Google is doing exciting and important things like building self-driving AI, google glasses, google fiber and android. However, I don't really consider Google + by itself, "cool".
It's way cooler for me than, say, a self-driving car (I live in the city and have no need for one).
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.
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.
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.
I think you're reading too much into this.
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.
I'm don't even know what the twist is. People seemed to leave Friendster because it was slow, then left Myspace because it made you sick, then joined Facebook which was like Friendster with active development and also initially seeded with smart people.
The only innovation I can see is that the company was run by a developer who showed that he was going to experiment with and build out the platform continuously in order to attract third-parties to invest in it.
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.
One can also imagine a massive drawback: the continuation of sedentary lifestyle status quo and all of its associated ills.
But hey, who wants to walk 10 minutes to transit, maybe you can take the driverless car to the gym.
Driverless vehicles have the potential to transform transportation, full stop. This obviously includes public transit (I highly doubt that a driverless bus is much of a technological leap from driverless cars). Whatever benefits public transit provides are included in the changes that driverless vehicles will bring (unless, as it seems, your only in support of inefficient public transit?).
I have no idea where the car accidents or pollution sentence came from. I'm "rooting" for less cars, not the least because it will reduce pollution, and live my life accordingly. I try to minimize the disease in my life by minimizing my car use - automated or otherwise - rather than addressing the symptoms using a new wundertechnology. I don't control the number of car accidents because I can't control the choices others make.
To be fair, a self-driving taxi may revolutionize urban life by making short taxi trips FAR less expensive and at least moderately more convenient. If self-driving cars become commonplace, city life should also be safer for pedestrians and cyclists.
I kept thinking of _The Fifth Element_ while reading your comment. Except instead of flying cars, HOV lanes packed tightly together carrying thousands of passengers traveling safely at 90 MPH. Saving emissions, being efficient. I can see it happening.
Free energy forever might revolutionize things. Cheaper and easier to find taxis will be a small improvement.
Taxis are disproportionately located in cities because that is where they make the most money (largest customer base). Making taxi rides cheaper would cut into their earnings, and would result in a corresponding loss of taxis until profit margins are restored.
Maybe I'm just starting to get old, and the idea of certain elements from all those cheesy movies about the future I watched as a young kid coming true just isn't as "cool" as it used to be.
Everyone from universities to BMW and Mercedes are working on self driving cars, Google Glasses aren't AR and better attempts have been made previously and as for cheap fibre well countless countries have in reality what Google is just talking about.
In many respects Google is like Apple - taking existing ideas and making them more polished.
The future is (mostly) already laid out, the roads just need to be paved to get everyone there. That is what Apple & Google are doing, along with some others.
Edit: Just realized we actually used to have (dumb) automated cars. They were called horses.
Google's real test will be putting their wundermachines on the market and standing behind them when the liability suits inevitably come in. That's not to say the vehicles themselves will malfunction, but that won't stop some people.
Edit: here are some dates.
- Staying in lane, 2003, Honda Inspire provides up to 80% of required steering torque: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_departure_warning_system#T.... Want to bet why it wasn't 100%?
- Traction assist in cornering, 1995-1997 (notably retrofitted onto the Mercedes A-class in 1997 after it was beaten by a Trabant in the elk test): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control#In.... Early forms of braking traction assist available as ABS starting in 1971.
- Following the car in front, at any speed from 0 to 100 km/h, 2006, Lexus LS 460, with first systems becoming available 1997-2000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_cruise_control#Availab...
- Standard roadside traffic sign recognition, currently implemented for speed limit and overtaking restriction signs, 2008, BMW and GM, soon followed by others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_sign_recognition
- Blind spot detection, circa 2006, second generation Volvo S80: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_detection
- Pedestrian detection, circa 2010, Volvo: http://www.popsci.com/bown/2010/product/volvo-pedestrian-det...
Kinze plans to release their fully autonomous agriculture tractor to the buying public later this year. I realize the field is not quite the highway, but it is still pretty exciting to see this kind of stuff come into production already.
(I'm strictly comparing internet speeds, not TV channel lineup).
First, the connection you're talking about is 50/25 Mbps, while Google is a symmetric 1 Gbps. Second, Google includes 1 TB of Google Drive, which Google normally sells at $50/mo.
Granted, it's cheaper for them to give you Google Drive if you're a fiber customer. And, of course, you might not even want it, but it's one hell of an extra if you want even part of it. I wonder if that's one of the things they're testing with Google Fiber: What do people do with a lot of cloud storage they have fast access to (at least at home)?
Even on the TV side, the comparison isn't that bad once you realize Google is throwing in a DVR (with 8-way recording??). They lose some ground because of the bundle savings (unless you count the Nexus 7 / local storage towards that), but the competing high-end plans are so expensive (~$200/mo for FiOS) and still a lot slower (3x download, 15x upload) that it's no contest, assuming you want the speed.
And just because Google is putting money behind all three doesn't mean it's doing any good. Until they release a product or share their research, it's all vaporware. And I'm not saying that to hate on Google, I actually like that Google is pouring money into these projects, but it doesn't change the fact that Google is getting preferential treatment from the media making it sound like Google is the organization trying to make advancements in these areas, no different than the way the media treats Apple during its product releases.
But Facebook isn't cool, no. It's too established now, in the same way that Gmail isn't cool. However, they're both indispensable services for huge, huge numbers of people.