5 ms·

Related: The founder of Orkut has been trying to replay the same "social network" idea multiple times over trying to replicate the success of Orkut, and looks l

Related: The founder of Orkut has been trying to replay the same "social network" idea multiple times over trying to replicate the success of Orkut, and looks like this time, it's trying to ride on the Orkut brand familiarity (esp. in Brazil and India, where it was HUGE) to build out the initial audience. Most recently (2016-2020), he was founder of another social network named Hello [1] which shut shop[2] after not being able to get any sort of prominence. [1] https://venturebeat.com/2016/08/05/orkut-founder-launches-hello-a-social-network-focused-on-your-passions/ https://venturebeat.com/2016/08/05/orkut-founder-launches-he... [2] https://hello.com/ https://hello.com/

KennyBlanken 4y ago
He's spent his entire adulthood recycling the same idea over and over. Sometimes literally, like when he was sued for stealing code for orkut from a startup he was involved in. Google settled the case out of court, and we all know what that means. You'd think the guy would have figured out by now that he's not the social media maven he thinks he is...or that "social network" is pretty much #1 on the list of "business ideas programmers have, that never pan out"
- capableweb 4y ago
  > He's spent his entire adulthood recycling the same idea over and over. If it's something Googlers are famous for it's A) seeing themselves as much better at building stuff than they actually are and B) trying to reimplement the same thing over and over again hoping that this time, it'll actually work. See various social networks and/or chat applications.
  - unicornmama 4y ago
    Worked at Google. Most don’t care if products succeeds or fails. After all you can always blame the product managers - who appear to be recyclable e.g name Google’s top engineers then try to name Google’s top product people; and contrast this to Apple. However new products generate engineering demand, which means team headcount, promotion opportunities, experience, and more pay. It’s a bubble which flows from free money.
    - SonOfLilit 4y ago
      As an outsider to Google, I tried this exercise. Celebrity engineers at Google: Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jeff Dean Celebrity product people at Google: Marissa Mayer, Sundar Pichai In full fairness, I first heard Sundar Pichai's name when he was promoted to CEO of Google.
- AJRF 4y ago
  > Google settled the case out of court, and we all know what that means. I don't, does it mean he had to pay Google a bunch of money?
  - markoc 4y ago
    Before he worked on Orkut for Google, he worked at another company developing a similar system. That company then sued him and Google for stealing the code. Google settling means that they probably did actually steal the code. https://www.wired.com/2004/06/lawsuit-google-stole-orkut-code/ https://www.wired.com/2004/06/lawsuit-google-stole-orkut-cod...
    - leoedin 4y ago
      Google settling out of court just means that they didn't deem the cost, time and exposure of a court case worthwhile. I don't think you can assume every case which is settled out of court is an admission of guilt - because often it's just the much much easier (and much lower risk) path.
      - sumedh 4y ago
        Doesnt it also mean that the smaller company might not have the resources to fight the actual long battle in court because Google's expensive lawyers have the the time and money to prolong the battle so in such case its better to settle.
- querez 4y ago
  > Google settled the case out of court, and we all know what that means. What does that mean?
  - hjkl0 4y ago
    I think he’s saying that this suggests there was a legitimate case against him and they wanted to settle out of court because they didn’t think they would win. Although, to be fair, it only really means that they didn’t think they would win. And that’s not the same as being, well, guilty.
    - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
      I guess they know quite well when they are guilty. And if a Google size company with unlimited legal power think they wouldn't win, it's a strong indication that they know that the case is so strong they have no chance of winning.
      - manfre 4y ago
        Businesses don't want to pay unlimited legal expenses. Even if they were certain they'd win, settling could have been the cheaper option.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      > it only really means that they didn’t think they would win Or that the suing party is so tiny that when Google wins and bankrupts them, they won't cover their own court costs or the salaries of the lawyers who burnt time defending Google's case, or that the evidence they'll present to win is more valuable to Google as a competitive secret, or or or. There's actually a lot of reasons a company settles, and (as a long-time hobby observer of legal process) I'd caution against drawing a guilt-or-innocence conclusion from a settlement. Court is a bad place to be where neither party is in control of their destiny anymore, and a settlement just means one or both parties didn't want to be in court. That's all.
  - jtbayly 4y ago
    It only actually means that they thought it would be cheaper to pay money to make the problem go away than it would be to litigate it. Part of that calculation is the cost of the lawyers, and another part of the calculation is their own thoughts on how likely they’d be to lose.
- mathattack 4y ago
  Companies settle all the time if the payout is less than the legal fees. Sometimes they also figure I the distraction too. (Non-googler here with no specific details)
joshxyz 4y ago
" hello team" as closing salutation lol i always wonder why people use everyday words as their brand "hey i have seen you on hello" "wot"
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  I'm registering helloogle.com and waiting for the phone call. Worked for them!
  - sva_ 4y ago
    An Oogle from hell.
- MereInterest 4y ago
  I'd guess as something of a decentralized reminder that they exist. If you pick something that has no prior associations and is uniquely identifiable to your company, then it will only come up in conversations related to your company. If you pick something that has prior associations, frequently occurs in unrelated speech, and is easily confused with an existing topic, then it comes up in unrelated conversation. The common usage can remind you of the company and bring them to mind, inflating their apparent reach. I see it as a weaponized version of the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon, and think less of any company that does it. But I still think of them, which is an acceptable trade for unscrupulous branding.
jeroenhd 4y ago
If the attempt is focused around brand familiarity then it should be quick and easy for them to put up a Mastodon/Lemmy/whatever Fediverse server and get started. There's already a growing network out there that it can just plug into and a lot of the backend and frontend code has already been written. Such a platform could even modify and rebrand existing apps to get onto mobile devices relatively quickly. Maybe he'll come up with a new concept, but his last attempt at that wasn't exactly fruitful.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Yes and it could benefit from the entire fediverse network.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

