Comment by dredmorbius | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dredmorbius | Hacker News Reader

More interesting discussion on Alex Schleber's G+ post:

https://plus.google.com/+AlexSchleber/posts/boFYJq7yKDd

Specifically:

Re point 1: But they are (self-)selected smart by Google's hiring processes to skew in a particular engineering direction that CAN make them "dumb" (=less smart) in more social, humanistic, and philosophical terms...

Gunther Sonnenfeld makes the point that I've been making for a year or so now: that Google's real competition is Amazon:

This isn't really about digital rights fiefdoms and the ability to sell ads, but the distribution of products, services and data that keep customers realistically 'engaged'. Amazon has the entire ecosystem in play ... In short, Amazon doesn't need ads or impressions, and in fact, it will completely reinvent the standards for performance, reach and engagement by doing so.

Amazon itself is disruptable if someone can figure out how to get brick-and-mortar stores' inventories and order systems integrated. The last-mile / delivery problem is still Amazon's weak point, and if I can deal with merchandise issues in person at a local storefront (with competent service), but handle ordering and information online, I'd do it (and in fact, often do).

I see security, privacy, tracking, and trust being Google's biggest weak points, along with hubris. The fact that I've all but abandoned it for Search (but Google Scholar and the Google Books Ngram viewer are awesome), and am starting to switch to OpenStreetMap, suggests that Google's foundations can be carved out from under it.

Remember, IBM, Xerox, and AT&T were unassailable behemoths in the 1970s / 1980s (well, prior to 1984 in the case of AT&T). Or Microsoft for the 1990s.

OP is talking about going to the moon, you are bringing the topic back to retail, which is ok but a bit cold-showerish.

I think on HN we could and should go further in the "no-limit" thoughts, even if as a simple exercise.

For example, I always wondered why would Google need to make money. In some weird views, we could think the maybe it already have enough money to be self-sustainable, in financial orbit. Maybe they could put all the money they have in some low risk investment and use the annuity to paid engineers and researchers. They sure could cut a lot of expenses on PR and office prettifying.

Then a Google that was not required to make money anymore would really become something. It could provide every human with free internet without relying on forced data mining. It could pay researcher to produce open whitepapers on topics of their own interests.

This would working be a little bit like Universities in the middle-age or renaissance: having some funds, hosting interesting people, being a center for innovation, etc.

I do not think this is pure utopy, or to say it otherwise: only a massive ship like Google could carry such an utopian experiment.

Google failed to make a big dent in cloud computing, e-reading, instant streaming, product search, on-line payments, and many other areas where they had huge ambitions, but it was Amazon that drove the market. Amazon even owns 10% of the tablet market, more than Samsung and Google combined. Google has become obsessed with turning itself into a social network, just when social networking reached its peak. Even Jeff Bezos' attempts at getting to the moon have so far been a lot more serious than that of Larry Page...

If anything will get us to the moon it's not piles of cash, it's a solid business strategy. I certainly hope Google will find one for glass, their self-driving cars, and other cool hardware projects, but a quick look around all the car manufacturers suggests that Google may once again miss the boat.

>I certainly hope Google will find one for glass, their self-driving cars, and other cool hardware projects, but a quick look around all the car manufacturers suggests that Google may once again miss the boat.

The car manufacturers are working on self-driving only on highways, which is nothing compared to general self-driving. I don't know for certain, but I think it's fairly safe to say that the car companies don't have the CS muscle to do proper general self driving.

When I said the moon I just meant some far fetching projects, not just sending tourists to the moon. However I agree that the Google plus social turn is kind of frivolous and heavy handed, at the same time. I was hoping in the beginning that it was a clever strategy to force open Facebook, but it seems to be not the case after all.

OP is talking about going to the moon, you are bringing the topic back to retail, which is ok but a bit cold-showerish.

Ask any broad who's been around the block a few times about guys selling her the moon and the stars. Pan Am was selling tickets to the moon in the 1960s. Didn't work out so great when they failed at retail and went bankrupt.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/ticket-to-space/

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-01-09/news/mn-7223_1_fuel-c...

