nice to profits" and "Revere stock value"?) isn't the shining paragon of innovation it used to be.
There is plenty of space for crazy things, more than ever before. And both Alphabet and Meta are doing crazy things. Just not as a part of their main businesses (Google/Facebook, respectively).
Our definitions of "tried" and "crazy" clearly differ.
>They killed it before it got to consumer
By that definition, I "tried" building a spaceship yesterday. I just killed it before it got to the launch. Crazy, huh?
>Maybe there's just not as much blue ocean for crazy things in tech to succeed like there used to
Or maybe a company abandoned by its founders that ditched its "Don't Be Evil" motto for something incomprehensible ("Respect the opportunity", pardon me? Should I also "Be nice to profits" and "Revere stock value"?) isn't the shining paragon of innovation it used to be.
There is plenty of space for crazy things, more than ever before. And both Alphabet and Meta are doing crazy things. Just not as a part of their main businesses (Google/Facebook, respectively).
Does anyone have any good alternatives to google maps? The new sponsored content is extremely obnoxious and god forbid you accidentally mouse over it while looking at the map.
OsmAnd on android for an opensource solution - downloads openstreetmaps and renders them locally, but can also use web maps if needed
Here maps from nokia for a commercial solution
Here maps from nokia for a commercial solution
I use OsmAnd for cycling navigation. It is very good at that. At least in the places I was.
Any of those with as complete list of local businesses as Google ? If I want to find an ice cream parlor, or an engine oil dealer, or a sports equipment shop in my vicinity , would all three have similar results ?
I use OSMAnd for navigation a and location-related stuff.
Sadly, the only complete business listing I've found is Google Maps... So I use it just for that, with all permissions revoked.
Lately, I've started to add my favorite places in OSM, directly through OSMAnd. So my personal experience has gotten better
Sadly, the only complete business listing I've found is Google Maps... So I use it just for that, with all permissions revoked.
Lately, I've started to add my favorite places in OSM, directly through OSMAnd. So my personal experience has gotten better
Google maps is useless for local results form me, I live in a village on the edge of a small town with a few dozen local businesses and 4 chain businesses and all my search results are polluted by 2 cities 30 minutes and 45 minutes away by car, which is really annoying as these results are useless to me as my disability prevents me traveling that far or amount of time.
If you search for something and then move the map over an area, you’ll get a button to “search this area” which will only show results in that spot.
That’s how it should work, anyway.
That’s how it should work, anyway.
Probably depends on the area. Where I live, OSM doesn't really have anything beyond just streets. But I've heard other areas have much better coverage.
Yes, complete opposite for me, loads of single track roads and whole 4sq miles of woods/Forrest missing, including numerous public paths .
I used osmand in Poland and Ireland and it's great. Better for walking and biking than Google maps. And it's fully offline.
You can try HERE WeGo. Add free and you can download maps for use offline.
Disclaimer: I work for HERE Technologies.
Disclaimer: I work for HERE Technologies.
Magic Earth is a good map/navigation app that uses OSM data and has a decent search tool. IMHO it does car navigation well, but I prefer Organic Maps for hiking/walking, so I keep both on my phone.
> Google maps started featuring ads everywhere and is a pain to try to find thing X with lidl logos everywhere.
It makes me wonder who at BP, Shell, McDonalds, Aldi, Lidl thinks that obscuring the map with their obscene logo is a good idea. They do it everywhere - Garmin devices, Google Maps, other providers. The moment you have maps, there is a queue of sales and marketing people from these companies with invitations for "conferences". Then PM/PO/manager after coming back creates turd tickets for "premium POIs".
It makes me wonder who at BP, Shell, McDonalds, Aldi, Lidl thinks that obscuring the map with their obscene logo is a good idea. They do it everywhere - Garmin devices, Google Maps, other providers. The moment you have maps, there is a queue of sales and marketing people from these companies with invitations for "conferences". Then PM/PO/manager after coming back creates turd tickets for "premium POIs".
I wonder how many people are on a mapping service like, "oh wow, Aldi, why didn't I think of that" and go to Aldi. Or perhaps they're searching for gas and don't want to optimize on route or cost and go "aha, a BP, thankfully I can actually fuel up now." I imagine it's next to no one but the way people advertise I have to assume it's not.
None? I know a lot of products which I could recommend: Go, Android, Maps, Youtube w Adblock, Search (for the average joe, I prefer using kagi).
Of course products such as yt and search are far from being perfect, but they are still in a commendable state.
