7 ms·

Good old jingoism ... and nepotism towards his friends, Kurzweil. People like Gruber and Wadhwa should not hold so much sway with normal masses. Just read these

by iamshs 13y ago

Good old jingoism ... and nepotism towards his friends, Kurzweil. People like Gruber and Wadhwa should not hold so much sway with normal masses. Just read these two sentences. "Google already reads my emails before I do, and, by analyzing what I search for on the Internet and which Web sites I visit, knows what I am thinking. It “knows” what other people think about me. If my friend and noted futurist Ray Kurzweil succeeds in his mission at Google, it will understand my wants and needs too. It will predict what I want to search for, where I want to go to, and what I want to eat. It will understand how my brain thinks and become my personal assistant." "Contrast this with what we can expect from Facebook: more ads, more annoying sponsored posts, more intrusions of privacy. "

clicks 13y ago
Those two sentences make perfect sense. People go to Facebook to socialize, to Google to search. This naturally leads to the conclusion of Facebook going with very constricted models of monetization like having intrusive ads, selling your private information, showing sponsored posts. Google is in a more natural position to advertise, it doesn't have as much to gain by showing you annoying ads as Facebook. In addition to all of this, Google does not seem afraid to venture out into completely new areas. I'm not saying Google is an innocent saint that'll never do any wrong, but it's pretty clear Google's future is markedly brighter than Facebook's. It'll be interesting to see how Google+ shapes in the coming years. One interesting possibility is Google+ having no ads at all (it currently does not have any) for all of its life, because Google can afford to do that and everyone will like that.
- threeseed 13y ago
  Google's future is markedly better than Facebook's ? No way. Facebook has stickiness and the network effects to keep people on it. Google has none of that. If a better search engine appeared overnight everyone would switch to it and that would be the end of Google. If a better social network appeared very few people would switch. In fact I would postulate that if Microsoft managed to convince Mozilla and Apple to change the default search engines to Bing that it could be almost enough to send Google into a death spiral.
  - tikums 13y ago
    Didn't Mypace also enjoy a network effect?
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      No, it did not. Myspace existed before the concept of social networking really solidifed. Not to mention that Myspace was much more niche in that its main userbase was the young and somewhat technically savvy. Myspace was more of a homepage-builder than it was a social network the way we think of it today. The concept of social networking solidified with Facebook, and they were in the perfect position to capitalize on the masses moving to the internet for a large chunk of their pass-time. Network effects just didn't exist for Myspace, as seen by the handful of social networks that existed simultaneously with it. Facebook changed the game, and they will dominate until something else similarly changes the game. Whatever it will be, it will look nothing like Facebook.
  - praptak 13y ago
    > If a better social network appeared very few people would switch. As evidenced by MySpace? With social networks you can split your time between many, the worse ones' usage gradually decaying. The network effect is there but it's not like everybody has to switch at the same time.
  - rednukleus 13y ago
    How many people do you know who use gmail? Every time they go on the webmail client they are pretty much back on Google's homepage. Between all the people who use Android, Chrome, gmail etc, Google would be just fine if Apple and Mozilla changed default search engines. At the moment, Facebook are a one trick pony that many people can easily live without.
    - busterarm 13y ago
      Literally one-hundred percent of the people I know who are really serious about email are moving away from Gmail. It was only in mid-2012 that they passed Hotmail for being the biggest email service in the world. Gmail is very popular among certain types of (mostly technical) people. In fact, it's probably Android that has put them over the edge. Gmail still has a fragile position. At least as far as my browsing habits are concerned, using Gmail didn't lead me back to google search or any of their other services. Could you imagine what the world would look like if somehow in 4 or 5 years Firefox OS ended up eating Android's lunch? Search is a major component of their advertising business, which these days is their core business. If people switched they'd definitely be in a major pinch.
- iamshs 13y ago
  No they don't make perfect sense, in fact they should switch companies. Google monetizes on my privately shared data on email, meant only to be consumed among people that i contact privately. It tapping and constructing my future is as much an invasion of privacy as there can be. Now FB monetizes on my publicly shared data, on statuses and hobbies that I want to share with the world voluntarily. View nice little snippets of videos that I view on other timelines. FB Graph is a idea of such niche venture for them. FB does not have to imitate Google, Apple is there to provide competition on that behalf. FB has to just be an essential time pass for masses, just more than Google.
Apocryphon 13y ago
So is he India's equivalent to Thomas Friedman? Truly we are living in one hot flat crowded world.

