- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
lmao google+ is a failure and heads are rolling
https://www.secret.ly/p/wxdnkdhjnsocjxwnizhdpacufc
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 19:50
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 12:46
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
google spent the last few years trying to catch up to facebook and facebook has been tearing apart all the functions of facebook into separate apps
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 19:58
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
if u work at google u should keep working on products that skate to where the puck was 3 years ago. this way u get paid but u will also kill google
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 20:31
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
other ways to sabotage google is playing politics and pitting your co-workers against each other and designing privacy infringing features that sound good to the rest of google but will end up as a pr disaster when normal people get a whiff of it. these are all things u can do without putting ur job at risk but also fulfilling the greater yospos mission of destroying google. just make the culture toxic as heck
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 20:40
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/24/google-is-walking-dead/
techcrunch has the deets
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 00:51
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
google killed google reader for this lmao
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 05:45
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
“Asked about his approach to running the company, Page once told a Googler his method for solving complex problems was by reducing them to binaries, and then simply choosing the best option,” Carlson writes. “Whatever the downside he viewed as collateral damage he could live with.”
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 23:12
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
lmao
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 23:12
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
holy poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 22:12
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
i hope thats real. why didnt this guy go to a newspaper or something??
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 22:13
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
whats the hackernews link??
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 22:16
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
wheres the story on HN??????????
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 22:26
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
on a side note im starting to see more people writing about the haunted empire that google actually is cause facebook is cleaning their clock in mobile. the narrative is finally starting taking shape in the media which is the first stage of google's end
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 22:45
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
post the link to the HN story u fucker
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 23:06
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/29/5665516/sign-in-with-google-button-could-send-google-plus-to-oblivion
Google, for its part, denies any plans to change its strategy with Google+. But now comes evidence that the company is indeed exploring a future where Google+ branding gradually fades into the background. Some developers implementing Google+ logins on their websites are now seeing an option to add a "sign in with Google" button, according to people who The Verge has spoken with. Screenshots show a simple blue button with a white Google "g" logo and the words "sign in" or "sign in with Google."
it's dead
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 03:24
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/04/f8-introducing-anonymous-login-and-an-updated-facebook-login/
http://applinks.org/
http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/30/facebook-audience-network-mobile-ad-network-launches-at-f8/
lmao fb is routing the gently caress out of google. google is poo poo on mobile and people spending all their time in apps instead of on google properties (like they do on desktop) or sites that are indexable by google will accelerate their death.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 21:58
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
anything that cuts off google at the knees in their attempt to remain relevant in the post-pc world is a good thing. and facebook is excelling at it
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 23:07
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
facebook is just one horse of many that will help put google into the ground, and currently executing the best
quote:
This really makes it sound like Vic was essentially fired. I wonder how much Facebook's recent success in monetizing mobile is at the root of this? For a long time the conventional wisdom was that there was no money in mobile at all and it was a huge problem. Now Facebook is killing it, and Google's answer seems to have missed the mark. Although this article is all loose rumors and speculation, if you piece it together the picture feels believable: Google is seriously worried their bet on G+ is wrong. Until Facebook starting doing big numbers Vic had the benefit of the doubt, but now that it's clear in stark numerical fashion that Facebook is actually increasing it's lead over Google it's causing a serious rethink.
google failed at social and now a $150 billion company exists when some portion of their market cap could have flowed to google if they werent incompetent and microsoft-like in resting on their laurels. they then spent years with google+, integrating it into all of their products trying to recreate facebook and get a slice of that pie. meanwhile facebook saw the writing on the wall and has been aggressive about buying the properties where users are increasingly spending most of their time (as well as not caring about making facebook.com the center of their universe, as is evident in their willingness to unbundle it). larry just figured this out a few weeks ago after a couple of FBs quarterly earnings sank in and fired vic gundotra.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 00:23
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
its not just that that google's CPC is tanking because mobile ads are inherently less profitable (which is true as of now) but they're also losing real market share of ad dollars to facebook. facebook's CPC and CPM are rising
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 00:29
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
apple needs to twist the knife and get rid of google as default and thereby deny a hugely profitable and engaged userbase
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 00:30
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
timb release the google search killer and swithc to yahoo or bing in the meantime
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 01:01
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
hold on let me bing up some reasons not to do that
ive been using bing for a while its p. sick
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 01:04
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
quote: The complainant who spurred the investigation also noted that he only contacted the privacy commissioner’s office because he couldn’t figure out how to notify someone at Google directly about his concerns.
