9 ms·
Silicon Valley Stumbles in World Beyond Software
- JPKab 10y agoPaywall. Is there a way around it to read the article?
- yannickt 10y agoClick on the "web" link below the HN thread headline. It will direct you to a search page for the article, and the top result will not be paywalled.
- wil421 10y agoThat doesn't work and hasn't for some time. I'm not sure if it's for all sites but the web link rarely works for me. Especially the web link for WSJ.
- jerrycruncher 10y agoIn this instance, at least, it looks like you can get the full article text from the morningstar.com link, currently the fourth on the results page.
- nostrademons 10y agoWeb link + open article in incognito.
- wil421 10y agoLet me try on my desktop. Harder to open in incognito on mobile.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- webmaven 10y agoReliable workaround for paywalled articles when you've exceeded the permitted number of free articles: - Copy the link. - Open an incognito browser window. - Paste the URL into the address bar / omnibox. - Hit return.
- diggan 10y ago> - Paste the URL into the address bar / omnibox. Many websites seems to keep track of you with a combination of cookies and IP. But many also allow you through if you come from Google, so replace this step with "Paste URL into Google search, then click first result" and it should work.
- hueving 10y agoincognito doesn't include cookies from your regular sessions
- diggan 10y agoSure, my point being that you should search for the URL, not just go to it without cookies. So your refer header is set to be from Google
- webmaven 10y agoMy experience has been that the additional step of searching for the headline isn't necessary for publications that implement an "X free articles a month" policy, since they don't make any exception for search results in any case.
- webmaven 10y agoAaaand... it looks like the blanket statement in my other (sibling) reply is not currently true of the WSJ (though it still works for NYTimes). IOW, you're right, an incognito window by itself is not sufficient, you do need to be referred by a search engine. Or at least, WSJ continues to test various policies: http://digiday.com/publishers/wall-street-journal-paywall-google/ http://digiday.com/publishers/wall-street-journal-paywall-go... How annoying. Well, we can always use an that lets you set the REFERER header on a per-site basis,[1] or even one preset specifically for bypassing paywalls.[2] [1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hnkcfpcejkafcihlgbojoidoihckciin https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hn... [2] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/paywall-bypass/fnmlcoafnpoldhbinjadiafpodpcoimb https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/paywall-bypass/fnm...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ragebol 10y agohttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y470M6ndBD8J:news.morningstar.com/all/dow-jones/us-markets/201612067454/silicon-valley-stumbles-in-world-beyond-software.aspx+&cd=2&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=nl http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y470M6n...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- toephu2 10y agotry a google chrome extension (keywords: bypass wsj)
- st3v3r 10y agoSo if you don't like paywalls, and you don't like ads, how do you expect the content you consume to be paid for?
- xigency 10y agoEasy. Open the article and see the headline. Copy and paste the headline into Google. Click the link. WSJ and other sites show the full article to referrals from Google.
- KKKKkkkk1 10y agoThe fact that companies like Facebook and Google are spending billions of dollars/year on undisclosed research projects is in my view a gigantic failure of corporate governance. I think investors are going to be hugely disappointed when they find out that they thought they put their money into Internet advertising cash cows, and now that money is gone, spent on building jetpacks and space elevators. I do think those projects are very cool, but this is not the proper way to pursue them.
- Retric 10y agoScale is important, google makes ~20 billion in profit per year making these relatively minor bets. Further even if these projects never return a dime directly they have a halo effect which helps the overall company.
- Analemma_ 10y ago> Scale is important, google makes ~20 billion in profit per year making these relatively minor bets. Sorry, what? The Other Bets segment loses $2.5 billion per year.
- Retric 10y agoWhich is included in Alphabet's $4.9 billion profit Q2 FY2016. Sure, they might have made an extra 0.6 billion that quarter, but it's not exactly a hidden bet. Further, these are R&D losses, so it's hard to say what the long term impact is, but it's unlikely to be exactly -2.5 billion / year.
- digi_owl 10y agoThen what is? Seems to me to be very similar to the glory days of PARC and such where they seemed to have the funds to research just about anything. Lets not forget that Xerox brought the world the GUI, laser printer and Ethernet by funding PARC, even if they in the end was not who ended up monetizing the tech (laser printer excluded).
- 10y ago
- mc32 10y agoI still don't get the foray into delivery of physical low value products. The cost of delivery is a sufficient portion of the total value of the products so as to make it economically impractical for most cases. And we have the example of Peapod and WebVan which didn't just foretell but proved unless it was for specialized markets, it's a proposal for hemorrhaging money. Even if you get automation and you perfect the travelling salesman's problem you're still mostly dealing with low value products. Now, if it was delivery of expensive (Rx) drugs, or maybe even heavy but valuable items like gold or jewelry, legal documents, etc. okay. people will pay for that and you can make a profit but toiletries and pantry goods?
- david927 10y agoThe cost of delivery You argue that as if it's a constant -- and that it's not is the point. The exact innovation they are stumbling on is a way to lower that cost to near zero. Drone technology will eventually happen. The question is how far out it is. And make no mistake, when it does happen, it will truly be a revolution (without the hyperbole).