Of course products such as yt and search are far from being perfect, but they are still in a commendable state.
> yt and search are far from being perfect
My thesis is that YouTube and Google Search are in an almost perfectly optimized position, where ±5% product quality would not make anyone switch to another service (this is why DDG isn't taking over, for example), but ±10% (or higher, in the + case) is probably around an order of magnitude more difficult to achieve. In other words, no one other than Google can make a better Google.
My thesis is that YouTube and Google Search are in an almost perfectly optimized position, where ±5% product quality would not make anyone switch to another service (this is why DDG isn't taking over, for example), but ±10% (or higher, in the + case) is probably around an order of magnitude more difficult to achieve. In other words, no one other than Google can make a better Google.
DuckDuckGo is pretty far from Google in terms of search result quality, unfortunately. I would use it if the results were better.
I'm using DDG a default on my laptop but I end up adding !g in a lot of searches. Google usually finds what DDG doesn't or places it closer to the start of the page.
I mainly keep it as my default because of the "bangs". Which I could configure my browser to do (and did... oh, when did Firefox add that feature? 15 years ago? More?) but setting DDG as my default saves me having to do that. Plus, sometimes, I can get useful ordinary search results without having to look at Google's trashy results page.
I have been using You.com the past couple of weeks and am really enjoying the search results I am getting there.
They are optimized for ad revenue, not for having a pleasing user experience. :)
I still enjoy youtube, drive, translate, maps, android, android auto, and google login.
Of those, only Youtube feels like best-of-breed. The others feel legacy.
For reasons I don't understand, almost no one except Google can reliably stream video. It's dumb. I remember streaming postage-stamp sized video on a 200MHz Pentium.
You'd think that would work reliably in 2022.
I can think of a half-dozen other sites which work okay, and many (including very well-resourced ones) which just fail a lot of the time.
For reasons I don't understand, almost no one except Google can reliably stream video. It's dumb. I remember streaming postage-stamp sized video on a 200MHz Pentium.
You'd think that would work reliably in 2022.
I can think of a half-dozen other sites which work okay, and many (including very well-resourced ones) which just fail a lot of the time.
> For reasons I don't understand, almost no one except Google can reliably stream video.
Scale. YouTube (Google) can encode an uploaded video into a number of codecs and store those encoded bitstreams all over the world in data centers. All the backhaul goes over their private backbones. Hot videos will stream from edge caches topologically close to clients.
Because YouTube infrastructure is Google infrastructure it gets the same scale as the rest of Google. Other video hosts have similar technical architecture/topology but at vastly smaller scale than Google.
Scale. YouTube (Google) can encode an uploaded video into a number of codecs and store those encoded bitstreams all over the world in data centers. All the backhaul goes over their private backbones. Hot videos will stream from edge caches topologically close to clients.
Because YouTube infrastructure is Google infrastructure it gets the same scale as the rest of Google. Other video hosts have similar technical architecture/topology but at vastly smaller scale than Google.
Youtube is mostly best-of-breed due to being the incumbent with network effects. They couldn't even compete well with Twitch or Spotify for their respective niches.
> For reasons I don't understand, almost no one except Google can reliably stream video.
I can think of a market with say 6 or so major players that all stream video in HD and even 4K very well across the world.
> For reasons I don't understand, almost no one except Google can reliably stream video.
I can think of a market with say 6 or so major players that all stream video in HD and even 4K very well across the world.
> I can think of a market with say 6 or so major players that all stream video in HD and even 4K very well across the world.
I suppose that market is lucrative enough that they've never been tempted to spin off a mainstream version. Else they'd absolutely be the front-runners to beat Google at that game, I'd think.
Come to think of it, they should also have a pretty good corpus (ha, ha) to launch a variety of machine-learning products that might well outdo Google in certain areas.
I suppose that market is lucrative enough that they've never been tempted to spin off a mainstream version. Else they'd absolutely be the front-runners to beat Google at that game, I'd think.
Come to think of it, they should also have a pretty good corpus (ha, ha) to launch a variety of machine-learning products that might well outdo Google in certain areas.
Also Gmail and google photos are both amazing.
I grumble about the state of search all the time (on HN, even), but the NLP is undoubtedly very helpful in the domains it's suited for. I regularly use it to answer queries that a few years ago would have needed to be a Q&A post on the correct site or subreddit followed by a substantial wait -- often when searching for some concept that I can partially describe but have forgotten the name of; within the first page (often impressively the first result) will be an official site, Wikipedia page, or forum post about the exact thing, without any words in common between query and result. Of course, there also needs to be some way to make sure that doesn't happen when not desired!
