That statement spells it for me. With Google I see research, I see pushing tech boundaries and hardware experiments, I see new ways to interpret the world. With Facebook I see a huge lump of data but nothing really too groundbreaking. I don't deny Facebook's momentum... it's huge and it's valuable... but is it future proof? Are they thriving on momentum alone?
Which wins the race? Dunno yet. Maybe it's just not the same race.
Google tries stuff, fails a lot, and stumbles on as many successes as they engineer.
Facebook has executed really well on their core stuff, but... what else? I mean, they've been on a huge hiring binge now for four years. What do they have to show for all that talent? It seems like a big waste to society if nothing else.
You'll give your car the order on the way, and it'll contact the local Pizza Hut's system to place it.
Maybe it's simply the Thrun factor?
That man's track record of amazing projects is really jaw dropping. Self driving cars, udacity and glass? I want a planet with more people like that in it.
And also push computer vision and pervasive HCI further forward. Sort of a weird deal, but overall... not wholly awful. Those patents will expire eventually!
True, but worth pointing out that often the best way to succeed, especially on anything truly innovative, is to be ready to try stuff and fail a lot.
Is this a total waste to society? Could the Arab spring have happened without such social tools? Is the world a better place when common people are empowered to fight against perceived repression?
I'm not taking a stance on those revolutions will affect their countries. I will say, however, that a government that can protect itself against revolt has little incentive to look out for its people. Society can be made 'better' in many ways.
The "strong tie"? I'm just not so sure changing the "weak tie" is such a net positive for society. I'm not going to claim that FB doesn't have its positives but I'd rather see a society building strong ties with fewer people than weak ties with many. (and, frankly, doing nothing but wasting time for hours per day)
I prefer society, via technology, to continue to have and explore both.
It's funny because your entire comment is self contradictory. On one hand you criticise socialising using Facebook and on the other want to build stronger ties. Socialising = Stronger ties.
I criticize the assertion that changing weak ties, in the way FB does, is a net positive for society. It's one thing to reconnect with an old friend, it's another to spend time everyday browsing through pictures of people you haven't seen in 10 years. Too much of the latter happens on FB.
Facebook's time will come. The IPO money could make that happen sooner rather than later (if they don't blow it buying mobile apps.)
Google over the same period has produced a huge amount of stuff, some of it (gmail, android) wildly successful. Hell, Google has even cloned facebook itself (and from a technical perspective, arguably, done it better) in that time period. And they've done it with what seems to be a very comparable talent pool. So from that perspective, yes, Facebook's engineering employees are wasted.
Facebook just looks pretty lame in comparison, sorry.
That misses qq66's point; G+ isn't a 1:1 clone exactly because it doesn't do anything like a quarter billion photos per day.
I'm not doubting G's potential to handle Facebook scale, but they're very far away from it right now.
You're right that G+ doesn't, but FB doesn't have anything on Google on scaling.
Youtube and Blogger were acquisitions, but have done, y'know, pretty well under Google's roof. Android seems to be kinda successful for something that's a "mediocre copy at best".
And those are just the big products. They've had a ton of little successes too, like Earth, Docs, Sketchup, Voice...
And they've had a lot of products that look like clones (Drive, Groups). And they've had a lot of bona fide failures too.
But the point is that Google produces stuff. Facebook kinda doesn't. They improve their existing product and add features to it. Maybe that will change (c.f. Instagram), or maybe it won't. But right now I don't think you can say that Facebook has a culture of innovation in the same way that Google (or Apple, or hell, even Microsoft -- companies that ship new products regularly) does.
Google is known for its spectacular flops. The fact that they've used their cash to buy already successful services doesn't make them creative.
I view google as completely unimaginative company. Their search was nice once but right now their search results look like christmas tree so I can't admire them for that either.
Basically, google sucks.
