

Solving a 2014 Google I/O Secret Invite Puzzle - blakecaldwell
http://blakecaldwell.net/blog/2014/4/23/solving-a-2014-google-io-secret-invite-puzzle.html

======
mjolk
>I'd try to find and solve one of the secret puzzles Google was hiding, to get
a chance to buy a reserved ticket.

I find it amusing that giving money to Google is almost spoken in terms of
privilege. "Today, Google will allow users to buy Google Glass for $1500" or
in this case, solving a puzzle for the opportunity to buy a $900 ticket
outside of the if-you-win-you-pay lottery.

More amusing is that I/O is a conference of how to use Google services and
platforms[0]. Really, look at it. It's almost entirely talks on how to build
products for their platforms and pay-to-use APIs.

[0]
[https://developers.google.com/events/io/sessions](https://developers.google.com/events/io/sessions)

~~~
whoismua
_More amusing is that I /O is a conference of how to use Google services and
platforms[0]. Really, look at it. It's almost entirely talks on how to build
products for their p platforms and pay-to-use APIs._

Presumably the developers still get their money's worth. If /when they don't
soon or later these conferences will be full of empty chairs. So the question
each person asks: "what do I gain by it," not what Google gains by it.

~~~
just2n
The developers who manage to successfully get a ticket through the lottery*.

Why are the two coupled anyway? That's a huge issue with the WWDC and it's
becoming an issue here. If you want developers, don't offer "the next big
thing" in consumer electronics to anyone who attends, then leave registration
open for everyone.

------
just2n
These scavenger hunts aren't merit based reserved tickets. What do they
actually do? Who are the targets, and why does Google want these people to
attend I/O?

The answer can't be "developers" or "to learn things." Not while the
prevailing reason people attend I/O is to get the new shiny toys and the
primary means for getting a ticket is a random lottery with no prerequisites
for entry and no fee to prevent gaming. What we need for learning is mostly
put on YouTube promptly, so presence is not necessary there, either.

I don't understand it at all.

~~~
just2n
Thanks for the constructive insight.

I'm glad we collectively understand the general purpose of downvotes. There's
a reason they aren't defaulted to 0 pointers; they aren't "agree/disagree".

Go back to slashdot where inept moderation is the norm.

------
pdknsk
There is an URL to the game posted directly on a Google website, which I only
recognised as such after reading the post.

[https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/push-to-
deploy](https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/push-to-deploy)

The second image from the bottom has an URL plastered on it. When I noticed, I
wondered how that happened. I tried the URL in incognito tab but it requested
permission to identify my Google account, so I thought it's for internal
Google use only, and closed the tab.

------
cfontes
Nice find.

On a side note I couldn't find the I/O with different colors from Australia,
no matter how much I refresh the page.

Location based maybe?

------
aeberbach
It's telling that Google still pretends to be a company where technology and
geek cred matters. Despite being in reality a fast follower whose revenues
come almost entirely from selling the details of those who fall for what they
offer, they hold onto the least-cautious "hackers" (term used very loosely)
with references to text adventures and towels. Oh well.

~~~
logicallee
Fast following means that rather than developing something out of whole cloth,
you simply copy the functionality of another product exactly, i.e. literally
steal the R&D, (including screen layout and exact behavior) while changing
just the art assets enough to remain a hair on the right side of the law. In
order to fast follow, Google would have to fast follow _something_ , copying
it down to the layout and exact functionality. What do you think Google is
copying?

Also initiatives like Google Glass are certainly not copying another product,
but are among the most ambitious consumer R&D projects of any company on
Earth. It is a category of product that does not exist.

~~~
aeberbach
That's simple equivocation - you think you can redefine "fast follower" so
narrowly? It would certainly be convenient to ignore the similarities of
Android and Google+ to their predecessors, but it wouldn't be particularly
honest.

~~~
logicallee
I'm not redefining the word, you are. "Fast follower" is defined very
narrowly. (Go ahead and look it up.) Here is how we use it
[https://hn.algolia.com/#!/story/forever/prefix/0/fast%20foll...](https://hn.algolia.com/#!/story/forever/prefix/0/fast%20follow)
and
[https://hn.algolia.com/#!/comment/forever/prefix/0/fast%20fo...](https://hn.algolia.com/#!/comment/forever/prefix/0/fast%20follow)

and see Google.

Just like if you were to accuse them of "trademark infringement" or "copyright
infringement".

It's just not a very broad word, it's quite specific, and you shouldn't use
it. You can call them derivative or unoriginal, for example, or describe what
you think they're doing. But you can't call Google+ a "trademark infringement"
of Facebook, for example, because they don't use the word Facebook, and you
can't call it a "fast following" either, because it's not close enough.

Google Search wasn't "fast following" Yahoo web search, and Gmail wasn't "fast
following" Yahoo Mail (another web mail), and Google maps weren't "fast
following" mapquest or whatever people were using, and Google+ isn't "fast
following" Facebook.

Not because they aren't in the same space, or taking cues. But because of the
meaning of fast following, which is extremely specific. (Almost like feature
and layout matching.)

You see how it works? Look up trademark, copyright, and fast following - then
you will see that you really can't use these particular words of Google. You
can use other words of course.

I will give you an exception. I think shortly after the iPhone came out,
Samsung literally had a strategy of fast following it. (Immorally.)
[http://bgr.com/2012/08/08/apple-samsung-patent-lawsuit-
inter...](http://bgr.com/2012/08/08/apple-samsung-patent-lawsuit-internal-
report-copy-iphone/)

This is the meaning of "fast follow". You can look it up. Other companies that
had a close follow strategy have been Zynga:

[http://nibletz.com/2012/01/31/fast-follow-the-game-zynga-
lik...](http://nibletz.com/2012/01/31/fast-follow-the-game-zynga-likes-to-
play/)

You see? This is how the whole word is defined. Nobody, but nobody, accuses
Google of using this strategy. They're just not doing it, just like they're
not committing trademark infringement.

it's a very real strategy that is very shitty. I'm not redefining the word to
refer to it - you are if you want it to be broader :).

You can use any other word you want, but the "fast follow", for better or for
worse, has a specific meaning that does not apply.

By the way I am a _huge_ opponent of the fast follow strategy! I think it
amounts to theft. The only legal protection companies have is design and
utility patents, but that opens its own can of worms.

It is better if companies simply don't use this strategy to steal other
companies' work.

I hope in reading the above link you will come to the same conclusion, and use
different words to describe what you mean. Thanks.

~~~
aeberbach
You could search the web as a whole and find many examples of fast follower
used as I used it. You don't have to look very hard at all to find it applied
to Google. Your definition is excessively narrow.

Even Don Dodge calls Google a fast follower:
[http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2010/10/first...](http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2010/10/first-
mover-vs-fast-follower-who-wins.html)

Guess where he works?

------
na85
I want to be the guy whose job it is to come up with these puzzles.

