6 ms·

I think Google has a kind of purpose and drive which will take it very very far. They want to "organize the world's information", but that's less than half the

I think Google has a kind of purpose and drive which will take it very very far. They want to "organize the world's information", but that's less than half the story - an even bigger challenge is making all this information not only understandable and usable to humans but making it all work seamlessly together - a monumental task they are barely getting started at. Unrelated (but necessary) they also seem to be doing very well at the organizational aspect of absorbing new ideas and companies and integrating them into themselves.

malandrew 14y ago
Don't forget the work on self-driving cars. Once that becomes more commonplace technology, I think you'll see the stock increase dramatically. Every industry with the logistics of moving stuff from point A to point B not on rail could eventually be affected by the work they are doing. Once you can automate that you've effectively reduced tons of problems to automated packet-switching.
- tsycho 14y ago
  And Glass, and Fiber, and Android, and whatever else GoogleX might be working on......Google is quite diversified in its strategies.
  - malandrew 14y ago
    Oh yeah, forgot those too. I'm especially bullish on Fiber. I made this comment about Fiber a few weeks ago: This isn't about bandwidth. It's about content. The only thing standing between YouTube and the CableTV providers is bandwidth. If Google cracks the bandwidth nut, they can essentially replace TimeWarner, Comcast, etc. in one fell swoop because they can easily replace 100% of the services those companies offer at a fraction of the cost. ... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4491695 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4491695
    - josh2600 14y ago
      I think that you're ignoring the reality of getting into the telco business. Google is hardly the first company to jump into the bandwidth market, but without the corporate welfare they got in KC, they wouldn't have been able to build their network. The reality is that as long as we have privately owned and operated metro networks, google's bandwidth access will be limited to the few metro areas that consent to their access requirements (and that's assuming the big telcos aren't able to successfully lobby against this incentive, as they've been successful in doing in the past). The answer is publically owned, and privately operated metro networks. This is a dream that will never come to pass in America, and Google's ambition will remain just that: an unrealized dream. Sorry for being such a Debbie downer, but bandwidth in the US is a really massive problem that won't be solved by one search engine or one company. We really need a national reform effort.
      - marshallp 14y ago
        There's an "out there" way to skirt all of that. Google (or whoever else) could simply create their own suburbs/towns/cities from scratch, streamlined construction and all, on cheap land bought in bulk in the desert out west. Not everyone would move, but many people would, especially if it was all managed by what they perceive as a trustable tech-savvy company like google. The might even cost them nothing if they would simply ask for pre-sale deposits. It's a crazy idea but there's nothing difficult technically or financially to make it happen. There's probably at least 1 million customers who would sign up day 1.
        dredmorbius 14y ago
        Yeah, because ditching the urban infrastructure we'd developed from the 1600s to 1940 worked out so well for us in the last half of the 20th Century. Better to create urban islands to both increase the re-urbanization trend and make the US overall more efficient, and extend those out. Transportation, distribution and logistics, communications, and other infrastructure would be radically simplified.
      - marshray 14y ago
kmfrk 14y ago
There is a lot I don't like about Google, but Google Maps, Project Glass, and the automated cars are nothing but inspiring. Just the fact that they transported us to other countries so everyone with an internet connection could go to Paris is laudable. And now they're going to explore the final frontier of Earth underwater. After iPhone and iPad, like them or not, Google is the one of the "big" companies the most involved in inventing the future.
- disordinary 14y ago
  It's not laudable it's laughable, you want to go to Paris? Go to Paris.
  - kmfrk 14y ago
    Not everyone has that privilege.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- nsmartt 14y ago
  Though Glass is amazing, it will give a whole new meaning to tracking user information. As you get information regarding what you're seeing, Google is logging everything you see. A map with with a line detailing everywhere you've been over the course of years. A video displaying everything you saw on your real trip to Paris or wherever else-- not based on what you saw that day, but based on the information Google has about that area, those landmarks, etc. Privacy could cease to exist while you're wearing Google Glass.
  - tomkarlo 14y ago
    Recording alone is doesn't equate to a loss of privacy. If you kept detailed written notes on everywhere you go, as long as those notes don't get disclosed to anyone else, you haven't lost any privacy. Taking a paranoid and oversimplified approach to privacy makes it's more difficult to have the complex, nuanced discussions necessary to actually protect privacy in meaningful ways.