lmao
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 01:06
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
the office where all the conops (customer service) folks work is at least 85% women. working there is like being the guy who takes dance class in highschool.
the best customer service for google products is from the super hard core google users. usually if we have a workaround for something we don't even post it just send it to them and they will help the other people for us it's great.
lol that u would even post this as if its something to be proud of
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 01:38
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
but also very revealing of the mentality of google. thx
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 01:43
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
those premium anroid silver phones are going to be a real clown show
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 01:44
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
quote:Facebook announced a new way for people to log in to apps “anonymously” today. You still log into the (third party) app using your Facebook credentials, but Facebook sends absolutely no information about you at all to the app.
Read all the coverage about it on TechMeme. The tech press is impressed, even to to point of wondering if there’s a catch.
I don’t know the details, such as if this is something all apps have to implement if they want Facebook login, or if developers can opt not to offer it while still using the “normal” FB login.
But it doesn’t really matter. Facebook is addressing a strong desire for privacy by its users.
Distill that even further and it comes down to this – Facebook is treating its users, at least in this case, like its customers.
Then there’s Google. Today I read that they’re going to stop scanning student Gmail accounts (because of a lawsuit). Of course the rest of us who haven’t sued Google get the same old treatment.
I’m also still simmering over Google+ logins. I’ve diligently avoided getting a Google+ account for years now. The times that they’ve auto-created one for me because I clicked the wrong button I’ve deleted it. I’m still able to use Gmail without it, but Google Voice is rumored to be shutting down soon, and the only way I may be able to continue using my Google Voice phone number is if I finally relent and get a Google+ account.
I’m not going to go into the very many reasons why getting a Google+ account may be a bad idea – you can Bing that if you don’t already know. But even though no one wants to use Google+, Google is pushing, whining and pleading with you constantly to sign up – because it’s the only way they can continue to push higher numbers of “active users.”
No one uses Google+, but the whole Internet has an account there.
We’re not Google’s customers. Never were. We’re just a bundle of data to be sold to advertisers, and they don’t give a drat what we think about that.
Facebook may not be all that different, really. But at least today they treated us like human beings. And for that I’m grateful.
Don’t Be Evil™
http://uncrunched.com/2014/04/30/facebook-gets-it-google-doesnt/
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 05:17
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
quote:
If you're not paying for the product, you are the product.
I have to admit, this is a catchy line. It appeals to the inner cynic in us all and makes a certain amount of sense in a core, "what can you do for me," type of thinking.
But it's hog-wash.
I work for Google so I follow the news about the company and I'm really tired of seeing that first line, or some variation of it, spouted by people who really don't care enough to want to think it through. It does not work that way!
Yes, Google is a company. And yes, Google is a reasonably large company (though not that large compared to the likes of IBM, GE, etc.). But though a company is a single entity in the eyes of the law, it is not run like that. Google is full of many thousands of individuals, many of whom are more rabid about user privacy than the privacy watchdogs that complain. I've watched them take Larry and Sergey to task on stage about the smallest things. I've done it twice myself. If the leaders of the company purposely violated our users' trust, there would be open revolt and the founders would be lucky to not find themselves strung up by their toes.
Everything Google does is done for our users. Your happiness is always the first priority, even above Ads. (I've seen this in both policy and various practical implementations.) You are not product; you are our customers! That's simply the way we view it and it permeates the company from bottom to top. Everything is done to make a better service for you.