That's correct. However, the ability to "connect with people from around the world and share content" is, as your parent post notes, is Facebook's "core" functionality. What does Facebook have to show for the engineers they've hired this year, engineers they've hired last year? Are read receipts on Facebook chat more beneficial to "society" than other endeavors the engineers could be working on instead?
I just don't understand why you are holding Facebook to some arbitrary standard.
Consider how many photos they have with users' faces tagged. They'd be crazy not to leverage that data. With the right facial recognition technology they will own that space, which would be extremely useful in products that compete with, say, Project Glass.
Ditto with location data, but they don't quite have the same monopoly there, so I wouldn't be surprised if they acquire Foursquare in the next year (perhaps more difficult than Instagram give the stock price)
I guess they could leverage their massive amounts of data to blackmail supply chains or something...
I have no clue what you're talking about regarding blackmail.
What most people don't see is that a feature of the "R" is a great many failures. By pushing the "R" forward some of those failures end up in the public sphere.
Will it work? Who knows. But history shows that investments into pure R&D ultimately end up paying in large multiples of the initial investment despite the large numbers of failures.
To me, it's not just not the same race. It's not even the same game. Facebook's playing Tetris; Google's playing Civilization.
From http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html if I'm reading it right, 69% of their revenue comes from ads on their own sites. For mine that deserves to be counted as "technology company revenue" not "advertising company revenue". If they didn't have their own ad arm they still would have made a big chunk of that 69% by using some other company to show ads on gmail, youtube and their search page, but if they were only an advertising company they would have just made the 27% that was pure "advertising on other sites" revenue. Just because youtube makes money by showing ads, doesn't make youtube not profitable.
I think in the next 5-10 years we'll also see a much more hardware-oriented Google, too. I think Google is serious about hardware (Glass,Motorola devices...maybe even a self-driving, self-sustaining electric car in the future? Who knows).
What they have to do is ensure no one else profits from some research, and to have a way of profiting in the long term. That is a lot easier to work out once something is successful, you know how people use it and it has become somewhat indispensable to users.
Android is successful, but apparently it’s not generating much profit for Google.
Not even close. They do not have to figure out how to make money from things now or even for several years. Or in some cases ever. The ad revenues can subsidise things forever.
For example their maps product (excluding premium) being free means no one else can realistically charge for an equivalent service. But all the people using it provide Google with a large amount of information such as places people actually want to go and where they don't. Those signals can be further used to improve their search relevance which keeps users away from competing search products.
asymco.com has various revenue numbers. At best Google is making around $4 per Android user per year in revenue (not profit). However if Google did not provide Android then they would be completely at the mercy of the likes of Apple and Microsoft who could make using and finding Google products on their devices hard.
The context is nothing by itself, of course, and this is what is rarely mentioned about social networking. A bar without drinks would be dry and boring: a Boys and Girls Club for adults. Similarly, the essential, defining factor of social networking -- the network, the web of connections between people -- is lame and reductive by itself. But it's the perfect context in which to share photos.
Social networking is also a good context for non one-on-one communication. (For one-on-one communication, it offers nothing except a convenient way to initiate a conversation with other Facebook users, a small advantage that can't make up for the fact that it isn't as universal as e-mail or texting.)
I suspect the growth of Facebook as measured by users and usage will depend on discovering other services for which social networking is the perfect context.
Well, I'm a teenager, and sadly Facebook is far more universal as a means of contact than texting or e-mail, personally. I don't have the email addresses or phone numbers of most of the people I know (often because I don't know them well enough), but I do have them friended on Facebook.
I have over 400 facebook friends. I only have 200 contacts in my email address book, and most of those are probably stale.
For example, the payment processing system. This angle says they should focus most on the non-one-to-one transactions like group dinner and movie outings, splitting the rent, etc. If me paying for such things through FB helps me settle the bills and get repaid (or get to mark someone's timeline with a cheapskate whuffie point), then I have an incentive to start paying through FB, and encouraging others to do the same. Lots of other apps and services have tried to capture these transactions, but they seem to usually suffer from needing all/most of the people in the transaction to sign-up for yet another account. That is the hurdle that FB has already crossed for 4/5 of the last movie outings in my anecdotal experience.
