

Google wins everything (part 1) - dredmorbius
http://blog.launch.co/blog/googlewinseverything-part-1.html

======
google-serf
Right now I'm pretty over google. I just learned today that they went back on
their word that my cell phone number would only be used for account recovery;
and against my wishes started using it so any android handsets could find my
email and real name should they care to cross reference against my number. I
watched as a blank android handset pull my personal information when I dialed
it. Then they didn't give me an opportunity to opt out, because you can only
opt out if you have a google plus account. The option to hide the number does
not appear. No. Google doesn't win everything, they lost the battle when they
got loose with our personal data. They were always an advertising company,
rotten and corrupt to its core. I don't care if they have a million billion
talented staff and all the money in the world. They are ethically bankrupt and
their rein will end like all other great tyrants in the past. Screw you
google.

~~~
magicalist
This article is kind of dumb and your comment is irrelevant to it, _and_ this
submission is already getting bombed off the front page, but:

a) they're pretty clear on how recovery numbers are used1[1], so honestly, I'm
somewhat skeptical of your claim, but regardless:

b) you can easily change that setting, and no you don't need a g+ account. I
found it in like 30 seconds. Just go to your account settings[2] and click the
box with your phone number on it. The option is right there. In fact, the help
page even explicitly mentions this is independent of any Google+ use of your
phone number[3].

[1]
[https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/183728?hl=en&ref_...](https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/183728?hl=en&ref_topic=2665222)

[2] [https://www.google.com/settings/](https://www.google.com/settings/)

[3]
[https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3113316](https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3113316)

~~~
google-serf
A) my claim is accurate. I was told it was used for account recovery. It is
clearly been used to correlate with a google profile. This was opt-out and I
didn't actually catch it in nov 2013 when the tech media had a cry about it.
Their support article you gave mentioned is a lie, they are clearly using
recovery numbers to populate their bullshit caller ID system.

B) the option is NOT there if you do not have a google plus account. Do you
need me to screenshot it? If you see the word "hangout" near the mobile number
you have google plus account. I had one option, remove recovery number. There
was no opt-out "help others find me" tick. Didn't exist. I have no "hangout"
settings. Somehow my google account must be in some kind of limbo where I'm
not actually using other google services.

Your only option was to purge the number from account recovery, which I have
done. My name and "YouTube" picture still appear on android handsets without
an explicit contact. It's probably cached like that iPhone to android iMessage
case recently.

~~~
Shooti
On B, "Hangouts" and the opt out check box on that page only appears if you've
previously opted in by saying yes to the "help my friends find me on google
services/Confirm my number with a 1 time SMS" prompt either via Hangouts, or
the Google Dialer in KitKat via a Nexus device. Otherwise it just shows
Account Recovery, or nothing at all with no Phone number. The feature is opt-
in, not opt-out.

As for your name and number showing up, to double check the obvious make sure
the handset you tested on wasn't sync'd to Google allowing it to auto-populate
the automated on-Device "Me" contact entry with your pic. If it was someone
else's Google account synced phone, they have you in a Google Contacts entry
w/ an email address, since that would pull in your pic and make it accessible
to the dialer. That's their prerogative, not yours.

~~~
google-serf
Ok, I've never opted in to has hangouts. Every example of the tick box i could
find in images had a hangouts option. I understand if it is not related but it
was worth mentioning.

It was not my phone, it was a friends who had started from a fresh android 4.4
install. There was no google contact sync. Even if the contact sync was in
place, it would be unlikely that the other party would have used my 5 year old
YouTube avatar and populated it with both my email and phone number and full
name. If my contact on his google side was populated from my gmail; as I have
emailed the other party before, it shouldn't contain my phone number either -
unless google matched it and shared.

Something went wrong. I think my account is an edge case and I was opted into
a service (you are dickheads. Opt out is always evil.) and because I had not
consumed enough other services my account was not given the option to opt out.
Point remains, google matched my recovery number with my profile, which they
said they wouldn't. I can't see any other explanation.

~~~
Shooti
> Even if the contact sync was in place, it would be unlikely that the other
> party would have used my 5 year old YouTube avatar and populated it with
> both my email and phone number and full name.If my contact on his google
> side was populated from my gmail; as I have emailed the other party before,
> it shouldn't contain my phone number either - unless google matched it and
> shared.

I'll repeat my alternate explanation more concretely: the name and the Youtube
pic was auto-synced via @GMail, and your friend just manually added your phone
number to it. It's now permanently in his Gmail account as part of Google
Contacts, independent of anything done on Google's part.

Get your friend to delete his contact of you from the address book ("People")
and see if it occurs again.

------
david927
_1\. No company has as many smart people as Google._

Really? Because I'm less than impressed with what Google has done lately:
Wave, G+, etc.

 _2\. No company is as ambitious as Google._ _3\. No company is working on as
many hard problems as Google._ _4\. No company makes as many big bets as
Google._ _10\. Only one CEO is more ambitious than Google’s Larry Page._

There are hundreds of startups working on hard problems, making big bets and
which are shamelessly ambitious. The company that will make Google irrelevant
may not exist yet, but if it does, you haven't heard of it.

 _6\. No company has more data than Google._

That's a silly point. My startup works with big data and it's all about making
it useful. Having lots of data _in-and-of-itself_ is not as huge a win as it
seems. It's raining data right now.

 _9\. No company is as ruthlessly efficient as Google._

Except every two-person startup in existence, anywhere.

