13 ms·
Advancing our amazing bet
- djrogers 10y agoWow, this blog post feels like a giant nothing-burger. We're going to continue what we're doing by pausing what we're doing so we can grow. Mumle mumble marketing speak.
- hiddencost 10y agoThat was kinda impressively worded. Like, it took me a while to realize that what they were saying is "hey, this isn't working, we need to cut expenses. Also, I quit." So, good job framing this about investing in R&D. Any clues as to why they're actually doing this? Competition, regulation, ???
- dchuk 10y agoFor most of our “potential Fiber cities” — those where we’ve been in exploratory discussions — we’re going to pause our operations and offices while we refine our approaches NOOOOOOOOOOOO. Being trapped with either Time Warner or AT&T with max speeds of 40mbps had me really excited as a San Diegan for Google Fiber.
- thaumaturgy 10y agoThis announcement needs a little bit of translation from the marketing language it's written in: > And thanks to the hard work of everyone on the Access team, our business is solid: our subscriber base and revenue are growing quickly, and we expect that growth to continue. "We're not yet profitable." > We have refined our plan going forward to achieve these objectives. It entails us making changes to focus our business and product strategy. Importantly, the plan enhances our focus on new technology and deployment methods to make superfast Internet more abundant than it is today. "Building fiber infrastructure in cities isn't a viable business model." > For most of our “potential Fiber cities” — those where we’ve been in exploratory discussions — we’re going to pause our operations and offices while we refine our approaches. "We're not going to build out any more cities using this approach." > In this handful of cities that are still in an exploratory stage, and in certain related areas of our supporting operations, we’ll be reducing our employee base. "We're winding down Google Fiber operations and putting it on life support." > As for me personally, it’s been quite a journey over the past few years, taking a broad-based set of projects and initiatives and growing a focused business that is on a strong trajectory. And I’ve decided this is the right juncture to step aside from my CEO role. "I'm getting out of this while it still looks good." -- That's too bad. Google Fiber has put a lot of needed pressure on existing telecommunications mega-corps to improve their services. I really wanted to see it take off well enough to result in some major improvements to infrastructure around the country, but having worked for an ISP in a previous lifetime, I was skeptical that they'd be able to do it profitably. Last-mile fiber is expensive, expensive, expensive. I'm sure Comcast and Time Warner and friends are all breathing a sigh of relief.
- hossbeast 10y agoHow can you be both an SVP and a CEO?
- jpm_sd 10y agoHe was/is an SVP of Alphabet and a quasi-CEO of Access, which is (in the process of becoming?) a "separate" company under the Alphabet umbrella.
- carsongross 10y agohttps://ouramazingbet.tumbler.com/ https://ouramazingbet.tumbler.com/ can be the big company version of https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/ https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/
- asperous 10y agoThe title should be: > Google winds down its fiber operations
- mattchew 10y agoYup. "And by advancing, I mean retreating!"
- richdougherty 10y agoI think Hacker News would be improved if there was a way to add a subtitle for submissions. The title could be unedited from the original, and the subtitle could be a brief note explaining what the link is really about.
- jeffjose 10y agoAssociated reading - https://www.theinformation.com/inside-the-battle-over-google-fiber https://www.theinformation.com/inside-the-battle-over-google... (Aug 2016) (paywall)
- WillPostForFood 10y agoSince it is paywalled, you want to share a few of the key points that didn't show up in the other stories?
- fowlerpower 10y agoThis is terrible corporate speak. It should be titled "We are killing Google Fiber for any new cities". Why do companies do this? Why sugar coat all of this and why make me think your actually going to expand only to let me down. It's terrible double speak and it does not help your cause, it just makes me dislike your company for two reasons now. One for canceling a service I was excited about and two for being, in my opinion, dishonest.
- yabatopia 10y agoNot just for new cities. Reading between the lines they're basically saying that they're shutting down and current assets are up for sale. I wonder who will pick up the pieces?
- fowlerpower 10y agoISPs need to be disrupted so badly. This was actually one of the few initiatives that I thought would really force everyone to change.
- toast0 10y agoATT is rolling out new fiber (and running fiber they already had at decent speeds), Comcast has their 2G offering and a 1G doccis offering. Speeds have changed, but the fundamental issue is still there: It's impractical to have robust competition in the last mile, and nobody wants to wholesale last mile and make competition an option. Google fiber's early press releases included it, but stopped before they started building. The 1996 telecom act included it, but the FCC abandoned it in the last decade.
