Hey everyone. I recently finished my degree (hooray!) and applied at Google. I don't expect too much but I have been looking at the kind of expertise they are looking for and have read some articles and wanted to bounce some ideas around. All the stuff they are doing is pretty much as interesting as it gets, at least to me. Rumor has it that Google is developing a distributed OS. Furthermore, this OS is rumored to be 'thin'. The platforms minimum requirements would thus be slight. Everything seems to synch up nicely with their current offerings such as Gmail and the like, but what can be done with a distributed OS? Perhaps more to the point, what can NOT be done? The way I see it is that with a distributed OS and associated infrastructure, one could render a whole slew of current technologies obsolescent or obsolete, and never charge a dime to the consumer. Brilliant I say, but let's see if we can enumerate those that stand to suffer the most. Telephone companies Cell phone companies ISP's and cable/satellite internet providers. Less than agile software companies. Hardware companies..? Movie theaters/rental places? The list could go on, but these are the major ones for starters. If I personally were in charge Google, I would try to get the Google OS onto existing computers and build new computers designed around a distributed architecture and subsidized them in the same manner that printers are, if not offer them for free (heretofore referred to as a thin computer). The reason is that there is an absolutely massive amount of money that stands to be made from the platform itself. For starters, if every home had a Google thin computer, which could be done for about 100 bucks I think given the tiny cpu integrated mobos you can get these days, it could be utilized in the same manner as a telephone with almost absurd ease. Call someone elses Google computer anywhere in the world and it costs you nothing. Google pays for this by displaying some silent but amusing ads on the screen while you speak. The same goes for cell phone companies. Instead of a thin computer that installs in your home in the kitchen or on a street corner in the same way a payphone does, you sell subsidized cell phone handsets at 20 bucks a pop. This is a ways off yet, but nextgen wireless internet technology could make it so that the handset is just a tiny computer (which is what cell phones are now) they just hook up to a WAN in this scenario. Imagine picking up your cell to make a call and hearing "This call brought to you by Burger King, a coupon for a dollar off a Whopper meal has been delivered to your inbox." This would be awesome, because I like BK. Now get this, the coupon contains a bar code tracking number that allows BK to find out if you made use of their coupon. If so, send more coupons, if not try another company next time you make the call. The company advertising subsidizes your phone call, supplies you with a coupon, and if you don't use it they go away and get replaced by something you are more likely to use through a simple B-Table that tracks your marketing needs. Sounds sinister but if you use a discount card at the grocery store its already been done. I don't care if companies know I buy their product especially if in a scenario like this, it means I save money on it occasionally. As for ISP's, under a scenario like this bandwidth is subsidzed and you should not have to pay for it. If you are then you are making the same mistake in our current system where you pay for cable tv access and then watch ads 33% of the time. Subsidize the content andhow it is delivered damnit. Not to mention that if you got TV style entertainment through a targeted advertising system like this one you would not have to watch ads that don't apply to you like endless shampoo and tampon commercials or whatever else does not particularily tickle your fancy. Hooking this up to the coupon system I mentioned above, it's all under your profile. Now, all this sounds like advertising run amok, and to an extent it is, but not really at least IMHO. When I think about how many ads I see in a day it sickens me, and then I think "would I be willing to cut out a couple hundred bucks in bills a month and see a few more ads?" the answer is obviously yes. For those of you for whom the answer is the opposite, well the solution is obvious, you still get the system for free but you pay to not have advertisements served to you, which would also be awesome. Imagine never seeing an ad on "TV" or on the internet again. Either one of these scenarios would be awesome to me. As for hardware companies, this would take a significant bite out of the computer market, since people who only use them casually would basically be able to get one for free. As for movie rental places and the like, through a method like this you could get all movies pay per view or rent for a month or whatever through the Google OS. They charge you a buck or two, that which does not subsidize the method of delivery goes directly to the company that created the movie. Oh, and it's also the case that you would be able to get all of your content wherever you are. I'm practically salivating over this, I think it would be awesome. What about anti-trust and the like? A system like this would end up replacing a lot of our current infastructure. I personally think the buggy whip analogy applies. We should stop Ford from making horseless carriages! What will happen to the people who make buggy whips? Well, IMHO this system would not crop up overnight, it would be a gradual occurence. It would certainly spread faster than the automobile though. Then again, there is nothing really unfair about this system it is just very clever. If your competition is suffering because you have a vastly superior product is that still unfair competition? Not in my opinion, that's basically what a free market is based on. You do not have the right to make a living with a useless or obsolete product, shape up or ship out and all that. Still, I can't help but wonder about the strategic liabilities inherent in a system like this. It stands to reason that this would mean that unless Google develops a distributed architecture as well where your data is not necessarily on one huge cluster at Google headquarters but spread around all over the place redundantly, one could strike a severe blow to the economy of a nation by attacking the central part of this sort of system. Make multiple backups... Oh yeah, theres always the no viruses etc angle too, woohoo! What are your thoughts? Post or e-mail is fine.