Cell phone... well I don't see how this social context angle helps with that, since phones are already well into that context. But browser, sure. Social web-browsing has also been tried before, also seemingly always failing to overcome the hurdle FB has cleared.
I made the argument only this weekend with a family member that technology companies come and go and tend to be cyclic. However, Google is here to stay. They might be search/advertising at the minute but those guys are really taking crazy problems head on and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Google had a breakthrough product in 5years with Cars.
We can all criticize Google+, but Google is one of those companies that I look at and stand in awe of day after day.
Even if you don't have a Facebook account, there is probably still some evidence of you in their system. Unlike Facebook, it would be pretty hard to not use Google at all, but it's at least possible to use their services and remain unidentified.
Photos are over-rated, but tell that to the ~500 million people stalking each other on Facebook. Glass is an incredible vision into the future of computing, or a chilling vision of the future where there is no disconnecting from the web of surveillance.
When you look at what has happened with mobile phone cameras and police brutality, it seems that this kind of tech does more active good than it does passive harm.
as an example - suppose you wake up tomorrow and google search stops working. never mind why - some random bug impossible to figure out, so it just stops working. Then what are the positive externalities that remain ?
Well, gmail. youtube. android. gdrive. maps. picasa. blogger. reader. googledocs. googlecheckout. etc etc etc...
and that's not counting a single api / framework / language( gwt, go , dart, chromium, etc etc...)
now suppose you wake up tomorrow and facebok stops working. Then what are the positive externalities that remain ?
that to get closer to the right answer, scholars should "invert, always invert."
You have a strong point there. Most top 100 websites I see are just frontends to databases.
I kid you not.
Their competitive advantage is proprietary data holding and network effects to get more data.
Google - search + database frontend.
Facebook - database frontend.
YouTube - database frontend.
Yahoo! - search + database frontend.
Baidu.com - search + database frontend.
Wikipedia - database frontend.
live.com - database frontend.
Twitter.com - database frontend.
QQ.COM - database frontend.
Amazon.com - database frontend.
Their positive marginal benefit derives from holding that data, using it as leverage to get more data, and then serving it back to their users in a tight loop.
Amazon.com, the website, is a database which churns out orders that manifest in the real world. But once that happens is not amazon.com the actual site any more. That has done its job of gathering data, processing it, and outputting it.
Its like if I phoned in an order. The web site is like the phone system. The phone system is not doing anything in the physical world, except passing on the data of an order.
That said, I can see a right old debate about there the lines of separation are.
However they only did it because they had to reduce costs and simplify processing. I'm pretty sure Amazon would be much happier to just dropship by making an API call to third party logistics - which is essentially an inventory database from Amazon's point of view - but they are just too big now.
I think they still do that with long tail items (don't store, but use third party logistics with an API call).
I was addressing the fact that even though they did logistics/warehousing, I still believe them to be a database frontend (inventory/customer/credit cards), and I disagree with the above statement:
> However, I'll disagree with Amazon.com. Purchasing real world products is much more than just a database frontend.
Just pointing out something I found highly curious.
I apologize if it feels like I'm stating the obvious, but it was a startling realisation to me.
I always kept each site/company in their separate boxes, when in fact they all do rather similar things, with different branding.
The "social network" aspects of FB could perfectly well have been done on an IBM mainframe with 3270 terminals running IMS, 40 years ago.
Google was an improved HITS algorithm and the infrastructure of infoseek (copied). They weren't the only search engine to do link analysis. There were others.
You think Yahoo! was the first portal? Or Netscape the first browser?
Facebook was not the first social network. MySpace/Friendster were also pretty big back then.
You can say they executed better, but at the time, my friend, it wasn't such a sure bet.
