5 ms·

So you don't like Google because all their revenue comes from advertising, but you're also angry that they're trying to branch out into things other than advert

So you don't like Google because all their revenue comes from advertising, but you're also angry that they're trying to branch out into things other than advertising?

ModernMech 8y ago
I think what the parent is saying is that if you listen to the hype, you would perceive Google as bringing a lot of innovative tech into the world. But the reality is many of these hyped projects that provide this perception are quietly shut down, and at the end of the day after more than a decade Google is still just an ad machine. The parent is upset about the difference between what Google sells itself as doing versus what they actually do.
- notatoad 8y ago
  yeah, i understand what the parent is saying, and i think it's stupid. how are they supposed to diversify if they don't try? or are they supposed to do all their R&D in secret, just to avoid any perception that they might not be entirely evil? yes, their PR people hype up their R&D efforts. But the point is that they're doing R&D, and why shouldn't they get a PR win out of that?
  - ModernMech 8y ago
    Well the point is it's been over a decade. They've done a lot of trying with little return.
    - saulrh 8y ago
      The projects they're attempting take decades. Period. Loon, for example: Two years for a handful of prototypes, two years for LTE functionality and a "real" trial run, two more years for a mesh network so they aren't bottlenecked by satellites, another year for a large-scale real-world trial run (Puerto Rico), and now we're at the present day. Their job now is to demonstrate that they can keep a balloon fleet up long enough and at sufficiently low cost that it's safe to transition an entire country's economy over to the system. That's probably going to take another ten or fifteen years simply because that's how long it takes to show that your system is reliable enough to be core, critical infrastructure. And Loon is just an easy example. Waymo, Brain. Anything to do with healthcare. Etc. There's a reason these things are called "moonshots".
      - shaklee3 8y ago
        I thought loon was also considered a failure, although not shut down yet. It's an interesting idea on its own, but it's somewhat dated in that there are better technologies now that don't cost as much to run.
        saulrh 8y ago
        Last I heard it was declared economically viable and spun out. Wikipedia says Loon is currently contracted to provide internet service to a few particularly inaccessible chunks of Kenya, and its performance during the hurricanes last year is probably enough to guarantee its continued existence regardless.
    - stickfigure 8y ago
      Waymo doesn't count?
- bunnycorn 8y ago
  Thanks, MTE
- glenrivard 8y ago
  Google sister company Waymo has cars driving themselves as I type this in Phoenix. Think they are bringing tons of innovation forward. Have you seen the Pixel camera for low light?
HillaryBriss 8y ago
Peter Thiel likes to say that monopolies in general try to portray themselves as non-monopolies, as players in a broader field than just their lucrative specialty. This portrayal is supposed to reduce regulatory scrutiny. Applying this to Google means that funding a broad swath of technology projects makes the company look like much more than the dominant online search ad company. It's a general technology company.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  An alternative is that Google has a main revenue source, but they would like to diversify that.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    You know, as long the attempts fail, there would be no way to tell the difference between both, which meshes pretty well with "but it's really hard" comment made before.
- clairity 8y ago
  i'm not much of a thiel fan (e.g., poo-poos college, then sells book spouting business 101 concepts) but i agree with this. it's the main reason why google became alphabet: not so much for true diversification (because there is no discernable diversification strategy in their portfolio), but as a legal maneuver, a regulatory shield, and a playground for the leadership.
bunnycorn 8y ago
Trying? This is not trying. This is effing up every other possible competitor. If someone goes to a dumb VC asking for money for a product that is actually feasible, they will be turned down because they read on Forbes that google is making that miraculous device that is stupidly ridiculous in so many levels.... but hey! It's google! A Fortune 500 company and its on Forbes!
- saulrh 8y ago
  So, what, every research project and every startup should succeed? That's not how progress works.

So you don't like Google because all their revenue comes from advertising, but you're also angry that they're trying to branch out into things other than advertising?

ModernMech 8y ago

I think what the parent is saying is that if you listen to the hype, you would perceive Google as bringing a lot of innovative tech into the world. But the reality is many of these hyped projects that provide this perception are quietly shut down, and at the end of the day after more than a decade Google is still just an ad machine. The parent is upset about the difference between what Google sells itself as doing versus what they actually do.

notatoad 8y ago
yeah, i understand what the parent is saying, and i think it's stupid. how are they supposed to diversify if they don't try? or are they supposed to do all their R&D in secret, just to avoid any perception that they might not be entirely evil? yes, their PR people hype up their R&D efforts. But the point is that they're doing R&D, and why shouldn't they get a PR win out of that?
- ModernMech 8y ago
  Well the point is it's been over a decade. They've done a lot of trying with little return.
  - saulrh 8y ago
    The projects they're attempting take decades. Period. Loon, for example: Two years for a handful of prototypes, two years for LTE functionality and a "real" trial run, two more years for a mesh network so they aren't bottlenecked by satellites, another year for a large-scale real-world trial run (Puerto Rico), and now we're at the present day. Their job now is to demonstrate that they can keep a balloon fleet up long enough and at sufficiently low cost that it's safe to transition an entire country's economy over to the system. That's probably going to take another ten or fifteen years simply because that's how long it takes to show that your system is reliable enough to be core, critical infrastructure. And Loon is just an easy example. Waymo, Brain. Anything to do with healthcare. Etc. There's a reason these things are called "moonshots".
    - shaklee3 8y ago
      I thought loon was also considered a failure, although not shut down yet. It's an interesting idea on its own, but it's somewhat dated in that there are better technologies now that don't cost as much to run.
      - saulrh 8y ago
        Last I heard it was declared economically viable and spun out. Wikipedia says Loon is currently contracted to provide internet service to a few particularly inaccessible chunks of Kenya, and its performance during the hurricanes last year is probably enough to guarantee its continued existence regardless.
  - stickfigure 8y ago
    Waymo doesn't count?
bunnycorn 8y ago
Thanks, MTE
glenrivard 8y ago
Google sister company Waymo has cars driving themselves as I type this in Phoenix. Think they are bringing tons of innovation forward. Have you seen the Pixel camera for low light?

HillaryBriss 8y ago

Peter Thiel likes to say that monopolies in general try to portray themselves as non-monopolies, as players in a broader field than just their lucrative specialty. This portrayal is supposed to reduce regulatory scrutiny. Applying this to Google means that funding a broad swath of technology projects makes the company look like much more than the dominant online search ad company. It's a general technology company.

oh_sigh 8y ago
An alternative is that Google has a main revenue source, but they would like to diversify that.
- candiodari 8y ago
  You know, as long the attempts fail, there would be no way to tell the difference between both, which meshes pretty well with "but it's really hard" comment made before.
clairity 8y ago
i'm not much of a thiel fan (e.g., poo-poos college, then sells book spouting business 101 concepts) but i agree with this. it's the main reason why google became alphabet: not so much for true diversification (because there is no discernable diversification strategy in their portfolio), but as a legal maneuver, a regulatory shield, and a playground for the leadership.

bunnycorn 8y ago

Trying? This is not trying. This is effing up every other possible competitor. If someone goes to a dumb VC asking for money for a product that is actually feasible, they will be turned down because they read on Forbes that google is making that miraculous device that is stupidly ridiculous in so many levels.... but hey! It's google! A Fortune 500 company and its on Forbes!

saulrh 8y ago
So, what, every research project and every startup should succeed? That's not how progress works.