Congrats for your degree. But, say SJLawson is this your dissertation? In any case, it's a bit off topic.
How can it be off-topic when it's an original post? It's about Google, it's in the Google forum. Seems on topic to me.
Nah, it's not my dissertation, that's actually just the normal degree of thought and/or gibberish I put into things. As for it being on topic, I know it's a bit more abstract than "my adwords aren't working!" but these kinds of things will almost certainly be an issue if they aren't already.
I'm definitely going to invest in Google in the near future. Does anyone know what one share of Google stock is selling for these days? SJLawson you have an eye for the future and it would be good to have someone like you working at Google. If I were Google I'd higher you. Your analysis of the changing trend in technology is correct. I was reading a book by Michio Kaku called visions and he said much of the same thing(though not mentioning Google). He said that certain industries will be eliminated by the year 2020. I've heard about the distributed OS idea. I've heard people will be able to download the OS over the net instead of having to go into Best Buy or some electronics store to buy it. This is genius, and will put Microsoft into a state of chaos, along with a bunch of other industries. I don't feel sorry for the Cell Phone or Telecommunications companies, because they have dominated the market for too long and have hurt their consumers. Man I just checked and google stock is sharing for 390 bucks a share! Man I wish I had purchased the stock when it was cheaper.
Now is the time to jump ship! Google makes the majority of its money from advertising, but Yahoo! has all the big players jumping ship and Google is going to have to reveal this sometime soon. Only time will tell, but I'm confident Yhoo will pay!
Hey all. I just read another post about Gates mocking Google. It was pretty funny, I have a couple of friends at Microsoft and if even 10% of what I think is giong to happen happens then MS is going to suffer. I doubt highly that they will be eliminated but their dominance will likely be refuted. I could be wrong, but IMHO Microsoft has become too large to be a revolutionary force. I was in Seattle and my friend was applying for jobs there (so was I to an extent but being a Canuck barely registered), and I learned some things. The first is that Microsoft is largely shareholder owned now and as such is risk averse. Instead, incremental improvements are made and products are re-released, with new products added being copycats of existing products. (MS games for instance). This is an excellent way to make money as long as things are stable but it is a poor way to remain in a dominant position, especially in an industry where change is the norm. The second thing I have learned is that Microsoft as an organization has begun to rot, which is why I no longer really apply to work there. From my own experience and that of my friend coupled to that which I have read on the internet: Microsoft has severe middle management issues and 'cult' issues. In essence, there is about 80% more management than is necessary, and employees form cliques around their rising stars and attempt to hitch a ride. If the manager or team lead or whatever gets transferred they attempt to bring their clique with them. What it boils down to is extreme inefficiency. It could very well be that the only thing keeping MS aloft for the time being is the quality of personnel that they hired during their hayday. Thankyou for the vote of confidence Tesla, my chances are not good but at least it's nice to have people rooting for you. I will likely end up at IBM, which is no slouch as companies go but it is kind of stodgy and uninteresting. I will likely be turning my brain off before going to work. :-( Whatever pays the bills I suppose. As for jumping ship on Google (or yahoo for that matter, but more-so Google, I do not know anyone who yahoos on a regular basis), I would not recommend it in the slightest. Here is why: A: The advertising industry continues to grow at a phenomenal rate, and anything involved in a big way in this sector is by default a reasonable bet. B: Within the advertising sector, we continue to see a decline in the amount of revenue generated through traditional sources such as television, printed ads, and especially radio in relation to that which is generated by the internet. Revenue generated by the internet is increasing. Hypothesis: Technology is at the point where the events prophesized in the 90's relating to the IT bubble can actually come to fruition. Oh, another thing with a distributed OS: It allows any tom dick or harry to produce content and sell it online, assuming you have an account through your Google OS they can mail you a cheque minus their 10% or whatever. If you produce a spreadsheet to keep track of your home finances, why not release it online so that people can Google it and either sell it for a few cents or just let people nab it for free? The amount of 'menial' labor such as that duplicated in our society is staggeringly huge. How many people do you think have attempted to do their taxes in Excel or something? Now how many people do you think would have liked to start with a free template or something procured through their distributed OS? (raises hand) Their are also applications I did not mention before that you can do with a distributed OS. For starters: there will be NO wasted CPU cycles. You know that system idle process on your machine? Ever wonder how much CPU power the world over is wasted on it? Me too. That's gone with a distributed OS. Dedicate idle cpu cycles to genetics research or seti@home or something = healthy tax write off for google. Also, think massively multiplayer games.... Keep thinking.... Ahhhhhhh, that's good stuff, better than the tripe we get nowadays anyway... There's other things this can be put to use on but that is more a problem of imagination and current needs. There are plenty believe me. Oooh, here's another thought. No doubt many of you have read articles on quantum computing and optical computers and the like. Well, you could theoretically build an optical computer now, and as soon as we can figure out how to ask a QC a question that will come along as well. But, those devices will, like computers in their infancy, likely remain very expensive until manufacturing technology catches up. In a distributed environment though, the infastructure and resources are available to make sure that everyone can have a crack at a machine like that should it be necessary... Hmm, I just had an idea for a computer that uses prisms and fibreoptics instead of a CPU. It would be big though, and probably not an original idea. Anyway, I'm just ranting now so I will sign off. As always, comments, ideas, manifestos, and psychotic rants are always appreciated. Have a good one!
