4 ms·

> Google has provided incalculable value to the world I'm not convinced by this statement, and I'd be genuinely interested to hear your reasoning behind it. Is

> Google has provided incalculable value to the world I'm not convinced by this statement, and I'd be genuinely interested to hear your reasoning behind it. Is it specific products? Specific technologies? Although Google has built some interesting stuff, I can't think of anything off the top of my head that they've done that was either a) something that couldn't have been invented without them, or b) only unique due to their ability to scale it out, rather than a true innovation.

summerlight 7y ago
a) something that couldn't have been invented without them Are you suggesting that order of magnitude improvements on information accessibility in a planetary scale is nothing? b) only unique due to their ability to scale it out, rather than a true innovation Scaling out search engine to the entire globe is THE innovation. You need to realize that any kind of innovation doesn't freely come from a bunch of idea guys, but from execution.
cameronbrown 7y ago
With your logic none of the great inventors mattered, because their stuff could've been discovered/created by others.
ziddoap 7y ago
The problem with arguing your viewpoint is that no one can prove something wouldn't have been invented without Google. So, no matter what is listed, you can just say "someone else might have invented that". And regarding your second point, what would the practical difference be to the consumer if the innovation happened because of their ability to scale out, or "true innovation"? You don't need to like Google to admit they have added value to the world.
- _petronius 7y ago
  You may be assuming you know my viewpoint without me having presented it in full, but anyway I wasn't looking to argue in bad faith, I guess I just see a strong difference between "successful company that has made money and cool products" and "added incalculable value to the world." That's a very strong statement! The parent comment was looking to weigh the problems of the ad-supported economy and the ills brought about by that described in the article against the value Google has brought to the world, and I just don't see how the two stack up, so I wanted to understand their weighting of the latter. Everyone seems keen to write haigiographies of companies that in all honesty I mostly find ... okay I guess? Could do better but they make cool stuff? I don't "hate" Google, but I do think that a company the size of Google doesn't need such zealous defenders, it needs a critical society that pushes it to do better with the crazy resources it has, and one of those things is to examine the ways in which it's basic revenue model is harmful.
  - ziddoap 7y ago
    I didn't think you were trying to argue in bad faith, and you are correct that I had assumed you presented your full position in your initial post - my apologies. And I agree, "incalculable" makes it quite a strong statement, and I probably wouldn't have chosen that word myself. I think it's important to consider that Google is not the sole inventor, proponent, or user of advertisement. You probably aren't claiming that either, but the way your statement reads("problems of the ad-supported economy and the ills [...] against the value of Google") leads one to believe that you put those two things on equal footing. Google certainly evolved advertising, and is certainly a major player, but they aren't solely responsible. So, to weigh "Googles Good" vs. "Advertisements Ills" is hard to reconcile. "haigiographies" is a new word for me, cheers!

summerlight 7y ago

a) something that couldn't have been invented without them Are you suggesting that order of magnitude improvements on information accessibility in a planetary scale is nothing? b) only unique due to their ability to scale it out, rather than a true innovation Scaling out search engine to the entire globe is THE innovation. You need to realize that any kind of innovation doesn't freely come from a bunch of idea guys, but from execution.

cameronbrown 7y ago

With your logic none of the great inventors mattered, because their stuff could've been discovered/created by others.

ziddoap 7y ago

The problem with arguing your viewpoint is that no one can prove something wouldn't have been invented without Google. So, no matter what is listed, you can just say "someone else might have invented that". And regarding your second point, what would the practical difference be to the consumer if the innovation happened because of their ability to scale out, or "true innovation"? You don't need to like Google to admit they have added value to the world.

_petronius 7y ago
You may be assuming you know my viewpoint without me having presented it in full, but anyway I wasn't looking to argue in bad faith, I guess I just see a strong difference between "successful company that has made money and cool products" and "added incalculable value to the world." That's a very strong statement! The parent comment was looking to weigh the problems of the ad-supported economy and the ills brought about by that described in the article against the value Google has brought to the world, and I just don't see how the two stack up, so I wanted to understand their weighting of the latter. Everyone seems keen to write haigiographies of companies that in all honesty I mostly find ... okay I guess? Could do better but they make cool stuff? I don't "hate" Google, but I do think that a company the size of Google doesn't need such zealous defenders, it needs a critical society that pushes it to do better with the crazy resources it has, and one of those things is to examine the ways in which it's basic revenue model is harmful.
- ziddoap 7y ago
  I didn't think you were trying to argue in bad faith, and you are correct that I had assumed you presented your full position in your initial post - my apologies. And I agree, "incalculable" makes it quite a strong statement, and I probably wouldn't have chosen that word myself. I think it's important to consider that Google is not the sole inventor, proponent, or user of advertisement. You probably aren't claiming that either, but the way your statement reads("problems of the ad-supported economy and the ills [...] against the value of Google") leads one to believe that you put those two things on equal footing. Google certainly evolved advertising, and is certainly a major player, but they aren't solely responsible. So, to weigh "Googles Good" vs. "Advertisements Ills" is hard to reconcile. "haigiographies" is a new word for me, cheers!