That's the way it is with innovation, and that's why companies fail so hard, and so fast. No one really knows what's going on.
You give them fundamental attribution due to the survival bias found in innovative industries.
You forget the many failures.
Facebook wasn't the first social network, nor was MySpace, but the fact that they are the biggest now says something. The same can be said for Google; Yahoo! was massive, but their priority wasn't search, it was being a portal.
Also, failure isn't necessarily a bad thing; who are we without our mistakes?
These do more than just regurgitate data. They do useful things, such as compose summaries, search and analyse the links etc. Most of the others is simply a "SELECT * FROM TABLE" for each page.
And isn't that the point, that now we're in an information age?
Though, there's always a single choke point at which you could deny ANY number of services, including all the externalities. Even if that point is a little worst-of-the-worst case scenario.
EDIT: I see it has been mentioned downthread. Charlie Brooker is indeed a genius.
Both facebook and google are playing catchup on social. Facebook with monetization, google with popularity. This leaves them wide open to disruption from companies that nail the fundamentals from the get go and bring significant value-add to the table.
Second, both companies view users like cattle. Just headcount to convert to dollars.
Overall my hunch is that there's a 50/50 chance that neither google nor faceebook will be king of social in 2020. There's a lot of potential for disruption right now and both of these companies are so focused on each other I doubt they'd even notice a successful upstart until it was too late. The real risk to both, I think, is small companies which don't have billion dollar obligations on their backs already.
Farcebook is of grannies and prole working moms.
Most of farcebook's income is from games. The rest is just the internet with training wheels for morons, just like AOL was a few years ago, and we all know how well that worked out.
The Google glasses thing is beyond stupid. Any fool can stream video from a strap on mini cam hat, have been able to for years. Ever wonder why that has not caught on?
Nice try at topicality and posing as someone in the know.
now i saw your comment, clicked the link and was about to dismiss the page a second time thinking all it had was a silly image when i finally decided to click it.
so much for usability. how difficult it is to add a "play" triangle to video?
Also, I sound completely stupid in that paragraph but I can't figure out how to say it better. :P
The speaking out loud is distracting. It wont work. It's too complicated. And nobody wants to talk with his glasses (like noone wants to talk to Siri in public). People will not use it.
Facebook is focused on sharing. That can be an action, but until the action is focused, it doesn't seem to be useful (other than as a time-suck of course).
Whether it's the usual suspects like Google, MS and Apple who we know are already spending R&D here or a new entrant like Instagram which came out of nowhere with a handful of user friendly features, or some China anointed alternative it should be obvious that it's way to early to start counting chickens.
But specifically re: competition of all shapes & sizes, I do think that two of Google's long-term investments give it a pretty strong position:
1. Google Maps & Street View, which together comprise an amazingly detailed model of the real world. There are alternatives like OpenStreetMap of course, but there's a lot more going on in those products than just navigation.
2. The technology embedded in the self-driving car. I mean, a system that can interpret a live feed of the chaotic world around it and make important decisions based on what it sees? It doesn't feel to me like you can Instagram your way into that capability. (But, I don't know: maybe it's more commodified than I realize.)
Of course, there is always the important step of making something that consumers will use, but that's only possible if the technical problems are solved first. And perhaps Google is learning how to make more consumer-friendly things...
I guess they could create an advertising sponsored self driving car or vision glasses that pop up ads (ala Walter Williams recent novel "The Fourth Wall" ISBN-13: 978-0316133395). But how is either going to be more profitable than their current model given the fundamental retooling of their business which would be required and the radically different cost structures associated with making real stuff?
That's not to say Facebook is destined for significant innovation. As an advertising platform, they may be Yahoo 2.0 over the long term - too profitable from advertising to pivot and not growing fast enough to get love from analysts.
It could both work from a manufacturer or a personal POV.
Buy my car, it comes with Google.