I see huge cultural issues here. You speak like you're American (USA). A lot of cultures would find such information sharing odious, intrusive and unnecessary. My personal likes are just that - personal likes - and I'd rather they were not being recorded and tracked even if such tracking wasn't directly associated with any other personal information held on me. What next? It's that time of the month - buy your tampons by pressing #3? Your ordered a funeral wreath - talk to our inheritance management advisors by hitting the chat button? You last had a medical on July 1 and were 5 stone overweight... are you dead yet? I do not see a cross-border future for such intrusive programs. Heck, a large number of people in the UK don't use their superstore loyalty cards despite the annonymity factor. It's not just semantics. I find a society where I have to pay to not have ads hideous and in violation of my civil liberties. I sincerely hope that whatever excitement you seem to have for these concepts is not shared by legislators and the commercial barons with the clout to convert them to reality. I doubt it. As someone who has been in the computer industry for over a decade I've seen earlier predictions of how computers would evolve, how they'd integrate with other technologies in our lives, how mobile and compact they'd be... and lots more, I can tell you this: That has largely been vapourware. The big, pug-ugly desktop PC still accounts for the bulk of computer sales. Thin clients came and went and the idea will come and go again. Current desktop aren't massively different to the ones from 10 years ago. They may have some watercooling, cut-outs, fans with LEDs, two graphics cards and 800 Watt PSUs.. but are essentially the same box. The problem with power is that it goes to peoples' heads. Google may think they run the world - and they may do one day - but at present they cater for a small minority of the population, a small minority even of the online population. What makes them think their thin client idea is so hot? Are they so dim that they think the only activity people switch their computers on for ... is to go online? That's hilarious. What about the thousands of high end games that work on massively powered graphics cards with specific Windows drivers... will they work on the thin clients? What about my camcorder - can I plug it into the thin client and expect Boris Red special effects to integrate on it with Adobe Premier Pro to churn out my kids' school video? What about the billions of dollars/pounds spent on POS (Point of Sale) equipment every year that has to integrate with other POS equipment? Do you realise that more than 75% of computers in the world never go online? Given virus/malware scares and anecdotal reports about falling internet populations that figure doesn't necessarily move only downwards - it could go up! Not by a long shot I don't believe that performance on the desktop is a major issue anymore. Quantum computing is working towards solving a problem that doesn't exist. Desktop performance will keep growing but to argue that the lack of speed/power is holding people back is... specious. So what if I can buy access to massive computing resources online - I'm not running computational intensive calculations to work out the weather in Winconsin. More important to me is that my current computing work is done on platforms, inter-connecting programs and standards that I am already accustomed to. This new OS... will it have a new Photoshop replacement? What about Cakewalk? And AutoCad? Will I have to learn all these new programs? And will the new OS be about as easy to use as The Other Great Thing: *nix. I'm no Micorosoft fan but ANY company with too much power is dangerous. If Google had the combined power of what they do now TOGETHER with what Microsoft has... I'd be very, very afraid. That's more dangerous than priming several nuclear devices and handing them over, together with effective delivery mechanisms, to assorted third world military regimes and tin-pot dictators. It's no exaggeration. It really, really is very dangerous. No company is infallible. No computer system is beyond hacking. No workforce is without a member who can be blackmailed.
