3 ms·

"Google isn't really a search company-- it's a machine learning company." No, it's an advertising company. That's who pays the bills. At the end of the day all

by api 12y ago

"Google isn't really a search company-- it's a machine learning company." No, it's an advertising company. That's who pays the bills. At the end of the day all this cool tech is to better understand and model human beings in order to better push ads. Sometimes it depresses me that so many of the world's most brilliant minds are working on that, but a generation or two ago they'd all be building doomsday bombs. I guess that's some progress.

dm2 12y ago
If there was anything else they could do that was profitable then they would. Do you have any suggestions? The only reason Apple has as much money as it does is because it greatly overcharges customers, doesn't participate in research that benefits society, and takes advantage of it's customers psychological need to have the latest model (even if the improvements are minimal).
- api 12y ago
  I wasn't even really dissing Google, just pointing out the reality of the world we live in. The fact is that very very few people really care about visionary things. There has to be a way to make it pay, and unfortunately surveillance-based marketing is the only big meal ticket in town for services like Google.
  - dm2 12y ago
    It is true about the ads being their primary source of revenue, I've thought long and hard about the concept but eventually accepted the ads as being necessary to fund the other projects they work on. Their research isn't solely focused on gathering data for ads. If these technologies can be applied to ads then it helps justify large costs because it'll increase revenue, but that is not the sole driving motivator for their moonshots and research. Hopefully the percentage of people who are passionate about futuristic concepts and visionary ideas will rise in the near future. The faster we get to a post-scarcity society the greater chance we, as an intelligent species, will have to survive long-term. Just my 2 cents. I love them as a company and have a huge amount of respect for what they've done and for sticking to their founding principals of transparency and "do no evil" (for the most part, within reason for a company of their size). I know it's pretty subjective and irreverent to bring Apple into any Google debate, the amount of people who put them on a pedestal drives me crazy. Anything I can do to redirect money from going to Apple is a positive thing in my opinion.
cpeterso 12y ago
Google is DoubleClick, literally. I don't think people would be so quick to use a web browser or mobile phone built by DoubleClick instead of Google.
- api 12y ago
  I do think people understand that, and I think it's one of the reasons Glass seems like it's a failing product. People are drawing the line at wearing a heads-up mobile camera controlled by an advertising company.
  - magicalist 12y ago
    You could say the opposite thing about Android: people embracing it in spite of the possibility of a screen they take everywhere and look at all the time controlled by an "advertising company". And in practice, the same thing is true for Android and Glass: there aren't ads popping up in your face all the time, because that would be a sure way to alienate all your users (which is one of the reasons why the "they're just an advertising company" phrase doesn't give any real insight). I think it's more likely that having a giant thing on your face that doesn't actually do all that much is more the reason for people seeming to start drawing the line with Glass. That and meme status ("glasshole") and echo chamber effects (most people outside of tech circles don't care either way).
- sgnelson 12y ago
  Well, Google now owns DoubleClick, so yes we are all using search and web browsers and phones made by a bigger, better, DoubleClick.
- magicalist 12y ago
  Only 22% of revenue was from ads on other sites in the last quarter, so, no, Google is not DoubleClick, literally or no. They do own what was DoubleClick, but it's quite different from the DoubleClick of yore (malware distributed over their network seemingly every other day, for instance).

by api 12y ago

dm2 12y ago

If there was anything else they could do that was profitable then they would. Do you have any suggestions? The only reason Apple has as much money as it does is because it greatly overcharges customers, doesn't participate in research that benefits society, and takes advantage of it's customers psychological need to have the latest model (even if the improvements are minimal).

api 12y ago
I wasn't even really dissing Google, just pointing out the reality of the world we live in. The fact is that very very few people really care about visionary things. There has to be a way to make it pay, and unfortunately surveillance-based marketing is the only big meal ticket in town for services like Google.
- dm2 12y ago
  It is true about the ads being their primary source of revenue, I've thought long and hard about the concept but eventually accepted the ads as being necessary to fund the other projects they work on. Their research isn't solely focused on gathering data for ads. If these technologies can be applied to ads then it helps justify large costs because it'll increase revenue, but that is not the sole driving motivator for their moonshots and research. Hopefully the percentage of people who are passionate about futuristic concepts and visionary ideas will rise in the near future. The faster we get to a post-scarcity society the greater chance we, as an intelligent species, will have to survive long-term. Just my 2 cents. I love them as a company and have a huge amount of respect for what they've done and for sticking to their founding principals of transparency and "do no evil" (for the most part, within reason for a company of their size). I know it's pretty subjective and irreverent to bring Apple into any Google debate, the amount of people who put them on a pedestal drives me crazy. Anything I can do to redirect money from going to Apple is a positive thing in my opinion.

cpeterso 12y ago

Google is DoubleClick, literally. I don't think people would be so quick to use a web browser or mobile phone built by DoubleClick instead of Google.

api 12y ago
I do think people understand that, and I think it's one of the reasons Glass seems like it's a failing product. People are drawing the line at wearing a heads-up mobile camera controlled by an advertising company.
- magicalist 12y ago
  You could say the opposite thing about Android: people embracing it in spite of the possibility of a screen they take everywhere and look at all the time controlled by an "advertising company". And in practice, the same thing is true for Android and Glass: there aren't ads popping up in your face all the time, because that would be a sure way to alienate all your users (which is one of the reasons why the "they're just an advertising company" phrase doesn't give any real insight). I think it's more likely that having a giant thing on your face that doesn't actually do all that much is more the reason for people seeming to start drawing the line with Glass. That and meme status ("glasshole") and echo chamber effects (most people outside of tech circles don't care either way).
sgnelson 12y ago
Well, Google now owns DoubleClick, so yes we are all using search and web browsers and phones made by a bigger, better, DoubleClick.
magicalist 12y ago
Only 22% of revenue was from ads on other sites in the last quarter, so, no, Google is not DoubleClick, literally or no. They do own what was DoubleClick, but it's quite different from the DoubleClick of yore (malware distributed over their network seemingly every other day, for instance).