- mc32 10y agoYes, but fuel isn't free, vehicles are not free (shrinkage isn't free). Margins on these goods is very poor (1% [1] makes or breaks an outfit). Now, let's say you're right, they want to get the technology right and want to drive prices down like FedEx did back in the '70s for overnight deliveries. Why not start with high value items --items where cost of delivery is a small fraction of the value of the good. Like FedEx did? Why go after groceries and perishables? It's an odd choice. This is akin to Musk choosing Titan over Mars to explore the feasibility of interplanetary colonization by people. [1]http://smallbusiness.chron.com/industry-standard-gross-margin-groceries-38121.html http://smallbusiness.chron.com/industry-standard-gross-margi...
- TheCoelacanth 10y agoTo deliver something in an hour, you have to be storing it very close to where you are going to deliver it. With low value items, it is practical to do that. With high value items, the cost of doing that would be prohibitive.
- maverick_iceman 10y agoWeird, the web link didn't work for me but searching directly for the article name in Google did.
- mmmurf 10y agoThe world of the future is software. We're on the slow and exciting path of better and better digital representations of reality... everything from cheap orientation sensors to ADCs that were in the realm of science fiction a few years ago. The same is gradually happening with things like batteries, motors, etc. Everything is becoming more standardized and more like software. The current limitations have to do with both physics and engineering, and also software reliability, but those barriers are all receding. Solar Cell roof shingles are an idea likely had by many kindergarteners, but the genius has to do with making a longer-term bet and creating the financing to make it into a viable business in a world that rewards short-term results. The important thing is that a Billionaire today can make a bigger impact than a superpower government could a decade ago. The glorification of the bygone era of massive infrastructure investment voiced by Thiel at the GOP convention can be alternately viewed as a wish that we had more Musks taking big gambles and a general cynicism about the tech elite who develop cults of personality after a single, largely luck-driven, often low-tech home run. The Interstate highway system was a buildout that could happen because of the solving of coordination problems that had prevented escape from a local maximum. As governments lose relevance, it is up to the Musks of the world to usher in both the technological vision and the social coordination solutions.
- throw20161123 10y agoThis article reads like Google tried the MVP route with physical products and discovering that physical space is a far less forgiving operating environment.
- misterbowfinger 10y agoThis article seems to focus on Drone deliveries, but forgets that Amazon has been re-inventing logistics for years now.
- saosebastiao 10y agoNot very well. They're very good at coming up with new ideas, but very poorly applying them to their situation. Amazon gets credit for trying, but they should get more credit for propping up bad ideas with operating losses for long enough that outside observers eventually think they might be good ideas.
- solatic 10y agoSpecifically about Google's Project X delivery drone project: The first guy to head the project was one Nicholas Roy, an MIT Robotics professor whose professional claim to the position seems to be mentoring a pair of students who succeeded in building a drone that flew around a parking garage - predetermined layout, no weather. Completely out of his depth, he failed. After he failed, Google hired Dave Vos, another guy who spent some time in an MIT graduate office - this time one in an aerospace specialty - who spent the last couple of decades in tech management positions. At least he had the experience to come in and say, hey, maybe we need some wind tunnels, maybe we need some professional tooling that's taken for granted in most aerospace companies, because trying to build an aircraft without that tooling is like trying to run a web-facing application off developer workstations instead of setting up a proper production architecture. And he, too, failed. The real problem that Google (and probably Amazon too) faces is that they need to synergize two very different engineering teams to make delivery drones work. You need aerospace folks to build reliable aircraft, you need AI folks to give those aircraft targets to aim at, and you need them to sit on the same floor in the same building. The aerospace folks aren't going to move to the Valley because there's no aerospace hub in SV, and SV isn't a good place to start one because the necessary land - you know, the wide open spaces you need for runways and hangars - is a pipedream in SV. And the AI folks, you know, the ones the Big Four are paying close to a million dollars in salary and begging not to leave for a competitor - are never going to leave SV to work on delivery drones. The best course of action that Alphabet has is to acquire a proven aerospace company, give it some great AI folks, and come back in a year to check on their progress. But most of these Project X types like their ivory towers. It's how Google convinced them to join Project X in the first place, selling them on the promise that they'd be in the same ivory tower they were in back in MIT, just with guaranteed funding and a request to think about commercial viability. So, not gonna happen.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago"The best course of action that Alphabet has is to acquire a proven aerospace company" It's a good long-term bet if it's a defense contractor that's been getting contracts for decades. Could hedge a bit against what the market might hit them with. Plus, they're trying to get tighter with government anyway. They'd likely acquire people good at doing that, too. Then start brining their tech or services in defense industry in general more than now.
- gmarx 10y agoI enjoy how the article sometimes seems to have the point of view that this is the first time engineers ever had to work this way. I don't think they are taking software engineers and asking them to create drones. These seem like a lot of the same problems Boeing would have making drones or that UPS would have trying to make deliveries if such drones already existed. Nothing unique to Silicon Valley companies in this respect