- magila 10y agoWhile Comcast does offer higher speeds, it's prohibitively expensive. In a typical market where Comcast has an effective monopoly the 2Gb service is $300/month and even just 250Mb is $150. Their upload speeds are also pathetic, the 250Mb service is only 30Mb up.
- Inconel 10y agoI won't be surprised if this news is met with the usual sentiment that Google abandons everything that isn't immediately hugely successful, and while I often share that criticism of Google, I can't really fault them too much in this case. Getting a nationwide ISP up and running from scratch just seems like an almost impossible task. This is disappointing to me nonetheless. Can someone with knowledge of the industry explain to me what the biggest hurdles were for Fiber and what if any mistakes Google made in it's rollout? Am I correct in assuming telco interference or hostility played a part? What could Google have done differently for Fiber to be profitable, or is this simply not an industry that you can hope to be profitable in unless you look 20-30 years out? Basically I'm curious to learn whether this is a result of mistakes on Google's part, Google just not having the long term wherewithal for the rollout, or market/regulatory forces making such a project impossible at this time?
- scarmig 10y agoMy totally non-professional opinion is this: the problems of there not being good ISPs in the USA isn't a technical or infrastructure problem, where Google excels. They are instead political and organizational problems. Existing ISPs give as little as they can legally get away with while extracting as much money as possible from customers, by hook or by crook. If Google enters a market to provide a better service, Comcast et al. can easily pretty much flip a switch in that market to start providing a better service to hold onto their disgruntled customers, depriving Google of much of the market it needed to make Fiber profitable. So Google ends up spending a bunch of money while not being able to capitalize on it.
- Guest98123 10y agoGoogle Fiber was never in my city, but can those with Google Fiber in their area weigh in on the above? When Fiber came to town, what happened with the existing ISPs in the area? If you called to cancel and explained moving to Fiber, did they give you an offer you couldn't refuse to stay with their services, and if so, did you take it?
- 10y ago
- sparky_ 10y agoIn other words, no new Fiber cities.
- orliesaurus 10y agoso when he says he steps aside, what will he be doing as CEO cause clearly this didn't work out - a tons of mistakes were made at least here in ATX where they keep pushing flyers through my door but...all killer no filler.
- pasbesoin 10y agoAs a consumer, the last/most recent product from Google that I "trust" (to be reliable and to stick around) is Google Docs (whatever the current branding). Because they are still "dogfooding" it -- using it internally. I don't have current cloud app deployment needs -- and until this year, the Google "cloud" seemed to be kind of marginal, anyway, as an impression based upon "osmosis" from various articles and commenting. I've tried to stick it out with Android, but support and consistency. Google pushes these projects for a while, to meet or explore its own objectives. But I don't count on them, anymore. As an individual consumer, I'm just the product. P.S. Removing the + operator from search. Still missing it. P.P.S. Yes, the nature of this comment is a bit rhetorical. But in a serious sense. The occasional comment on HN is the only way I feel I have any maybe effective feedback -- at least, to some individuals at Google who happen by. Although, after months and months and months, including repeatedly using the error reporting feature within Android to report instances... And finally, shortly after a comment about the behavior on HN, the crashing of the Google Camera app upon "zoom out" on my Nexus 5x, appears to finally be fixed.
- rasz_pl 10y ago>it’s been quite a journey Boom, headshot. There it is, google fiber will be closed down soon.
- mholt 10y agoIt still boggles my mind why they didn't offer a mid-range service level, say 50Mbps for $15-20/mo. I know more than a handful of students here (including myself) who would pay for that. I have to admit, it's weird that they came here with such a big hoorah and now they're almost nowhere to be found.
- mark-r 10y agoIt doesn't cost any less to offer a lower speed, so all they'd be doing is losing money by offering it.
- spullara 10y agoThis is very similar to Verizon. They also stopped their FIOS roll out when they realized it was a bad business. http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Verizon-says-FiOS-roll-out-stopped-because-of-6591620.php http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Verizon-says-FiOS...
- 1_2__3 10y agoAt what point does corporate speak become nonsense gibberish? This post is amazingly close.
- yalogin 10y agoThe weird thing is no one will buy it and every media company out there will lead with "Google fiber is dead". So why be so convoluted at all?