Facebook is a global company and if they come out with a phone it is most likely not going to be pointed at the US market alone. They will be developing a phone aimed at the developing country markets where they have much of their traction. My guess is that the phone will have a low price point so that it is affordable to anyone in the world who wants it who currently doesn't have a smartphone. This included with mobile payments is what Facebook is after, they want to own the global mobile market.
Post of a video from a person jumping on a trampoline wearing the glasses.
... I'll believe it's awesome, with copious amounts of editing. If you're just watching it raw, it'll be disorienting and shaky and distracting. :P I'm also dubious exactly what baseball team would bother to wear these things in the general case. Presumably they would just be a distraction to the players. Maybe someone like, oh, downhill skiiers would have a better time of things?
The problem with this approach is that they end up neglecting their core search product, which I don't think has evolved much in the past decade. If someone else comes along and disrupts search, its goodbye Google.
I can never wear a pair of glasses that has a 3G connection.
For better or for worse, I experience heightened ElectroSensitivity to the point where a 3G device that's operating within a few feet of me gives me a headache.
Most mobile carriers are already starting to deprecate their 2G networks.
Wearable wireless devices like Google Glasses will be a hazard for me, and many others.
Within the next few years, I won't even be able to use a cell phone.
I will bet you that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
I've done experiments like that plenty of times to prove it to people. I can tell whether my iPhone is in 2G or 3G mode with my eyes closed.
It's well-documented. Search for "ElectroSensitivity."
Phones with a high SAR value cause headaches for a subset of the population - I'm one of them.
Current Google = Google+ (a beautiful bouquet of socially unified product experience)
Future Google = ??
a new world promise, but in reality totally uncool and only used by a few san francisco hippies-yuppies. And then forgotten.
With a chance of a decade later becoming a game changer.
In my opinion Google Glass is set to be a game changer from the start. I wager that when google glass is launched, it will be a cultural icon no more than 1.5 years later.
It's clear WHY google needs glass. Owning the channel between my eyes and the world is a huge potential pot of money. Targeted ads have a lot of potential to disrupt the ad space, and if facebook ever decides to make their own ad network (such as Google's ad sense) competition will be fierce. Google glass is a really good way to increase their competitive advantage, and cement their position in the advertising arena.
Additionally, of the companies that would be interested in making a product like google glass (facebook, microsoft, IBM etc) Google probably has the best mix of engineers to do it. I've always said that Google is an AI company first. Well a huge part of AI is machine vision, and a large part of successfully monetizing google glass is machine vision. Additionally, with street view, and other aggressive initiatives Google is in one of the best positions to actually understand what and where the world you are looking at. Finally, while google has proven in the past they are weak as a hardware company (nexus 1) they have demonstrated they are capable of bringing a consumer product to the mass market... though perhaps maybe not enough to make it anything less then a wild card.
Finally the last point is one of consumer adoption. The newton pad was not successful in part because the hardware was premature. But I would speculate it was also in part because consumers weren't at the point of understanding the value. The hardware in Google glass is unknown at this point, and potentially could under-deliver... and that will cause it to be a newton.. but for the reasons i said above I think Google is capable of delivering a quality product. However consumer readiness will not be an issue. 1 billion people are already on Facebook. Social interaction through technology is accepted today more then ever before. Using smartphones in public is not only accepted, its normal. Years ago using a PDA might have made you look like a yuppie, but today no one would notice.
The marketplace is going to reject Glass.
2. you think all that for the same reason I also think all that: Wishful thinking... but deep inside i can see the truth. we are the hippies-yuppies who will buy it :)
put yourself on the shoes of people hearing about the newton back then: handwriting recognition!! how wouldn't want that instead of a 3x4 phone keyboard? Turned out 99.9% prefered T9. it's all the same. we are thinking as if the implementation and day-to-day use would be perfect on such a new concept on the first try. well, odds are it wont. but in one year can get back to it and see if my money goes to one of your charities or if your money will buy me something shinny (that's one bet i'd like to lose...)
