5 ms·

Well the things you describe as good about Facebook could be replaced with say email or Google Plus and you would still get to do all those things. Google are

Well the things you describe as good about Facebook could be replaced with say email or Google Plus and you would still get to do all those things. Google are doing a lot of things that can't be replaced with competing services. What would you replace self-driving AI, google glasses and google fiber with? I think Google are in a different league altogether than Facebook which is just a glorified noticeboard.

_pius 14y ago
Well the things you describe as good about Facebook could be replaced with say Email or Google Plus and you would still get to do all those things .... Facebook is just a glorified noticeboard. What would you replace self-driving AI, google glasses and google fiber with? Taxis, AR iPhone apps, and DSL? Ridiculous, yes, but no more so than saying Facebook could just be replaced by e-mail. Heck, you could even claim that e-mail itself is "just a glorified noticeboard" or a fancy version of the Postal Service. You can glibly disparage nearly any innovation this way if you want.
- optymizer 14y ago
  are you seriously saying a photo-sharing site is at the same level of innovation as a driverless car? EHLO!
  - _pius 14y ago
    No. I am saying that Facebook is nothing to sneeze at. It it were so easy to invent Facebook, you would've invented Facebook.
    - samstave 14y ago
      >if it were so easy to invent Facebook, you would've invented Facebook. The only problem I have with a comment like this is that there were millions of factors and pieces to the puzzle of creating Facebook, that this is a ridiculous over simplification of how it came to be. Luck, timing, market condition, state of competition etc... Zuck is the luckiest person alive to have been in the place he was when he was - its not like he simply invented everything required to make Facebook from zilch. Friendster and MySpace verified the market, zuck had a great twist on that and a million other thing fell into place. Not to say it was simple and non-trivial, but that comment just has way too much bravado and ego and is just plain stupid. He did a great job, but there is nobody else who should be using that line in any other context.
      - sigkill 14y ago
        I see that you've read this. http://www.amazon.com/The-Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules/dp/0375424040 http://www.amazon.com/The-Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules/dp... It's not rare for people to attribute success only to them self and failure to market conditions.
        wutbrodo 14y ago
        You don't need to have read that book to know what should be obvious to anyone given more than a second of thought.
        samstave 14y ago
        Yup. Never even heard of that book.
        sigkill 14y ago
        Pardon me for not living in the US, and not knowing its culture/social situation completely. That book has given me quite a few historical information where it seems like a chance event turns fortunes of people.
        wutbrodo 14y ago
        I don't see what the US has to do with this at all. I'd be extremely surprised if the US was the only country in the entire world that wasn't a near-perfect meritocracy. I'm not all that well-acquainted with a ton of foreign cultures, but I feel I can still say with some confidence that luck being a major factor of success is damn-near a universal law.
      - _pius 14y ago
        that comment just has way too much bravado and ego and is just plain stupid. I think you're reading too much into this.
        worldimperator 14y ago
    - optymizer 14y ago
      I don't think anyone is discounting Facebook as an easy project. It has its own set of challenges to address, but, I saw many social networks before Facebook, and a few sprung up after Facebook in a short period of time, with various degrees of success. I don't see the same happening with driverless cars, so I am assuming it is more difficult to implement driverless cars than Facebook. Because, you know, if it were so easy to implement driverless cars, you would've implemented those.
      - _pius 14y ago
        I don't see why this has to be zero sum. I can be wowed by Google Glasses without calling Facebook a "glorified noticeboard." I don't see the same happening with driverless cars, so I am assuming it is more difficult to implement driverless cars than Facebook. There are actually multiple companies that have prototyped driverless cars, we're just much earlier in the technology cycle for it. But, I digress.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - papsosouid 14y ago
      Thousands of people did invent facebook. The invention is obvious and frankly trivial. Facebook didn't become what it is because of the amazing innovation of "see stupid shit your friends post". Everything about facebook's success has nothing to do with the idea, and everything to do with execution, marketing, timing, etc.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I know this may be a totally foreign concept to people living in the valley, but a driverless car isn't very interesting to people who can just walk onto a regular, punctual bus or subway service on near every corner.
    - iron_ball 14y ago
      I live in New York, which has one of the best public transit systems in the US, and I think driverless cars are freaking amazing, even (or especially) in the context of a city with effective public transit. For one thing, they could solve the last-mile problem public transit has at its outer limits.
    - mekoka 14y ago
      From all the cities I've been to I can only remember 1 or 2 that approximately fit the description and then again, only at a certain time of the day. In most others, the goal of a public transit service is to get you to destination eventually.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        Chicago buses are extremely punctual where I live (+/- 2 minutes) in river north. And of course in Manhattan it takes far longer to get anywhere by car than by subway, or even express bus.
    - wutbrodo 14y ago
      Speaking as an SF resident, we've actually got the slowest major transit system in the country (Muni; BART coverage is far from adequate for travel within the city). While this of course beats all the places with NO major transit system, it's laughable to think that widespread use of driverless cars wouldn't improve transportation significantly. I've never wanted to own a car living in the city, but with a little imagination, one can imagine most of the downsides of doing so (cost, parking, etc) significantly diminishing with widespread adoption of driverless cars. Probably more significantly, one can imagine the massive benefits gained by society at large, including those who still have no interest in getting a driverless car (safety, congestion, hell even driverless public transport).
  - vacri 14y ago
    Wind back the clock only 20-30 years and such a thing would have been astounding. You're making the mistake of considing current technology humdrum.
- ojbyrne 14y ago
  I agree that Google does amazing things, but all 3 things you mentioned are vaporware. I can't buy any of them, even if I lived in Kansas City (fiber is only available if your "fiberhood" meets some adoption level). Promising, interesting vaporware, but vaporware nonetheless.