[deleted]
What about Gmail? We take it for granted, that's also Google's curse, they are "infrastructure".
"We generate money by serving Google text advertisments on a network of hidden Websites"
What does that mean?
"Google text advertisements"
Advertisements for Google.com? Advertisements on Google ads?
"hidden websites"
Authenticated websites? Websites that ban listing by google crawler? Websites that ban google crawler IPs?
Can someone please explain how this makes money?
What does that mean?
"Google text advertisements"
Advertisements for Google.com? Advertisements on Google ads?
"hidden websites"
Authenticated websites? Websites that ban listing by google crawler? Websites that ban google crawler IPs?
Can someone please explain how this makes money?
That's the way advertisement works on the web. You have a website, you host ads, google pushes its ads via your website and you get paid for it.
The phrasing text advertisement comes from the fact that this is quite an old initiative. Back then ads were a lot of really flashy blinking gifs or flash animations with sound. Google, in the don't be evil days, was promoting sober ads, just text basically.
Edit: by hidden I think they mean that those are secret
The phrasing text advertisement comes from the fact that this is quite an old initiative. Back then ads were a lot of really flashy blinking gifs or flash animations with sound. Google, in the don't be evil days, was promoting sober ads, just text basically.
Edit: by hidden I think they mean that those are secret
I'm reading that as "unknown to you, the advertiser."
I assume they don't want google to cancel their ads
It was supposed to work through click fraud on Adsense, back when Adsense had text ads.
(https://www.gwei.org/img/GWEI_SYSTEM.gif)
(https://www.gwei.org/img/GWEI_SYSTEM.gif)
https://www.theregister.com/2008/08/13/google_will_eat_itsel...
Note that The Register deemed them a hoax (although they did not elaborate). Made by this artist (who insists it is real): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubermorgen.
An interview with the artist: https://culturejamming.realvinylz.net/interviewIe.html
Note that The Register deemed them a hoax (although they did not elaborate). Made by this artist (who insists it is real): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubermorgen.
An interview with the artist: https://culturejamming.realvinylz.net/interviewIe.html
That website's background drives me insane. Why would you animate the whole background?
> 202.345.117 Years until GWEI fully owns Google.
Oh well. It's a funny idea though.
> 202.345.117 Years until GWEI fully owns Google.
Oh well. It's a funny idea though.
I'd argue it's an accessibility concern, not just an annoyance
https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#distractions-user-story
Userstyle to remove it:
https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#distractions-user-story
Userstyle to remove it:
@-moz-document domain("gwei.org") {
body {
background-image: none;
background-color: #333;
}
}
[deleted]
The author didn't claim it was an accessibility concern.
I think perhaps they were trying to be cool, like their namesake [1] and failed.
[1] https://www.thedesignersrepublic.com/pop-will-eat-itself
[1] https://www.thedesignersrepublic.com/pop-will-eat-itself
It's a cute idea, but it fundamentally doesn't work the way one might think.
A majority of the voting shares are owned by the founders, who are not obliged to sell at any price. It is functionally impossible to do a hostile takeover of Google without causing one of them to defect.
A majority of the voting shares are owned by the founders, who are not obliged to sell at any price. It is functionally impossible to do a hostile takeover of Google without causing one of them to defect.
By establishing this autocannibalistic model we deconstruct the new global advertisment mechanisms by rendering them into a surreal click-based economic model.
Who isn’t eating themselves these days?
It’s 2022. Autophagy. We’ve been doing this for millennia, for all time.
Get with the program.
Get with the program.
Are those numbers real? Or is this a late (early?) April Fools? I can't even tell anymore.
Google share price $495 -- this is over a decade out of date
Although they have a 20 to 1 split coming up in July.
Which has virtually zero impact on anything at all whatsoever other than making it affordable to retail investors, which also has zero impact on anything other than black swan meme stocks
Fractional shares are a pretty widespread feature at brokerages these days making it even less of an issue.
Perhaps it increases the liquidity of their options market though.
Perhaps it increases the liquidity of their options market though.
A high share price has a large impact on who is able to trade options.
There’s also a non-trivial amount of stock price that’s based on “psychologically round” numbers. If a stock is 399 some traders may see it as a deal and buy simply because it’s below the “round” number of $400. Splitting changes the relative landscape of what numbers are “round”.