Also - implementation and day-to-day use don't have to be perfect for it to be a game-changer/overnight success/cultural icon. As evidenced by... Well, pretty much every piece of successful consumer electronics ever made that has gone through multiple generations/revisions.
and yes. they work like that. the discussion is if it will happen in 1 year as he says or in 10-15 years as history says.
see what i did there? i put my words as valid as "history". hah. clever.
Why? Some are really good: http://givewell.org/international/top-charities/
PC. Twitter. I won't be surprised if cellphone was too.
Google Glass is a prototype. Product will evolve.
I bet decades ago, people would not have thought that PCs would fit inside a manila folder.
Electronics in your pocket: cool
Electronics in your hand: cool
Electronics hanging out of your ears: cool
Electronics on your head, face, or built into your clothing: irredeemably uncool.
I can't explain why in words, all I can tell you is that the world sees these things differently. If you don't understand why computer-enabled glasses are unavoidably dorky then I can't explain it to you, but I'm pretty sure it's the case.
edit: That's not to say they won't sell well, to certain people. I envisage engineers on building sites walking around with 'em, or travelling salesmen, or police officers, or... I dunno, there's gotta be lots of good use cases for these sorts of things. But the very utility of 'em makes 'em desperately uncool, like Bluetooth earpieces.
I might be getting old, but I remember a time where electronics ANYWHERE in your person were incredibly uncool.
They were called "wereables" from a reason.
Isn't "pens in the front pocket" a defining characteristic of a 1950s-era nerd?
Now using bluetooth earpieces is commonplace
Sure, among two classes of people: travelling salesmen and complete toolbags.
I am sure people will get used to using very tiny gadgets on their clothing or ears if they assist them in meaningful ways.
Oh sure, I'm just arguing that it'll never be cool.
Yeah... next time you're walking through a crowded place, look at people's ears more closely.
If it doesn't work well enough, then it will be the new Newton—and even then, here we are 20 years later, and tablets are cool.
Wear glasses with non-corrective lenses.
I went from never wearing glasses for ten years to wearing glasses every day. (I was previously using contact lenses.) Hardly anyone batted an eye.
Cool people already puts on sunglasses yeahhh!
that's simple, you ask apple to make it.
apple made walkmans cool again. After the 80s. with marketing alone.
edit: Adding a hard drive, making it easier to use than the competition, itunes store, app store. None of that had anything to do with it?
But nobody bought Nomad, and everyone bought an iPod. Why? Because Apple told people to buy an iPod, and people tend to do what they're told.
Even if you credit marketing with bringing this to people's attention, it's a mistake to think that marketing closes the deal. That credit goes to the experience, which was as imaginative, compelling, and well-designed as the object itself. As the (very) old ad agency joke goes "Nothing destroys a bad product faster than good advertising." Clearly that's not happening here.
I will never understand people ignore the product itself while insisting success is "just" marketing (as though this were an invariably witless task). Usually this is followed by "to people who are idiots." Perhaps you just don't appreciate things that are carefully considered and well made. There are people like this, and there always have been. And they suck. Or as Shakespeare put it "you blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things."
"Because Apple told people to buy an iPod, and people tend to do what they're told".
hard drive was a step back. for the same price (and 5 months before ipod launched) you could get a creative flash memory mp3 player with 2/3 of the size. again, same price, you give away 1/3 of the storage for NO gravity or dropping of issues. far superior if you ask me... yet, bad marketing on creative. (btw, ipod evolved some 5yr later and what? 1/2 of the space and flash memory, so yeah, even apple consumers agree it was better without it.)
Oh god. Why did I even say that? Someone kill me now.
Still photos work b/c they capture a whole moment, with just enough detail to inspire the imagination and to ground the imaginings in reality.
My personal favorites are the slightly grainy and oversaturated images taken by the camera in the blackberry I had about 5 years ago. Still photos bring out the best parts of the human experience, while raw video makes everyone as boring as the worst video blogger.