_pius 14y ago

Well the things you describe as good about Facebook could be replaced with say Email or Google Plus and you would still get to do all those things .... Facebook is just a glorified noticeboard. What would you replace self-driving AI, google glasses and google fiber with? Taxis, AR iPhone apps, and DSL? Ridiculous, yes, but no more so than saying Facebook could just be replaced by e-mail. Heck, you could even claim that e-mail itself is "just a glorified noticeboard" or a fancy version of the Postal Service. You can glibly disparage nearly any innovation this way if you want.

optymizer 14y ago
are you seriously saying a photo-sharing site is at the same level of innovation as a driverless car? EHLO!
- _pius 14y ago
  No. I am saying that Facebook is nothing to sneeze at. It it were so easy to invent Facebook, you would've invented Facebook.
  - samstave 14y ago
    >if it were so easy to invent Facebook, you would've invented Facebook. The only problem I have with a comment like this is that there were millions of factors and pieces to the puzzle of creating Facebook, that this is a ridiculous over simplification of how it came to be. Luck, timing, market condition, state of competition etc... Zuck is the luckiest person alive to have been in the place he was when he was - its not like he simply invented everything required to make Facebook from zilch. Friendster and MySpace verified the market, zuck had a great twist on that and a million other thing fell into place. Not to say it was simple and non-trivial, but that comment just has way too much bravado and ego and is just plain stupid. He did a great job, but there is nobody else who should be using that line in any other context.
    - sigkill 14y ago
      I see that you've read this. http://www.amazon.com/The-Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules/dp/0375424040 http://www.amazon.com/The-Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules/dp... It's not rare for people to attribute success only to them self and failure to market conditions.
      - wutbrodo 14y ago
        You don't need to have read that book to know what should be obvious to anyone given more than a second of thought.
        samstave 14y ago
        Yup. Never even heard of that book.
        sigkill 14y ago
        Pardon me for not living in the US, and not knowing its culture/social situation completely. That book has given me quite a few historical information where it seems like a chance event turns fortunes of people.
        wutbrodo 14y ago
        I don't see what the US has to do with this at all. I'd be extremely surprised if the US was the only country in the entire world that wasn't a near-perfect meritocracy. I'm not all that well-acquainted with a ton of foreign cultures, but I feel I can still say with some confidence that luck being a major factor of success is damn-near a universal law.
    - _pius 14y ago
      that comment just has way too much bravado and ego and is just plain stupid. I think you're reading too much into this.
      - worldimperator 14y ago
  - optymizer 14y ago
    I don't think anyone is discounting Facebook as an easy project. It has its own set of challenges to address, but, I saw many social networks before Facebook, and a few sprung up after Facebook in a short period of time, with various degrees of success. I don't see the same happening with driverless cars, so I am assuming it is more difficult to implement driverless cars than Facebook. Because, you know, if it were so easy to implement driverless cars, you would've implemented those.
    - _pius 14y ago
      I don't see why this has to be zero sum. I can be wowed by Google Glasses without calling Facebook a "glorified noticeboard." I don't see the same happening with driverless cars, so I am assuming it is more difficult to implement driverless cars than Facebook. There are actually multiple companies that have prototyped driverless cars, we're just much earlier in the technology cycle for it. But, I digress.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - papsosouid 14y ago
    Thousands of people did invent facebook. The invention is obvious and frankly trivial. Facebook didn't become what it is because of the amazing innovation of "see stupid shit your friends post". Everything about facebook's success has nothing to do with the idea, and everything to do with execution, marketing, timing, etc.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I know this may be a totally foreign concept to people living in the valley, but a driverless car isn't very interesting to people who can just walk onto a regular, punctual bus or subway service on near every corner.
  - iron_ball 14y ago
    I live in New York, which has one of the best public transit systems in the US, and I think driverless cars are freaking amazing, even (or especially) in the context of a city with effective public transit. For one thing, they could solve the last-mile problem public transit has at its outer limits.
  - mekoka 14y ago
    From all the cities I've been to I can only remember 1 or 2 that approximately fit the description and then again, only at a certain time of the day. In most others, the goal of a public transit service is to get you to destination eventually.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Chicago buses are extremely punctual where I live (+/- 2 minutes) in river north. And of course in Manhattan it takes far longer to get anywhere by car than by subway, or even express bus.
  - wutbrodo 14y ago
    Speaking as an SF resident, we've actually got the slowest major transit system in the country (Muni; BART coverage is far from adequate for travel within the city). While this of course beats all the places with NO major transit system, it's laughable to think that widespread use of driverless cars wouldn't improve transportation significantly. I've never wanted to own a car living in the city, but with a little imagination, one can imagine most of the downsides of doing so (cost, parking, etc) significantly diminishing with widespread adoption of driverless cars. Probably more significantly, one can imagine the massive benefits gained by society at large, including those who still have no interest in getting a driverless car (safety, congestion, hell even driverless public transport).
- vacri 14y ago
  Wind back the clock only 20-30 years and such a thing would have been astounding. You're making the mistake of considing current technology humdrum.
ojbyrne 14y ago
I agree that Google does amazing things, but all 3 things you mentioned are vaporware. I can't buy any of them, even if I lived in Kansas City (fiber is only available if your "fiberhood" meets some adoption level). Promising, interesting vaporware, but vaporware nonetheless.