- jsudhams 10y agoAnother google product abandoned halfway
- sgnelson 10y agoThis may be one of the worst PR releases I have ever read. Others have already complained/translated/etc. so my comment is redundant. But I'm jumping on the bandwagon anyway. Because I want Google/Alphabet to know my displeasure at being treated as an ignorant child incapable of recognizing doublespeak when they see it. But frankly, as this is a surprise, yet one more half-assed Google project that gets killed off within a few years of starting. Add it to the pile. And to Google PR people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvp97SMZc6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvp97SMZc6M ...just planting seeds...
- ryandrake 10y agoLeave it to PR department to take 50 words of bad news and obfuscate it into 450 positive-sounding words that barely deliver the real message.
- olegkikin 10y agoI feel like Google set the wrong goal. Most people don't need symmetric 1Gbps connections, and won't need them for decades. They could have started with something like 200Mbps down / 50 Mbps up, and covered way more customers for the same cost. That would still be very disruptive. It would also be great if some high speed / high bandwidth wireless tech took off to eliminate laying fiber altogether. Like that Japanese terahertz 5G 100Gbps.
- cobookman 10y agoits really the same cost. the actual fiber itself is cheap compared to the costs of laying it.
- olegkikin 10y agoYes, that's what I said. But you can hook up 5 times the customers at that same cost.
- cobookman 10y agoHow do you hook those 5 customers up? Are you doing fiber to the curb. If so then you might as well give them each 1gbps as fiber is cheap. Now if you do what webpass did in sf, you'd avoid the cost of laying fiber to those 5 customers, but still provide them internet connections albeit at a lower speed. I think google found out, why would you lay fiber to the home. And is re-thinking their plans.
- toast0 10y agoI'm sure 100 mbps (or whatever) fiber has cheaper equipment on both sides, so if you ran that instead of 1g, you'd be spend the same money and build out to more customers, but I would be shocked if that was five times the customers. Most of the time, expense and headache is spent in getting sites for your equipment, surveying and planning the runs, and getting access to run the fiber near the homes (poles or underground). Running the drops to the homes is also time consuming. You might as well spend a bit more on equipment and run 1G, so you you're competitive with what the incumbents will upgrade to next. Edit to add: The bandwidth out to the internet from the wherever the access goes to really isn't a major cost factor. Access from a decent exchange point isn't that expensive, and you can oversubscribe by a significant factor.
- duck 10y agoA lot more details here: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/10/google-fiber-laying-off-9-of-staff-will-pause-plans-for-10-cities/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/10/google...
- a-no-n 10y agoSo when will Google Fibre fix the embarrassing Starbucks WiFi at: 247 reviews$$$$ 3605 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95051 It's slower than communicating with smoke-signals in a hurricane, or boxing up each bit and sending via the post. Alphabet/Google needs to work on finishing an actual business that they start and scaling faster. Search, email, maps are mobile are pretty good, but the million other areas lack business drive, passion, hustle and focus, competing in areas with much deeper pockets (ATT+DirecTV+Time Warner+..., Verizon+AOL+Yahoo+XO+..., Level3, ...)
- a-no-n 10y agoIOW... They're going to make all Starbucks' WiFI slooower, just like they did with the city of Mountain View. Thanks for almost nothing, Google.
- Jedi72 10y agohttp://cdn.leanblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/IMG_0136-540x304.jpg http://cdn.leanblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/IMG_0136-...
- Jedi72 10y agohttp://cdn.leanblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/IMG_0136-540x304.jpg http://cdn.leanblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/IMG_0136-...
- 8ig8 10y agoNY Times article is a bit easier to parse... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/technology/google-curbs-expansion-of-fiber-optic-network-cutting-jobs.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/technology/google-curbs-ex...
- ajmurmann 10y agoThere is no good money in delivering bits. That's why AT&T wants to buy Time Warner and that's why Google Fiber is shutting down. The only way to make money is price gauging in areas where there is a competitive market. There is really no way to stand out from the competition other than a better price per bit. Obviously there isn't much money in that. There also is really no way to make your customer actively happy other than pricing. Even if you do anything right the only time you will be noticed is when something is broken which is often times unavoidable (storms, lighting, broken equipment, incompetent customers, etc.). Bottom line it's a shit market to be in. The only reason to innovate is because some competitor was foolish to sink money into better, faster infrastructure that most customers don't care about and now you gotta catch up. So there are only incentives to screw customers one way or another and integrating innovation as much as possible. I'm not sure how this can possibly be turned into a functioning, competitive market.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- NotSammyHagar 10y agoThere's enough market in delivering bits to make it worthwhile. The problem is the challenge from the existing people in that market who do everything then can to block you.
