mindgam3

60 ms·

541.
by mindgam3 8y ago
I get that. My point is that Google aimed at “core feature parity,” which was a mistake.
542.
by mindgam3 8y ago
That’s the next step. Will take another few years after glasses.
543.
by mindgam3 8y ago
Not to beat a dead horse on this defeat thing, but it's defeat from the perspective of trying and failing to have a competing social network. I like your optimism and I wish Google's reasons were that noble. But it's hopeless
544.
by mindgam3 8y ago
See, that's an interesting angle. Facebook had to stick with real names because they were trying to become the default source of personal identity online. (and basically succeeded) But with real identity comes a whole host of problems.
545.
by mindgam3 8y ago
Uh, they kinda did copy Facebook shamelessly on the core features and basic UI, with the exception of Circles. I log in, I see a feed, I have a way to add “friends”, I can share text/photos/videos/links and comment. It basica
546.
by mindgam3 8y ago
“defeat happened a decade ago“ ...right. Hence, them finally “admitting defeat” which you objected to for some reason in your previous comment.
547.
by mindgam3 8y ago
The important market is when smartglasses replace smartphones as the dominant form of human computer interaction. Which will happen in the next 10 years.
548.
by mindgam3 8y ago
Sure. But I never said Google should try to compete in all of them. Just social, given that it is up there as a fundamental human need, hardwired into our brains like the need for food or sex. Google’s mission is “to organize the world’s in
549.
by mindgam3 8y ago
If shuttering a consumer product and relegating it to enterprise isn’t admitting defeat, then I don’t know what you mean by defeat.
550.
by mindgam3 8y ago
“Friends on G+ that weren’t on Facebook” <== this was an opportunity I was still very high on Facebook kool aid at that time. It may have had a bad rep to some people, but this sentiment was years away from reaching people like me. Note
551.
by mindgam3 8y ago
They had the important stuff. Posting content, a feed, friends. This is what drove Facebook. All the other stuff was icing on the cake.
552.
by mindgam3 8y ago
Right. But the reason big companies fail at this is because they don’t have the balls to pursue optimal longterm strategy in the face of quicker near term wins. There’s nothing preventing a big company from thinking like a nimble startup, o
553.
by mindgam3 8y ago
I don’t remember many particularly egregious failures in UI and product design. In my experience it was well designed, but served no purpose whatsoever given that it was almost a complete clone of Facebook features, thus no reason for any o
554.
by mindgam3 8y ago
That’s a fair distinction. Still, choosing not to interview at one of the top 2 highest-paying employers does indicate some sacrifice. I’m not saying we should nominate these guys for the Nobel peace prize, but their stance does merit some
555.
by mindgam3 8y ago
I believe Docs has always been an entirely separate product. They may have had a version of it inside Wave. Not 100% sure on this but that’s what I remember.
556.
by mindgam3 8y ago
Exactly. My point is that going after small niches until one works would have been a better strategy to come up with a viable Facebook competitor. This could probably only happen with a “startup within big company” model where they had the
557.
by mindgam3 8y ago
Yeah, I’m probably being a little dramatic. They didn’t cripple GOOG or their business model. But still, getting Google to back down on a significant product direction is noteworthy.
558.
by mindgam3 8y ago
1. Powerful in terms of impact. Google discontinued the project, no doubt due in some part to the protest. 2. Brave in turning down lucrative job offers for moral reasons. Many, many engineers currently work at Big Tech co’s with similar do
559.
by mindgam3 8y ago
Yes. But still a non player in the much more important consumer market. Arguably Google still has a stake in consumer glasses via their massive investment in Magic Leap. But whether that has any chance of succeeding is a whole other story.
560.
by mindgam3 8y ago
Because social is/was such a fundamental aspect of the human experience. As proven by facebook’s continued explosive growth in the years since Google tried to compete. Not to mention FB’s ability to affect markets, attitudes, and polit
561.
by mindgam3 8y ago
RIP. Like so many of Google’s high profile efforts (anyone remember Wave? Glass, etc), a bunch of good ideas and great tech brought down by an utter failure to understand the human element/social psychology angle. Google+ was dead in t
562.
by mindgam3 8y ago
[Reposting my comment shared on the earlier thread, I guess this one wasn’t marked as dupe] “In June, more than 100 students at Stanford, M.I.T. and other top colleges signed a pledge saying they would turn down job interviews with Google u
563.
by mindgam3 8y ago
They toned down the flashiness, that was a step in the right direction. The biggest things holding them back are 1) the camera is still way too conspicuous 2) only post to Snapchat
564.
by mindgam3 8y ago
Actually, their whole “disappearing messages” thing was perfectly positioned for the teen market as the polar opposite of “post once and it’s there forever” Facebook. I never used it myself, but for a certain subset of people, not just dick
565.
by mindgam3 8y ago
So I think the term "alpha" is leading to a lot of confusion here. It could mean "person in charge who maintains control through deception and fear, much like a psychopath", or it could mean "leader". True lead
566.
by mindgam3 8y ago
“In June, more than 100 students at Stanford, M.I.T. and other top colleges signed a pledge saying they would turn down job interviews with Google unless the company dropped its Project Maven contract. (Google said that month that it would
567.
by mindgam3 8y ago
It was borderline. But they were clearly supposed to be the precursor to wider scale consumer glasses. Google would never have committed that much time and money if it was originally intended to be an enterprise product.
568.
by mindgam3 8y ago
Correction: first to put camera on glasses with enough fashion sense not to spawn a brand new word to describe just how much their owners looked like Borg assholes. I’m referring of course to “glasshole.” All signs point to Apple launching
569.
by mindgam3 8y ago
I’m with you up until you associate alpha with being intimidating and willing to lie. Alpha implies leadership 100%. It is possible to be a strong and convincing leader without these negative traits. In practice, most leaders are in fact mo
570.
by mindgam3 8y ago
I don't disagree, but I think the fact that the article has the term in its title is why it made it to the front page of Hacker News.

More ›