The Google Fiber project was always meant to push the carriers into competition. Google knew that if they didn't launch Google Fiber, none of their other ventures or the internet as a whole, could be as successful. Google paid big money for YouTube and the plan was always to turn it into the service it is today. At the time, there were also worries whether the carriers would restrict services (aka net neutrality) or if they would charge by GB. Launching Google Fiber made it such that the carriers had to start competing and upgrade their infrastructure.
If it wasn't for Google Fiber, I'm certain that we'd be stuck with 20mbps speeds, the cable/DSL monopoly, and we wouldn't have the likes of the OTT services and the choices that we have today. Or at least it would have been delayed by quite a bit.
I worked for a company that was an equipment vendor for Google Fiber and other service providers.
Plenty of countries have better (faster and/or cheaper) broadband options than most of the US, without having any Google involvement. Competition (or government enforced requirements and price caps) are what's needed, Google Fiber had a bit more of an incentive than most for aiming to undercut their competitors but ultimately I think you're overstating their importance.
Competition would be nice, but just the appearance of credible competition was enough to induce the incumbents to do better.
Google Fiber deployed to the Kansas Cities, making themselves credible competition. Then, they announced 20 cities they would deploy to. Suddenly, incumbents in 20 cities had deployment plans and deployed before Google Fiber got anywhere, and then Google Fiber decided not to do any new deployments.
Would the incumbents have deployed without Google Fiber's credible competitive announcements? Maybe? We'd need inside information to know for sure. It sure doesn't feel like they would have though.
> Would the incumbents have deployed without Google Fiber's credible competitive announcements?
Of COURSE they wouldn't!
If google fiber hadn't happened, all providers would have continued sitting on their collective asses, soaking as much money as possible, doing the least possible legally permissible work, nickle-and-diming customers as much as possible.
> Plenty of countries have better (faster and/or cheaper) broadband options than most of the US, without having any Google involvement.
Those countries have governments willing to regulate for the benefit of the consumer, or else to provide the service directly[1]. That there are better ways to do something doesn't mean it's not valuable to have done.
[1] Almost nowhere, in any market, had competing gigabit landlines in residential areas over the timeframe discussed. "Competition" is absolutely not the solution here.
Most countries have policies that expressly prohibit competition, or make it unnecessarily expensive.
Suppose the government owned the utility poles or trenches along the roads, paid for them in the same way as they pay for the roads, and access to use them was provided to all comers for free. All you have to do is fill out some basic paperwork and follow some basic rules to make sure you're not cutting someone else's lines etc.
People would install it. You -- an individual -- could go out and put fiber in the trench on your street, wire up the whole street, pool everybody's monthly fee and use it to pay for transit.
The reason people don't do this is that it's illegal, or to do it without it being illegal would require millions of dollars in legal fees and compliance costs and pole access charges.
Usually those countries have some combination of lower labor costs, higher density (you can run fiber and then hang 5x as many subscribers off it) and a more lax regulatory landscape (try getting permits to dig in a US city).
You don't necessarily need competition either. Switzerland's state owned telecoms provider provides 25gbit symmetrical fibre to practically all homes in all cities and it is very affordable.
That seems a very US-centric way of seeing the internet evolution.
The rest of the world moved to higher speeds and didn't count Gabs (except on mobile) decades ago and I mean decades.
In 2004 in Italy I had a 20 Mbit/s fiber connection, I had 100 Mbit few years later. I still remember pinging 4, literally 4 ms, on Counter Strike 1.6.
And Fiber was started way later in 2010. So I don't see any impact by Google fiber on internet as a whole, maybe it pushed US carriers to not do worse (internet in US is not really that amazing in terms of speeds and latency).
One thing that I noticed is that while speeds increased in the decades since then, latency became worse. Even with the fastest connection I can use I rarely if ever ping below 30 Ms on the very same Counter strike 1.6 or newer versions.
> If it wasn't for Google Fiber, I'm certain that we'd be stuck with 20mbps speeds
Are you trying to say that Google Fiber influenced the behaviour of incumbent telcos in different regions? If same region, sure, but the size of area served by Google Fiber is/was tiny.
I don't follow what one has to do with the other. Sounds like quite a stretch to compare or relate the two there. I could just be missing what you are implying there.
Excellent point! Jensen is very focused and the company has worked incredibly hard on whatever they've put out there. The Shield is a testament of this focus. They find a budding niche and double down on building it from nothing. Most "self-driving" cars have Nvidia gear for a reason.
It's the best Android TV/Gaming device around, even by todays standards. It's stable and does what it was designed to do. With zero marketing from Google or Nvidia, the mass market obviously didn't care for this type of product and category but the device itself is great and works flawlessly. The Nvidia Game app also bundled and pushed the Nvidia game streaming concept around GeForce Now. Overall, Nvidia gave put their best foot forward with this device, providing standout support for both HW and SW.
The chip line they made for it powers the most popular console on the market and basically locked its manufacturer into Nvidia chips until they're willing to drop compatibility, so financially it probably worked out for them, even if the Shield line itself wasn't extremely financially successful.
I don’t know about it’s market success, but it’s a great product. We use it for as the frontend for all of the streaming platforms and PLEX as well as running some stuff directly from a NAS and IPTV.
I use them everywhere and have a big pile of chromecasts, satellite boxes, remote controls and Apple tvs now ready for eBay!
Might be worth it to push through anyways. Twitter had its fail whales back in the day, I think a couple of temporary outages caused by demand might even be a good thing and add to the hype. Absence makes the heart grow fonder doesn't it? Seems silly to trade insane growth for perfectionism instead.
> The Bluesky infra would not be able to handle scale without invite-only clownshow. Meta can open the floodgates without breaking a sweat.
Honest question: are they emulating "classical Twitter" to the extent of going with self-hosted inefficient Rails implementation? Or what is their problem with scaling exactly in 2023 beyond ordering more instances in some AWS gui?
And as many of us have observed, the key isn't just the app or UI, it's that there are people there. With Threads, people are indeed there. Like it or not I think this means Bluesky is dead-on-didn't-arrive.
Is it any surprise Facebook got this right? Understanding "it's cool because there are people there" is part of their origin story, after all.
isn't Bluesky supposed to run on a federated protocol? They could just open source their reference implementation and let people run their own instances. Not even the protocol itself seems to be public.
That assumes that if open registration was enabled, people would be banging down the doors to create an account. Very unlikely unless Twitter straight up shuts down.
The threads app can pull in millions in a day because they can login with Instagram SSO, zero friction.
It's hard for some to see this point of view unfortunately, no matter how you try it. Elon has been intentionally skirting and blurring the line between lying and marketing for a while now.
It's a great device and functions flawlessly with a large number of connected clients. I have installed at least a dozen of these for various family members.