- red_phone 10y agoI think my experiences as a Google Fiber subscriber here in Provo might help illustrate why things haven't gone as well for Google as they (and we) initially expected. It turns out that delivering gigabit fiber to the home, though a remarkable technical achievement, isn't transformative in the way that all of us living here assumed it would be. It turns out that almost none of the internet resources commonly consumed in the home are even remotely provisioned for gigabit residential connections. ESPN.com loads about as quickly as it always did. Your Netflix streams don't look any different (the absence of buffering, while nice, is a pretty subtle thing). Even Google services, which you'd expect to be optimized for Fiber subscribers, are no faster than before. Downloads from Google Drive at my home are just as pokey as they are on my Comcast connection at the office. A few things are amazing (Apple downloads are so fast you feel like you must be on the company LAN in Cupertino) and, if you're the rare person who can make use of it, the fact that Google Fiber also provides 1 Gbps UPSTREAM... well, words don't exist to express what that's like. But those are the exceptions. And those exceptions are only achievable by the rare person who actually wired the house with Ethernet. Oh, and it turns out that you've also got to upgrade all of your NICs (every technically-inclined person in the city quickly discovered that Ethernet controllers in consumer PC's can't come close to pushing gigabit Ethernet, regardless of what's printed on the box). If you're on wifi, forget it, especially if you're one of the vast majority connecting solely via the underpowered 802.11n wifi router that Google provided. It was a source of enormous community pride when Google made the announcement. (And a source of validation for the politicians who years earlier had pushed through the municipal fiber network that Google purchased for a dollar.) Everyone was so excited to sign up, and it was great to celebrate with your neighbors as the blue and white Google Fiber vans slowly moved up your street. But now, a couple of years in, no one really talks about it anymore. It's definitely nice. The Google folks are great to deal with if you ever have an issue (which, in any case, is exceedingly rare). The pricing is straightforward and easy to understand. But, to your average household here in Provo, on an average evening doing average things on the Internet, it just doesn't seem very different than what we had before.
- toast0 10y ago> every technically-inclined person in the city quickly discovered that Ethernet controllers in consumer PC's can't come close to pushing gigabit Ethernet, regardless of what's printed on the box Really? I have a chromebox (CPU is Haswell Celeron 2955U, NIC is Realtek 8168), running Windows and can hit about 950M down/833M up on dslreports speedtest when my ATT fiber is having a good day. I thought Realtek nics were considered poor, but getting to 95% of theoretical over the internet seems pretty ok to me. In a browser and going through my NAT box, plus ATT's mostly useless residential gateway. What are good examples of junky gigabit nics that don't cut it?
- idlewords 10y ago"Google Fiber has been such an unqualified success that we're stopping all work on it, and also I quit."
- nixos 10y agoAgain Google is shooting themselves in the foot. Google Fiber, like Android, is a moonshot to keep their line of business alive. Failure doesn't mean that Google doesn't profit off a new line of business. Failure means that Google can be shut down. Google lives off open internet. Their profit is primarily off: 1. Android 2. Search 3. AdSense, AdWords. A closed internet means that 2 out of 3 is dead. All they have in Android. If AT&T and Cable monopolize the internet (which they are close to doing) without strong net-neutrality laws, they can (and will) slowly migrate to the internet being limited to the top 100 sites (curated by them). In such an internet, search and AdWords/AdSense is useless.
- smitherfield 10y ago>If AT&T and Cable monopolize the internet (which they are close to doing) without strong net-neutrality laws, they can (and will) slowly migrate to the internet being limited to the top 100 sites (curated by them). >In such an internet, search and AdWords/AdSense is useless. That doesn't make any sense. Hits to 25 KB Wordpress blogs are trivial for ISPs to serve, nor is there usually any practical or economical way to bill the owners for serving them. It would cost many orders of magnitude more to create a blacklist and/or to track down and attempt to collect payment from the owners than just to continue serving them as before. It's the 25 GB 4K 6-hour Netflix binge-watching sessions they'd want to be subject to throttling/charges. Whether that's a good thing for the consumer is debatable — it probably isn't — but there's no reason for fearmongering. Many countries, including the US for most of the past several decades, have no or have not had "strong net-neutrality laws" without "migrat[ing] to the internet being limited to the top 100 sites (curated by [ISPs])."