I'm not American I am Canadian, but there is little difference culturally speaking. You are absolutely correct regarding privacy issues, they are serious and numerous. My take on this in general is that it is not a good thing. However, I also acknowledge that it is pretty much inevitable, and it has mostly arrived already. If you pay for anything using plastic you can bet that this kind of tracking info exists already. Ever get advertisements bundled with your credit card bill? Guess how they figure out which ones to include. I am of the opinion that we are better off attempting to deal with this kind of thing before we are faced with the reality of it in order to control the direction it takes us in as well as retain those privacies that really matter to us. I wouldn't care if someone knew I was buying tampons or a funeral wreath because tampons or something similar are damn near to a necessity for females, and there are other ways to find out if a family member of mine has passed on. I do care very much that what I do with that funeral wreath or tampons is my own business. If I want to give someone a funeral wreath for a birthday present or stuff a mattress with tampons that is my business. It is trivially the case that at least one person knows that I bought either of those items, namely the person I bought them from. The fact of the matter is that this data is tracked already whether you like it or not. The only issue is whether or not you are willing to collect on what that data is worth in exchange for letting them know it is about you specifically. Heck, no one even has to know the data is about you, John Smith. It could just as easily be done with aliases. Companies don't need know that is actually S Lawson from Canada to know the habits of that entity and how it can be reached. I would very much prefer an alias based system, but the time to push for that would be now not later. As for paying not to have advertisements served to you. I hope you don't have cable because that would mean you are paying to have them served to you. I look at it this way, I see ads on the internet all the time. Nearly constantly. If I could save $50 bucks a month on my internet connection because some of those omnipresent ads pay for the connection? Awesome. I still think that a significant bite would be taken out of the hardware market. I -think- that the majority of computers sold these days are the 300-500 dell home computer special. This is what would stand to suffer the most, at least in the home computer market. Basically any lower end system that requires only basic functions, like the computer you got for grandma, or POS systems, parcel tracking functions, that sort of thing. There will also obviously be retraining issues such as the one you alluded to, but remember that this will not occur overnight (if at all). The desktops that currently exist are not going to magically disappear. I rather expect that thin distributed OS clients like this will take the place of 'basic task' computers gradually, and evolve from there. I also imagine that this OS will be installable on traditional desktops and be reverse compatible with existing software to an extent. Time will tell. Yes, companies with that much power are dangerous, if only because they affect so many things if they have poor ethics they can do a lot of damage. I am more concerned about the strategic liabilities that dependence on this kind of system would represent. Fortunately, it is difficult for me to picture it becoming a monopoly any more than Microsoft. Sure, they(MS) may have grabbed a huge chunk of the market, but 'Nix still exists, as do Macs. If/when Google makes its move, these things will still be around, if things collapse then there will be plenty of players eager to pick up the pieces.
I find it strange that anyone would advocate a society where control of the entire software, hardware AND communications needs of the planet were vested in one commercial entity. You don't happen to be a plant from the 'plex, do you? >> If you pay for anything using plastic you can bet that this kind of tracking info exists already Not the same by a long shot. Each credit card company knows what I bought using their card (or the retailers I used). They also have my name, address and date of birth. And, I'm comfortable with that. If they then decided to liase with other entities to share info, talk to my health insurers, my car mechanic, my computer hard disk ... it would be a different story. Let's say they shared info with my doctor - My card protection insurance would go up because the card company thinks my risk of dying has suddenly increased and my doctor won't see me because he thinks the bill is less likely to be paid as my card is in arrears. The power gained from combining two pieces of data is greater than the sum of the parts. When you talk hundreds/thousands of pieces of data..... hmmm - they own you. Each entity who holds data on you should be limited by law as to how much they can hold (as it is in the UK) and what they can and can't share with others. Companies don't have souls, my friend. They don't have ethics, or morals. They are legal entities quite focused on generating profit for their owners. It's not the knowledge of an individual buying tampons that is dangerous, it's the collective knowledge that comes from intruding into people's lives to the extent that you argue. Let's say there are three major brands of a product and The Big Data God knows the market share of each one based on the volumes it influences and tracks (Adwords + Cookies + Analytics + Browser Phone Homes + Other info). It sees a proportionately big drop in sales for brand A. That drop is sustained over the busiest times of the year. Quarterly Report time comes, TBDG knows it's bad news and sells short. Predictably, the market reacts badly to the QR. TBDG makes millions on that wheeze. Illegal? No. It's not "insider trading". If they know I use them exclusively to locate services ... they could create a need for certain services. Let's say I used a marriage counsellor last week. This would be an opportune time to send my wife a bunch of roses signed SJLawson. Stats show that shortly after that sequence of events 15% of trackees use TBDG's services to find divorce lawyers and TBDG makes a lot of money on commissions. Illegal? No. A few deals like those and they've more than made up the $50 the consumer saved on his ISP bill. Ah, you say, but such actions would be inconceivable. 50 years ago nobody wouldn't have predicted today's scum of ambulance chasing lawyers and no-win no-fee parasites. If data can be used/misused to make money a commercial entity has a legal duty to its shareholders to explore every legal/borderline legal way they can do that. Given enough data - or enough chunks of varied data that can be put together to some powerful advantages - inside knowledge can be used to destroy the free markets of the west, wield diplomatic power over small nations that the UN can never dream of, start wars... and achieve a whole range of other Really Bad Things. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a tear-down-every-MacDonald's type of radical anti-capitalist. In fact, I'm just the opposite. I've owned and run several great businesses and I believe big successful businesses are good for everybody in the economic activity the generate, the taxes they contribute etc. BUT you've got to be careful what you wish for. Very, very careful...