Even Ads is viewed as a service to our users. Random ads are garbage. Useful ads are a benefit. Yes, it's also a benefit to our publishers and yes, it's also a benefit to our shareholders. Since when did win-win-win arrangements become a bad thing?
I won't claim that Google always gets it exactly right or that we haven't made mistakes. We don't and we have. And we admit it. And it will happen again. Sorry. But everything is done with the right intent even if it doesn't always work out as hoped. Hindsight is perfect.
Google is the most moral company in which I have ever worked. But guarding our users' privacy doesn't just make moral sense, it makes business sense. If we purposefully violated our users' privacy, we wouldn't have a business at all before very long.
https://plus.google.com/+BrianWhite1/posts/T56nDLcMHVk
lmao jesus
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 05:25
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
it benefits Facebook because they still know what sites you're trying to log into so they can sell you related ads but other sites can't now
if they're going to log in with facebook tehy already trust facebook with their information. this change is more aligned with their users interests and is the exact opposite of the track google has been on these past few years
cremnob fucked around with this message at 07:23 on May 1, 2014
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 07:21
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
yes thats because larry is an idiot bitch libertarian where as zuck was just a dumb college kid who's grown up and appears to be taking facebook in a new direction that is more aligned with user interests (as much as an advertising company can be), now that he's let go of the legacy idea of what facebook was
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 10:01
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
facebook's success will come at the expense of google and will be a direct assault on their margins, so zuck's my boy
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 10:29
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
lmao
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 22:38
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
yea but ios 7 was all about letting the content take front and center and the change fits with the overall design goal. google is trying to become the new aol and have everyone search for keywords on google.com. CPC is tanking, little tweaks like this will incrementally drive up aggregate clicks
quote:More recently, browsers started hiding the URL scheme. [url]http://[/url] was no more, as far as most users were concerned. In iOS 7, Mobile Safari went even further and hid everything about the URL except the domain. With the Chrome “origin chip” change, the URL will move out of the field entirely, to a tidy little button that many users will never even realize is clickable.
http://www.allenpike.com/2014/burying-the-url/
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 22:47
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
stebe was such a boss
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 04:41
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 12:46
|
|
- cremnob
- Jun 30, 2010
-
|
lmao all that obama dick google sucked and all those lobbying $ and then this baby comes out. gently caress yea, hope this gets some steam during the mid-term elections
quote:
Call for Limits on Web Data of Customers
The White House, hoping to move the national debate over privacy beyond the National Security Agency’s surveillance activities to the practices of companies like Google and Facebook, released a long-anticipated report on Thursday that recommends developing government limits on how private companies make use of the torrent of information they gather from their customers online.
The report, whose chief author is John D. Podesta, a senior White House adviser, is the next step in the administration’s response to the disclosures by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor that began the debate.
Because the effort goes so far beyond information collected by intelligence agencies, the report was viewed warily in Silicon Valley, where companies see it as the start of a government effort to regulate how they can profit from the data they collect from email and web surfing habits.
Mr. Podesta, in an interview, said President Obama was surprised during his review of the N.S.A.’s activities that “the same technologies are not only used by the intelligence community, but far more broadly in the public and private spheres because there is so much collection” from the web, smartphones and other sensors.
“You are shedding data everywhere,” Mr. Podesta said.
The report makes six policy recommendations. They include passing a national data breach law that would require companies to report major losses of personal and credit card data, after attacks like the one on Target that exposed credit card information on roughly 70 million customers. It seeks legislation that would define consumer rights regarding how data about their activities was used. It suggests extending privacy protections to individuals who are not citizens of the United States and argues for action to ensure that data collected about students is used only for educational purposes.