KennyBlanken 4y ago

He's spent his entire adulthood recycling the same idea over and over. Sometimes literally, like when he was sued for stealing code for orkut from a startup he was involved in. Google settled the case out of court, and we all know what that means. You'd think the guy would have figured out by now that he's not the social media maven he thinks he is...or that "social network" is pretty much #1 on the list of "business ideas programmers have, that never pan out"

capableweb 4y ago
> He's spent his entire adulthood recycling the same idea over and over. If it's something Googlers are famous for it's A) seeing themselves as much better at building stuff than they actually are and B) trying to reimplement the same thing over and over again hoping that this time, it'll actually work. See various social networks and/or chat applications.
- unicornmama 4y ago
  Worked at Google. Most don’t care if products succeeds or fails. After all you can always blame the product managers - who appear to be recyclable e.g name Google’s top engineers then try to name Google’s top product people; and contrast this to Apple. However new products generate engineering demand, which means team headcount, promotion opportunities, experience, and more pay. It’s a bubble which flows from free money.
  - SonOfLilit 4y ago
    As an outsider to Google, I tried this exercise. Celebrity engineers at Google: Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jeff Dean Celebrity product people at Google: Marissa Mayer, Sundar Pichai In full fairness, I first heard Sundar Pichai's name when he was promoted to CEO of Google.
AJRF 4y ago
> Google settled the case out of court, and we all know what that means. I don't, does it mean he had to pay Google a bunch of money?
- markoc 4y ago
  Before he worked on Orkut for Google, he worked at another company developing a similar system. That company then sued him and Google for stealing the code. Google settling means that they probably did actually steal the code. https://www.wired.com/2004/06/lawsuit-google-stole-orkut-code/ https://www.wired.com/2004/06/lawsuit-google-stole-orkut-cod...
  - leoedin 4y ago
    Google settling out of court just means that they didn't deem the cost, time and exposure of a court case worthwhile. I don't think you can assume every case which is settled out of court is an admission of guilt - because often it's just the much much easier (and much lower risk) path.
    - sumedh 4y ago
      Doesnt it also mean that the smaller company might not have the resources to fight the actual long battle in court because Google's expensive lawyers have the the time and money to prolong the battle so in such case its better to settle.
querez 4y ago
> Google settled the case out of court, and we all know what that means. What does that mean?
- hjkl0 4y ago
  I think he’s saying that this suggests there was a legitimate case against him and they wanted to settle out of court because they didn’t think they would win. Although, to be fair, it only really means that they didn’t think they would win. And that’s not the same as being, well, guilty.
  - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
    I guess they know quite well when they are guilty. And if a Google size company with unlimited legal power think they wouldn't win, it's a strong indication that they know that the case is so strong they have no chance of winning.
    - manfre 4y ago
      Businesses don't want to pay unlimited legal expenses. Even if they were certain they'd win, settling could have been the cheaper option.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > it only really means that they didn’t think they would win Or that the suing party is so tiny that when Google wins and bankrupts them, they won't cover their own court costs or the salaries of the lawyers who burnt time defending Google's case, or that the evidence they'll present to win is more valuable to Google as a competitive secret, or or or. There's actually a lot of reasons a company settles, and (as a long-time hobby observer of legal process) I'd caution against drawing a guilt-or-innocence conclusion from a settlement. Court is a bad place to be where neither party is in control of their destiny anymore, and a settlement just means one or both parties didn't want to be in court. That's all.
- jtbayly 4y ago
  It only actually means that they thought it would be cheaper to pay money to make the problem go away than it would be to litigate it. Part of that calculation is the cost of the lawyers, and another part of the calculation is their own thoughts on how likely they’d be to lose.
mathattack 4y ago
Companies settle all the time if the payout is less than the legal fees. Sometimes they also figure I the distraction too. (Non-googler here with no specific details)

joshxyz 4y ago

" hello team" as closing salutation lol i always wonder why people use everyday words as their brand "hey i have seen you on hello" "wot"

robertlagrant 4y ago
I'm registering helloogle.com and waiting for the phone call. Worked for them!
- sva_ 4y ago
  An Oogle from hell.
MereInterest 4y ago
I'd guess as something of a decentralized reminder that they exist. If you pick something that has no prior associations and is uniquely identifiable to your company, then it will only come up in conversations related to your company. If you pick something that has prior associations, frequently occurs in unrelated speech, and is easily confused with an existing topic, then it comes up in unrelated conversation. The common usage can remind you of the company and bring them to mind, inflating their apparent reach. I see it as a weaponized version of the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon, and think less of any company that does it. But I still think of them, which is an acceptable trade for unscrupulous branding.

jeroenhd 4y ago

If the attempt is focused around brand familiarity then it should be quick and easy for them to put up a Mastodon/Lemmy/whatever Fediverse server and get started. There's already a growing network out there that it can just plug into and a lot of the backend and frontend code has already been written. Such a platform could even modify and rebrand existing apps to get onto mobile devices relatively quickly. Maybe he'll come up with a new concept, but his last attempt at that wasn't exactly fruitful.

GekkePrutser 4y ago
Yes and it could benefit from the entire fediverse network.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]