by iamshs 13y ago

clicks 13y ago

Those two sentences make perfect sense. People go to Facebook to socialize, to Google to search. This naturally leads to the conclusion of Facebook going with very constricted models of monetization like having intrusive ads, selling your private information, showing sponsored posts. Google is in a more natural position to advertise, it doesn't have as much to gain by showing you annoying ads as Facebook. In addition to all of this, Google does not seem afraid to venture out into completely new areas. I'm not saying Google is an innocent saint that'll never do any wrong, but it's pretty clear Google's future is markedly brighter than Facebook's. It'll be interesting to see how Google+ shapes in the coming years. One interesting possibility is Google+ having no ads at all (it currently does not have any) for all of its life, because Google can afford to do that and everyone will like that.

threeseed 13y ago
Google's future is markedly better than Facebook's ? No way. Facebook has stickiness and the network effects to keep people on it. Google has none of that. If a better search engine appeared overnight everyone would switch to it and that would be the end of Google. If a better social network appeared very few people would switch. In fact I would postulate that if Microsoft managed to convince Mozilla and Apple to change the default search engines to Bing that it could be almost enough to send Google into a death spiral.
- tikums 13y ago
  Didn't Mypace also enjoy a network effect?
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    No, it did not. Myspace existed before the concept of social networking really solidifed. Not to mention that Myspace was much more niche in that its main userbase was the young and somewhat technically savvy. Myspace was more of a homepage-builder than it was a social network the way we think of it today. The concept of social networking solidified with Facebook, and they were in the perfect position to capitalize on the masses moving to the internet for a large chunk of their pass-time. Network effects just didn't exist for Myspace, as seen by the handful of social networks that existed simultaneously with it. Facebook changed the game, and they will dominate until something else similarly changes the game. Whatever it will be, it will look nothing like Facebook.
- praptak 13y ago
  > If a better social network appeared very few people would switch. As evidenced by MySpace? With social networks you can split your time between many, the worse ones' usage gradually decaying. The network effect is there but it's not like everybody has to switch at the same time.
- rednukleus 13y ago
  How many people do you know who use gmail? Every time they go on the webmail client they are pretty much back on Google's homepage. Between all the people who use Android, Chrome, gmail etc, Google would be just fine if Apple and Mozilla changed default search engines. At the moment, Facebook are a one trick pony that many people can easily live without.
  - busterarm 13y ago
    Literally one-hundred percent of the people I know who are really serious about email are moving away from Gmail. It was only in mid-2012 that they passed Hotmail for being the biggest email service in the world. Gmail is very popular among certain types of (mostly technical) people. In fact, it's probably Android that has put them over the edge. Gmail still has a fragile position. At least as far as my browsing habits are concerned, using Gmail didn't lead me back to google search or any of their other services. Could you imagine what the world would look like if somehow in 4 or 5 years Firefox OS ended up eating Android's lunch? Search is a major component of their advertising business, which these days is their core business. If people switched they'd definitely be in a major pinch.
iamshs 13y ago
No they don't make perfect sense, in fact they should switch companies. Google monetizes on my privately shared data on email, meant only to be consumed among people that i contact privately. It tapping and constructing my future is as much an invasion of privacy as there can be. Now FB monetizes on my publicly shared data, on statuses and hobbies that I want to share with the world voluntarily. View nice little snippets of videos that I view on other timelines. FB Graph is a idea of such niche venture for them. FB does not have to imitate Google, Apple is there to provide competition on that behalf. FB has to just be an essential time pass for masses, just more than Google.

Apocryphon 13y ago

So is he India's equivalent to Thomas Friedman? Truly we are living in one hot flat crowded world.