- nixos 10y ago>That doesn't make any sense. Hits to 25 KB Wordpress blogs are trivial for ISPs to serve, nor is there usually any practical or economical way to bill the owners for serving them Or you create a white-list (which is slowly being made). Your average Wordpress site counts against data. Want it to be "free"? Pay AT&T some money? Can't because it's too complicated for anyone but CNN? Too bad. Oh, you only get 200 MB per month? Not a big deal, because CNN/BBC/YouTube pay money not to be counted against data limits. We didn't have this for decades. Really, it started about a decade ago when dial-up died. Under dialup, one could switch providers on a dime, so you could switch from anyone pulling such shenanigans.
- stomato 10y agoI was a big supporter, however now I wonder whether the cities that they've started rolling out to will get half-assed because their budgets are cut or morale has dropped. It's freaking Google- I don't understand how they didn't do the due diligence ahead of time to prepare budget for costs adequately. But, if they ever come, I'll probably buy in, because I can't believe that AT&T is saying things like this- do they actually understand that PR 101 is you don't gloat?: http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/fcc/broadband-investmentnot-for-the-faint-of-heart/ http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/fcc/broadband-investmentnot-f...
- jpalomaki 10y agoI believe the intention of Google Fiber project was not to make money directly, but to put pressure on other ISPs by showing that Google can actually enter the market and act as viable competitor if they don't behave. For me this sounds like somebody just made a high-level decision that this thing is no longer important for Google's mission. As we have seen, they have been trying quite hard to focus on fewer things. It's not necessarily even about money. Each individual business requires some attention from the (top) management and they are competing on talented people inside the company.
- stomato 10y agoUnderstand that they would have assumed some loss in the front of nationwide rollout, but they seem to have overestimated adoption and underestimated the costs required to rollout. The one thing they did right, imo, were t-shirts. Compared to billboards, TV commercials, etc. a well-designed t-shirt lasts a really long time and gets more attention.
- nodesocket 10y agoDang, I've been waiting and crossing my fingers here in San Francisco for Google Fiber. I despise Comcast XFINITY (not to mention my bill has soared to nearly $180 a month).
- sergiotapia 10y agoWell, RIP another Google product I guess. I'm certain that Google Fiber is what spurred At&T to offer Gigapower fiber in Miami though. So thanks for that.
- sakopov 10y agoIf Fiber does shut down it's going to be pretty devastating for Google's reputation going forward. We're talking about upsetting a whole different demographic of people that fall outside of typical Google users. These are going to be average Joes and Janes most of whom probably don't even use other Google products. They simply jumped on the internet deal because most of their neighborhood did. You abandon these people and they'll never buy any other of your products again. If Google thinks this is going to go over similarly to the shutdown of Reader than i think they'll be in a for a surprise.
- flyosity 10y agoQuick story: here in Apex, NC, Google announced they'd bring Fiber here and everybody was really excited. A few months later when the website went up, everyone I know entered their address to check availability and it turns out that Google decided to draw the "line" just outside our town, stopping short of including Apex (a suburb of Raleigh) but including other suburbs like Cary and Morrisville. The whole town was pissed. We were excited for Google Fiber and then had it taken away from us when they had previously said Apex would be included. Fast forward another few months and we heard rumblings that AT&T might be debuting their GigaPower fiber service in Apex. Soon after, AT&T verified this rumor then started running fiber lines all over. My neighborhood (and others in Apex near me) all got gigabit fiber for under $100/mo, AND it turns out Google dragged their feet with the surrounding suburbs and they didn't get Google Fiber till months later, but by then everyone had just signed up for AT&T GigaPower and forgot all about Google.
- Desustorm 10y agoThat sounds like it was deliberately orchestrated by AT&T to me...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- sytelus 10y agoTLDR; Google Fiber is closing down.
- askafriend 10y agoWhat alien language is this written in? I can't make sense of this soul sucking prose.