- adBlocker to remove ads from your view
- first person shooter missions with google maps integration. All you need is an empty cow-pasture.
- architects/renovators guiding people through their new/renovated house before the contract' signed.
You're suffering from a serious lack of realism if you discard them based on the camera quality. The iPhone drove R&D for cameras we have now, same will happen for these gizmos.
Edit: The only real opposition I see is another wave of reports on the impact of having a non-stop wireless RF device next to your skull.
police officer gives you a hard time? not when you have these babies on.
-any- interaction with a portable or remote electronics could be done through glass
contextual info lookup, like price matching, comparison shopping, maps, directions, all of it
entertainment, eventually vr type emersion.
I hate ads, but not quite enough to go round blocking portions of my vision just to avoid seeing 'em. I envisage myself getting run over by an advertising-covered bus.
first person shooter missions with google maps integration. All you need is an empty cow-pasture
Sounds fun, but niche. Laser Tag isn't a big industry.
architects/renovators guiding people through their new/renovated house before the contract' signed
That's more the sort of application I'd envisage.
Or how about this? Imagine a store you'd walk into, get issued a pair of glasses, then you could walk around, look at things, and have information about 'em magically appear? How cool would that be? Answer: awesomely cool... the first time. In year one, that store would be the coolest thing on the planet. But the fiftieth time you go in there.... meh.
They're doing this in Korea already, I believe.
I will be intrigued to see what pops out when this really becomes a priority. You may not be able to stick a single small camera in a glasses frame and get anywhere, but what about having 4 or 8 relatively cheap cameras and some image processing? With the cameras tuned to the needs of the image processing. Perhaps not even 4 or 8 identical cameras. Can we play games with optical interferometry  to extract surprising amounts of visual data from surprisingly small cameras? There's a crapload of optical tricks we've learned that we've not really needed to apply yet, and ahem IT IS OBVIOUS TO ONE SKILLED IN THE ART THAT THESE TECHNIQUES MAY BE USEFUL ON AUGMENTED REALITY GLASSES. (ahem)
(Sorry, 2019, 2012 is just too cool for you.)
One day my kids are going to look at our old photos and ask "why did photo quality go to crap from 2002-2007? Did you lose the technology?"
On the other hand, if they can lick the distraction problem or even make the tool something that improves focus (say by reminding you unobtrusively of what you need to get done that day) it could be very cool in subsequent iterations. I don't think the product manager is thinking about minomizing distraction though.
One of the reasons I often heard was that facebook reduced quality too much (bad compression) and this resulted in bad press for FB among photographers. Apparently, many were on the lookout for something like fb with an integration of something like picasa.
I'm less on flickr now because of the "please post this in our group" spam. They really need to get a grip on that.
Imagine having to click on a dozen copyright notices and pay for each image you see on Google/Facebook because the image they just took is owned by $ACTOR in europe, but $STUDIO in USA and $AGENCY in Japan but a blank page because Facebook doesn't have a right to use it in Canada.
So, like, just to be totally clear, the business which doesn't have this problem with videos is porn. I don't know how interested they are in Project Glass in particular, but if Project Glass becomes a way to shoot amateur porn, you can bet that there will be web sites which cater to it. Distribution rights problems will not be a main concern because it's just not a general concern in that industry -- at least, it doesn't get in the way of the day-to-day transmission of the vast amounts of data.
Imagine a system where Napster had a musician bugged and could stream what they were playing in the studio - think there might be right's issues ?
The author says image views are a subset of page views. Is this accurate when the photos are shown in a light box capable of cycling through thousands of photos without leaving the initial page?
If this becomes the norm, I'm going all Luddite.
I think it will also become: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma8NbpCvSwo
The intent shipped with google glass is social by default. share. Identify. Record. There is no other reason to use it.
The intent with a camera is to take a photo then decide the intent.
The former is a dangerous paradigm shift.
Any examples that aren't absurd from the get go?