malandrew 14y ago

Don't forget the work on self-driving cars. Once that becomes more commonplace technology, I think you'll see the stock increase dramatically. Every industry with the logistics of moving stuff from point A to point B not on rail could eventually be affected by the work they are doing. Once you can automate that you've effectively reduced tons of problems to automated packet-switching.

tsycho 14y ago
And Glass, and Fiber, and Android, and whatever else GoogleX might be working on......Google is quite diversified in its strategies.
- malandrew 14y ago
  Oh yeah, forgot those too. I'm especially bullish on Fiber. I made this comment about Fiber a few weeks ago: This isn't about bandwidth. It's about content. The only thing standing between YouTube and the CableTV providers is bandwidth. If Google cracks the bandwidth nut, they can essentially replace TimeWarner, Comcast, etc. in one fell swoop because they can easily replace 100% of the services those companies offer at a fraction of the cost. ... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4491695 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4491695
  - josh2600 14y ago
    I think that you're ignoring the reality of getting into the telco business. Google is hardly the first company to jump into the bandwidth market, but without the corporate welfare they got in KC, they wouldn't have been able to build their network. The reality is that as long as we have privately owned and operated metro networks, google's bandwidth access will be limited to the few metro areas that consent to their access requirements (and that's assuming the big telcos aren't able to successfully lobby against this incentive, as they've been successful in doing in the past). The answer is publically owned, and privately operated metro networks. This is a dream that will never come to pass in America, and Google's ambition will remain just that: an unrealized dream. Sorry for being such a Debbie downer, but bandwidth in the US is a really massive problem that won't be solved by one search engine or one company. We really need a national reform effort.
    - marshallp 14y ago
      There's an "out there" way to skirt all of that. Google (or whoever else) could simply create their own suburbs/towns/cities from scratch, streamlined construction and all, on cheap land bought in bulk in the desert out west. Not everyone would move, but many people would, especially if it was all managed by what they perceive as a trustable tech-savvy company like google. The might even cost them nothing if they would simply ask for pre-sale deposits. It's a crazy idea but there's nothing difficult technically or financially to make it happen. There's probably at least 1 million customers who would sign up day 1.
      - dredmorbius 14y ago
        Yeah, because ditching the urban infrastructure we'd developed from the 1600s to 1940 worked out so well for us in the last half of the 20th Century. Better to create urban islands to both increase the re-urbanization trend and make the US overall more efficient, and extend those out. Transportation, distribution and logistics, communications, and other infrastructure would be radically simplified.
    - marshray 14y ago

kmfrk 14y ago

There is a lot I don't like about Google, but Google Maps, Project Glass, and the automated cars are nothing but inspiring. Just the fact that they transported us to other countries so everyone with an internet connection could go to Paris is laudable. And now they're going to explore the final frontier of Earth underwater. After iPhone and iPad, like them or not, Google is the one of the "big" companies the most involved in inventing the future.

disordinary 14y ago
It's not laudable it's laughable, you want to go to Paris? Go to Paris.
- kmfrk 14y ago
  Not everyone has that privilege.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
nsmartt 14y ago
Though Glass is amazing, it will give a whole new meaning to tracking user information. As you get information regarding what you're seeing, Google is logging everything you see. A map with with a line detailing everywhere you've been over the course of years. A video displaying everything you saw on your real trip to Paris or wherever else-- not based on what you saw that day, but based on the information Google has about that area, those landmarks, etc. Privacy could cease to exist while you're wearing Google Glass.
- tomkarlo 14y ago
  Recording alone is doesn't equate to a loss of privacy. If you kept detailed written notes on everywhere you go, as long as those notes don't get disclosed to anyone else, you haven't lost any privacy. Taking a paranoid and oversimplified approach to privacy makes it's more difficult to have the complex, nuanced discussions necessary to actually protect privacy in meaningful ways.