I bet it is literally phonetically easier for traders on the NYSE floor to shout round number rather than "Selling amazon at 978.23!!!" At some point the number of significant figures slows down your transaction speed, as a human, that is.
That's not true. It has an impact on options re-pricing after the split occurs. I don't pretend to understand it, so don't ask for more details, but options traders love splits, apparently (at least the traders I know).
I trade options and I love it when share price is above $1000.
The flurry of stock splits for major tech shares is just a way for institutions to offload their stock to retail investors.
JPM and their clown gang has been screaming "buy the dip" non stop since Jan.
here is motley fool and seeking alpha screaming to buy shopify at $1300. https://www.fool.ca/2022/01/15/shopify-tsxshop-why-i-finally...
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4478545-shopify-shop-bastio...
Shopify is around $300 now and on the way to around $100
JPM and their clown gang has been screaming "buy the dip" non stop since Jan.
here is motley fool and seeking alpha screaming to buy shopify at $1300. https://www.fool.ca/2022/01/15/shopify-tsxshop-why-i-finally...
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4478545-shopify-shop-bastio...
Shopify is around $300 now and on the way to around $100
> JPM and their clown gang has been screaming "buy the dip" non stop since Jan.
Well... long-term (=20-30 years) "buying the dip" is the one true way to make outlandish profits (other than gambling with options), the thing is you have to be financially able and psychologically strong enough to not sell on the inevitable downturns - and you need to spread your purchases.
Retail investors should stay the fuck out of single stocks or narrow-scope indices, at least with money they cannot afford to lose.
Well... long-term (=20-30 years) "buying the dip" is the one true way to make outlandish profits (other than gambling with options), the thing is you have to be financially able and psychologically strong enough to not sell on the inevitable downturns - and you need to spread your purchases.
Retail investors should stay the fuck out of single stocks or narrow-scope indices, at least with money they cannot afford to lose.
there is absolutely no way in hell SHOP is going back to $1300. Or even COIN or any of the other tech will return to their heights.
AMZN, GOOG might return probably in other 10 years.
There is the saying "don't catch a falling knife" for a reason. It's illogical to plough money into stock market when QT has hit, inflation is soaring and a recession is all but guaranteed.
There is the saying "don't catch a falling knife" for a reason. It's illogical to plough money into stock market when QT has hit, inflation is soaring and a recession is all but guaranteed.
It also helps employees' vesting schedules by smoothing them out.
How so? Most vests are substantially more than a single share.
Not so on refreshers for lower level employees. $70k-$100k over 4 years amounts to barely one share a month at current GOOG prices. Add in tax withholding and it’s about half a share. So they generally vest quarterly instead of monthly. After this split they can vest monthly.
[deleted]
They own ~$400k... More then I thought
The ownership counter has been never updated since circa 2008 [1], and there has been a 2-for-1 stock split in 2014 so they actually own (819 * 2) stocks * 2228.55 USD per stock ~= 3.65 million USD today.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20080814021128/http://www.gwei.o...
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20080814021128/http://www.gwei.o...
Or, alternatively, only 202.345.102 years (instead of 202.345.117) until GWEI fully owns Google.
Is there any record of how much more they’ve purchased?
The Wayback Machine indicates that the ownership counter was steadily increasing until that point, so that's presumably the record. Of course as others pointed out in other threads, this "counter" might be just a fake as well.
Great idea, but wow the background on the website is SO unbelievably annoying
art piece by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubermorgen
Clever.
Clever.
Since Google grows at a much faster rate than their ability to buy shares, their owned part of Google will always be insignificant.
I wish them the best of luck in this endeavour!
Any minute now, right? /s
Oh, in a mere 200 million years, neat! sits back and waits
How does one own a company by serving ads. I don't get it
Google pays you if you deliver ads from their network on your website. They have a bunch of websites that can show ads, Google pays them. They use the money to buy Google shares.
[deleted]
I was the Ads emissary to the Owned and Operated Properties (like Maps and YouTube) in 2010. I managed to increase the RPM by a small but noticeable amount. They used to have ads on the bottom of the screen, which was the revenue source I was optimizing. Then later I was actually IN Maps when Marissa Mayer was nominally in charge. We were trying to develop "maps for business." That all came to naught when they decided it wasn't worth the bother.
Maps is fabulous PR for Google. I can't count the times someone outside of Google said to me, "Oh, I love Google Maps!" But it's a gigantic money loser and always will be.
"What about imputed revenue?" you ask? They don't want to measure that, because then every patent litigant would use it against them, and Maps attracts a LOT of patent lawsuits.