~~~
fredgrott
PR play by author..essay lacks certain depth to give validity to the points
stated by the author

~~~
davidgerard
Jason Calacanis' #1 product is Jason Calacanis. This is the most relevant
point of everything he says and does anywhere. Human clickbait.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
He needs a better product manager, his product is all over the place.

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

[https://plus.google.com/+AlexSchleber/posts/boFYJq7yKDd](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.

~~~
gbog
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.

~~~
jgreen10
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.

~~~
ericd
>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.

------
saosebastiao
I find it hilarious that the title is a hashtag that says google wins at
everything...does the author not realize that the only reason he used a
hashtag is because of twitter, a social media app that is resoundingly better
than any of many attempts by google?

------
huckyaus
Part 2: [http://blog.launch.co/blog/google-wins-everything-part-
two-h...](http://blog.launch.co/blog/google-wins-everything-part-two-how-to-
be-a-partner.html)

Unfortunately it doesn't discuss any of the follow-up topics mentioned at the
end of part 1.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Part 2 is interesting though somewhat at odds with part 1.

In explaining how they're blowing it he's really talking about something which
seems to me at least, is fundamental to Google's culture. They've never really
done support, or consultation, or partners, they've never cared about other
people's issues when they kill a popular service, in short they don't really
care what others think.

That's given them a fantastic focus and means that theydon't get paralyzed by
indecision or trying to keep everyone happy, but if that changes (and I really
think it won't, I honestly think they don't care in that way) what else would
changes with it and how would it impact them?

Part 2 is (a part of) the answer to his questions in part 1 - why Google will
win everything. They'll be wildy successful, yes, but the way they operate
will always leave areas where others will be able to be more appealing, at
least for some consumers.

------
mythz
Ultimately they're not making as much profits as Apple, Microsoft or even
Samsung - but they're doing a great job at attracting the best talent.

As long as they can make enough to retain their top talent, I can see them
ultimately winning in the long-term, ending up with more reach and impact than
anyone else.

I only see Apple as their biggest competition in the consumer market with
massive resources and talent laser-focused on creating what many consumers
want: beautifully simple and powerful UX's.

------
sharemywin
They need the moonshots to be successful because their core business is done
growing. The've run out of space on their results pages(14% organic) They've
run out of small publishers to exploit. Cell phones don't work well for
advertising. Social isn't growing very fast.

------
bryan_rasmussen
#12 - No Company consistently fails to execute past Proof of Concept stage as
much as google.

#13 - No Company consistently fails to monetize extremely popular services and
instead shuts them down as much as Google.

------
spiritplumber
Eh, I scooped Google once. It was fun for a day, then depressing for a week,
then fun for another day, then it was just something else that happened. A
small amount of blood was spilled, but none of it was mine.

------
panacea
Horrible extrapolation, and shyster prognostication. Would not read again.

~~~
dredmorbius
I actually thought it was worth discussing more for 1) noting the sycophancy
and 2) how Google could well fail to perform in the categories mentioned.

~~~
panacea
I won't argue with that. My dismissive comment was a personal reaction... I
think this post is worthy of discussion.

------
nb1981
ugh. Publicising your pie in the sky ideas is not impressive.

Watch: FLYING BREAD MACHINES

Where's my kudos?

Anyone can 'work' on interesting, crowd leasers like life extension and
internet for all, but until they do something they're essentially just jacking
off. And we're footing the bill (well, advertisers are - silver lining...)

------
mdellabitta
Was it just me, or did the list at the beginning remind anyone else of
[http://www.realultimatepower.net/index4.htm](http://www.realultimatepower.net/index4.htm)?

------
mark_l_watson
I consulted at Google last year and was initially surprised by the 10x
requirement, but it makes sense given their resources and the cash assets to
take long bets.

------
michaelochurch
I was at Google for six months in 2011 in a branch office (NYC) so take what I
have to say with a grain of salt. I've been an ex-Googler (Xoogler) for more
than 4 times longer than I was a Googler. It may have changed entirely since I
was there.

I saw stack ranking, closed allocation, and mediocrity. There were some
extremely smart people, but the corporate culture was a bit sleepy and
resigned, and that was because of its closed-allocation regime. You get
effective open allocation, quick promotions, and good management if Google
decides you matter, but it's not likely to play that way unless you start in
the right place.

Google is still very impressive for its size, and if it went for open
allocation, it would probably reach a trillion-dollar market cap in 4-6 years.
It _could_ win in a major way. Whether it will is unclear. It has the
potential, for certain.

------
sytelus
Yet.