But the most significant findings in the report focus on the recognition that data can be used in subtle ways to create forms of discrimination — and to make judgments, sometimes in error, about who is likely to show up at work, pay their mortgage on time or require expensive treatment. The report states that the same technology that is often so useful in predicting places that would be struck by floods or diagnosing hard-to-find illnesses in infants also has “the potential to eclipse longstanding civil rights protections in how personal information is used in housing, credit, employment, health, education and the marketplace.”
The report focuses particularly on “learning algorithms” that are frequently used to determine what kind of online ad to display on someone’s computer screen, or to predict their buying habits when searching for a car or in making travel plans. Those same algorithms can create a digital picture of person, Mr. Podesta noted, that can infer race, gender or sexual orientation, even if that is not the intent of the software.
“The final computer-generated product or decision — used for everything from predicting behavior to denying opportunity — can mask prejudices while maintaining a patina of scientific objectivity,” the report concludes.
Mr. Podesta said the concern — he suggested the federal government might have to update laws — was that those software judgments could affect access to bank loans or job offers. They “may seem like neutral factors,” he said, “but they aren’t so neutral” when put together. The potential problem, he added, is that “you are exacerbating inequality rather than opening up opportunity.”
Edward W. Felten, a computer scientist at Princeton and former chief technologist of the Federal Trade Commission, said the goal would be for both the government and industry to address the risk of discrimination based on data analysis.
“There is a role for government to hold companies accountable and establish incentives,” Mr. Felten said. “There needs to be enough incentive for companies to do the hard work.”
Some major companies, including Google, Facebook and Microsoft, declined to comment on the report. But Michael Beckerman, president of the Internet Association, whose members include Google, Facebook, Amazon and Twitter, called the report a “useful examination” of big data technology.
Now that the report has been issued, Mr. Beckerman said, the administration should “turn its attention to the most pressing privacy priorities facing American consumers” — to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and to “reform the government’s surveillance laws and practices.”
Other companies, including Mozilla, the maker of a popular web browser, also urged the government to focus on surveillance issues, reflecting Silicon Valley’s concern that the biggest threat they face today is the suspicion around the world that the N.S.A. has built “back doors” into American products.
Google has said it will work to build encryption systems that can defeat N.S.A. spying, and several companies have revised their policies in recent months to say they will warn customers, whenever they legally can, if the government tries to subpoena data stored in their emails, in the cloud or in social media accounts. The notification would not apply in cases where a search was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which prohibits warning targets of such searches, but the firms are clearly trying to deter the government from regularly mining their data.
In one area, the report appears to side, at least in part, with critics of the N.S.A. who argued with the intelligence agency’s contention that it is far less intrusive to collect “metadata” about a phone call or email than to collect its content.
The former director of the N.S.A., Gen. Keith B. Alexander, often noted that because the agency maintained a database only of the phone numbers that Americans called and the durations of the calls, it was not violating their privacy. But the report notes that there is a “profound question” about whether that kind of metadata “should be accorded stronger privacy protections than they are currently” because they can be revealing of a person’s movements and habits. “This review recommends that the government should broaden” the examination of how intelligence agencies use such data and consider whether the test should be “how much it reveals about individuals.”
Mr. Podesta, in briefing reporters on Thursday, also singled out the shortcomings of the “Terms of Service” that consumers click on, almost always without reading them, when they sign up for free email accounts or download apps for their smartphones. He asked whether that process “still allows us to control and protect our privacy as the data is used and reused.”
That is bound to prove contentious in the information industry, where the clicking on the terms of service is viewed as a license to use the data for a variety of highly profitable purposes.
The report also recommends extending Americans’ privacy rights to foreigners, on the theory that there are no boundaries when it comes to the data collected online. Mr. Obama declared in January that the government would do the same in the treatment of data it collects through the National Security Agency and other sources.
Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that the report identified the key issues and that its policy recommendations addressed privacy groups’ major concerns. “The implementation of those proposals,” Mr. Rotenberg said, “is the big challenge now, what happens next.”
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 08:20
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 19:50