Truth is: Google's an advertising company, and its biggest market is intentional users -- mostly search-driven, who are looking for something, often to buy and use its services.

Piss them off, freak them out, annoy them, or cut to the chase and offer the end-result directly and you've short-circuited their entire business model.

Same as Microsoft was terrified of either free operating systems (Linux) or applications which could run (on any OS) over a browser. And then they got blindsided by mobile. Sucks to be Microsoft today. Could well be Google in a few years.

I always wondered why would Google need to make money.

Um. That's kind of how this iteration of the majical economy game works. Businesses are scored on their ability to earn more in revenues than they spend on expenses. No business can keep operating indefinitely without profits, though some giants have functioned for years with losses (between running down cash, working through or selling off assets, and taking on debt).

Maybe they could put all the money they have in some low risk investment

That "low risk investment* is ultimately the rest of the economy (hint: US T Bills are supported by economic activity elsewhere for real gains). Which would mean that Google was losing ground relative to same. Unless Google were able to, say, come up with a perpetual / unlimited energy supply or something like it, they'll need money. Or they manage to utterly change the rules of how the economy works, in ways which would make Marx proud.

I do not think this is pure utopy

Stop thinking. It is.

Ok but life is not all about business and money. Some or many inventors did their exploring tasks because it was a passion of theirs. Some people are driven by pride or even sexual desires. Some of the greatest achievements of humans have been made in the name of God, or for a women, or just because it has to be done.

Google founders should not really need more money than what they already have, and therefore could have another set out goals in life than making more money...

life is not all about business and money

I hear you. Believe me I do.

However that's the system we've got.

You've got at least three problems that I can see:

• Figure out what you want to replace it with.

• Figure out how to get there from here.

• Figure out how to sell it.

Many have tried.

Google founders should not really need more money than what they already have

We're not talking about the founders, we're talking about the company.

As of December 31, 2013, the company had $87,309 million in total equity -- value less liabilities. Its operating expenses for the three months ending December 31, 2013, were $12,936 million. Without income, Google would be broke in six quarters.

You can't run a company without income.

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG&fstype=ii&ei=...

And in the event you're thinking this is just money: money represents a lien on real resources. Those financial stocks and flows correspond to resources Google can access or must use on an ongoing basis. The additional projects it does engage in are possible because its revenues are that much higher above its expenses.

What you're talking about would require that Google find some other way of keeping the power on and encouraging people to show up to the office every day, without money changing hands, in a fashion which retains some semblance of economic efficiency.

What are you proposing, exactly?

There was an academia in classic China called Hanlin. Its business model was probably close to what I'm taking about: infinite funds providing a roof and good food to the guests and their families. Extra income in the form of fame, access to the brightest minds of the times and their books, and great output opportunities as public servant. Main task was to extend human knowledge and embellish Chinese culture with more poems or pictures.

Google probably could have been this way but right now it's too late I guess.

Google founders don't own Google any more, at least they only own around 16% of it.

The vast majority (80%+) of the rest of the stock is held by institutional investors who want one of two things: (1) capital growth (that is the share price to go up) and (2) dividends (that is for them to be given money for owning the stock).

There is no room for Google as some non-business utopia, it's a corporation with a responsibility to shareholders. So long as Larry and Sergey keep delivering a return they'll be allowed to keep doing what they want but the minute they're not seen as doing that they'll be replaced.

I think what Amazon is doing is more ambitious and far reaching that everything else Google does. Even now choosing amoung an astronomical amount of goods in an app and have them delivered reliably in days->dozen of hours[->hours->minutes in the future ?] is near the sci-fi realm, is more desirable than self-driving cars, and has more impact on everyday life than any computing product (bar 3D printing).

Even on digital goods Amazon dos better than Google's content shops, with the exception of apps.

Retail as a concept feels boring, but what Amazon does has real practical effects on everyday life, and they are pushing the boundaries further and further where no company cared to go until now.