- dredmorbius 10y agoPosting as rampant speculation: The thought occurs to me that Google may be finding that achieving its aim of improved broadband service through regulatory mechanism might be cheaper than building their own. Armed with the data from the response of entrenched broadband monopolists, making the case to the FCC of a market and/or regulatory failure seems plausible. That could actually cast this as a win. Background: With Google's strong ties to the Obama administration, the exceptionally high likelihood of a Clinton administration (also with strong Google ties), another item today of the resignation of the (now former) head of the US Copyright Office under the Library of Congress (seen as a loss by old-guard copyright interests, especially Hollywood, the RIAA/MPAA, and possibly book publishers -- which would also include Apple and Amazon among thsoe affected), a current and sustained (for at least 4, and quite probably 8 years) favourable regulatory inclination to Google's goals of widespread, high-speed service might be expected. This would serve Google's general interests (serving more ads, surveilling more data, running high-speed and omnipresent services such as Google Now), and as noted, put several of Google's major competitors back on their heels (though I'm not sure how big books are for Amazon any more). Another theory is that Google have worked out a fiber-to-wireless concept which removes much of the need for last-mile connectivity. Again: no source other than my own fevered brain.
- crivabene 10y agoA model that seems to work pretty well in Europe (or at least, over here in Italy) is having utility providers (which are already used to handle infrastructure at a scale) taking care of deploying fiber everywhere to then sell access back to the ISPs (bitstream). In this way you have an entity who is solely focused on building and managing the infrastructure, which is able to make investments that single ISPs would not be able to do (while trying to still be profitable). I have no data but I am also quite sure that those companies are receiving funds from both the Government and the EU. Anyway, they're building the digital highways that we miss and the result for the consumers is not bad: here in Milan, as an example, multiple operators started offering 1 Gb/s FTTH connections for 20 EUR/month. Such fees are only possible if you do not have to try to be profitable while having to absorb the hit from deploying your own infrastructure.
- sandos 10y agoWe have a lot of those networks here in Sweden. The thing is though, it is much more expensive than simpler networks where you have a "group connection" to an ISP. I think its usually double the price to use a service platform fibre network, and sometimes the group connections can be had for 1/4 the price! Although I have to say these new platforms are kind of awesome. The city I live in has a city-wide (and beyond) network where you can choose from 1-1000 Mbps service from several ISPs. And it has "local peering" which means if you send data to/from your neighbor, no matter which ISP they have, the data will only hit your local router in the basement/close by. No need to send data via the internet, or even an IX. In practice though, that performance is not much different from just sending the data on a much longer roundtrip, which makes me sad.
- ryao 10y agoIt is a shame that Google Fiber did not build a EPON network like the ones that major ISPs in South Korea, Japan and China either have built or are building. The equipment is cheaper because it is free of legacy cruft. They could have opted for 10G-EPON to have been able to put more users on each node too. That said, the biggest advantage that fiber seems to have in those countries is that the government is pushing for it. In China for instance, I have heard that all new construction must have fiber available. It is possible to order 200Mbps down and 20Mbps up fiber service in Shanghai even in old constructions. I have only seen the situation in Shanghai firsthand, so I cannot comment much on South Korea or Japan. However, I do know that they deployed EPON technology and are migrating toward 10G-EPON. 10G-EPON is superior to the GPON that we use in the US: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r30519466-PON-EPON-or-GPON-or-GEPON http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r30519466-PON-EPON-or-GPON-o...
- brooklyndude 10y agoHave been seeing a lot of dead LinkNYC kiosk's in Manhattan. What's up with that?
- bawana 10y ago@thaumaturgy Did you translate that yourself? Is there a website that offers such bidirectional translation? I want to be a CEO too!!
- atomical 10y agoA nation-wide rollout would have been one of the most transformative things Google could have done. Growing their profits now depends on a thirty year bet on unproven technologies.
- codecamper 10y agoI think the basic problem is that people do not need 1000 Mbit connections at home. What would your average joe need that for? Interesting times. We seem to have reached a point of peak everything. Almost nothing that is very technological has much more growth left. All growth seems to come from not all that technologically amazing things: uber, snapchat, airbnb.
- josefdlange 10y agoThis sounds like Gavin from Silicon Valley. "Today, effective immediately, I, Gavin Belson, founder and CEO of Hooli, am forced to officially say goodbye to the entire Nucleus division. All Nucleus personnel will be given proper notice and terminated. But make no mistake. Though they're the ones leaving, it is I who must remain and bear the heavy burden of their failure."
- hyperbovine 10y agoExcept the CEO is also leaving.
- basicallydan 10y agoThis post is a masterclass in buck-passing and spin.
- stephenmm 10y agoI live in Austin and they literally just yesterday marked up my yard where the fiber is supposed to go. Does anyone know if they will finish the job or am I left out to dry here?