Thinking that on top of all of this their business model is actually sane, I'd root for Amazon any day (except for how they treat warehouse employees, but that would be another topic)

PS: An anecdote: after an heavy earthquake, when everyone is busy hording food and water supply from brick and mortar chains, amazon was still delivering anything including emergency goods anywhere accessible at day+1 delivery. It was mind blowing.

I don't actually think that's more significant than self-driving cars -- getting things faster is one thing, changing the way we travel is another. Imagine a world where nobody dies in traffic accidents anymore? No drunk driving nonsense, etc. -- that's a far different and better world than one where the only new thing is "hey hey I can use my phone to get stuff in ten minutes".

> Imagine a world where nobody dies in traffic accidents anymore? > "hey hey I can use my phone to get stuff in ten minutes".

If I get the replacement parts for my vacuum cleaner for tomorrow, I won't get in a car or any transportation mechanism to get it to some store. As a side effect, your traffic accident number is down (less individual people driving) and the system efficiency is also up (efficient vehicles moving the goods).[]

What amazon does goes toward the goal you state. It does it in a small way, but it's here today, you can use it now, and it should continue doing it better and better everyday.

Google's self driving car might reach your goal to some point in some distant future. If infrastructure gets a lot better. And legislation problem get solve. And Google is still around by then. Is it so much better ?

[] BTW, You'll still have drunk people, but this problem might as well be solved by other means than self-driving cars.

Addressing the challenges of population, energy, food, other resource availability, and negative environmental impacts comes to mind.

Self-driving cars could be a part of that. But small in the bigger picture.

Even though I am a big fan of some Google tech and their internal platforms, if I am asked who my favorite tech company is, I always say Amazon both because of AWS and their business/tech models.

I have had only one major consulting client in the last 5 years who has not at least partially used AWS, and that was Google :-)

Amazon impresses me, but the personal culture there seems pathological.

As much as I distrust Google, the people working there seem happy. Not so sure I can say that of Amazon.

> Amazon itself is disruptable if someone can figure out how to get brick-and-mortar stores' inventories and order systems integrated. The last-mile / delivery problem is still Amazon's weak point, and if I can deal with merchandise issues in person at a local storefront (with competent service), but handle ordering and information online, I'd do it (and in fact, often do).

Here in the UK, we have Argos, which is just that. Every city and large town has an Argos in the city centre, with a warehouse attached. You can order online, and either pick your items up at the store or have them delivered. They even have a 90 minute delivery option.

Unfortunately, it's been in a massive decline in recent years. Warehouse space in the middle of cities turns out to be expensive, and Amazon's been carving out a massive chunk of their market.

I've seen some interesting noises out of IBM on this front, though I also remember IBM making noises about inventory management control systems with nuns advertising OS/2, so ... they've been at that a while.

What the Web offers is a way to remove the distance and friction between people and product information: specs and reviews, despite the limitations of both. I've found that numerous stores are pretty good about talking me through what I'm looking to buy, and, if they don't have it in stock, ordering it for pick-up. Often within a day or so. What the store offers is existing relationships with manufacturers and distributors, as well as, well, a storefront in which I can walk in and collect the purchase when I choose to. Additionally, I've got a choice of payment methods, including cash, most of which avoid the various risks of fraud (to both the shopper and merchant) associated with online payments.

There are few cases in which the option of "look up information online, place order through local merchant, be notified of availability, transact payment and pick up product" fails to work for me. For large or bulk purchases, arranging for delivery if necessary.

Better: if on examination the product isn't what I was looking for, or fails to meet expectations, the merchant has a far easier time arranging returns (including, as noted, an existing relationship with the manufacturer / warehouser) than I as an individual have.

Side note: Edward Bellamy's socialist utopia Looking Backward, written in 1887 about the year 2000, is a fascinating read. Some of its predictions are wide of the mark, but what I found particularly accurate, though his description was of an essentially socialist emporium, was his description of shopping. It's almost a perfect capture of the shopping mall experience, minus the advertising, down to the utterly ignorant and useless sales staff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Backward

Reply on news.ycombinator.com