As an IT person with only a degree in CS and historically little interest except for IT and maybe some engineering topics the best time I invested in decades was to start - completely by accident - on the medical track.
Hundreds of lecture hours and a plethora of courses in chemistry, org. chemistry, drug development (chemistry), statistics (with focus on medical topics), anatomy, physiology, (some) bio-chemistry, and neuroscience later I have learned sooooo much.
All simplistic/optimistic (or in the case of antibiotics pessimistic) mass-media headlines are almost complete bullshit. In that field you MUST look at the details. Which of course require some knowledge to understand - but actually not all that much, just some basics. I've also met quite a few doctors by now, some of them in research, and see a common path from youthful optimism to disillusionment. Not as in "giving up", just getting rid of baseless optimism about what is achievable and with what effort, and resetting goals (to much lower levels).
For an easy example, how many IT people think the brain works like a computer? That it's "binary based"?
For illustration, here are two serious (but fun) papers written by a biologist and by a neuroscientist, respectively:
I think engineers benefit greatly from studying some (freshman university level) biology, bio-chemistry, physiology. In engineering everything is so much simpler, so one tends to try and use ones experience in ones own field when looking at those fields. In reality it's a great mess. If you had to debug source code written by evolution over more than a billion years you'd have no chance - no chance at all - with any of the methods you used. Even the most disgusting project messed up over decades by rotating hoards of unqualified programmers who in addition all couldn't care less and managers who magnified the mess could not remotely create a software project as messed up.
Imagine Microsoft Office Suite source code run through several obfuscation tools. On top of that, the test suites only test an incredibly tiny amount of potential inputs (the amount of "inputs" where a biological system fails exceeds the ones when it works by several orders of magnitude) - and they go "green" as long as the software starts and runs at all for some very small amount of time, even if it runs badly. An it's still easier to debug than even a tiny biological system.
What exactly is sensationalized about antibiotic headlines? My understanding is that they are indeed massively under-funded in research and development while also being massively abused by the livestock industry (particularly overseas, where drugs-of-last-resort are being used on livestock) and general practitioners (although a tiny factor in comparison). I will grant you that the US is trying to take steps to crack down on livestock use, at least.
I don't actually know any IT people who think the brain works like a computer, or that it's "binary based". I know people who think that neural nets attempt to approximate the neural activity of the brain, and also that it's a pale imitation at best, with many modes of action not properly modeled. I know people who think that free will is a myth and that everything we think is just chemical and electrical reactions in the brain, which is likely correct.
Honestly, your reply doesn't appear to be meant to be constructive. I just have to casually scan major news sites for headlines and what is the first one I find when asking google for two search words (not the first search result but the first one relevant to the topic - I only used two words, as I said):
BBC, 2015:
> Analysis: Antibiotic apocalypse
> A terrible future could be on the horizon, a future which rips one of the greatest tools of medicine out of the hands of doctors.
Note the "apocalypse" and the "terrible" future. Of course, not sensationalized at all...
As for part 2 of your comment all you have to do is read comment sections.
Yes, those who ask are told that is not so, but how many ask?
I'll stop here. And that's from people who actually thought about that subject, in comment sections you find replies from normal people who don't make headlines.
Remember the excited comments when the Human Brain Project (HBP) was announced? I just looked at some comments on this very website when the announcement was being discussed... Or a random brain related Slashdot headline: "Why We Should Build a Supercomputer Replica of the Human Brain" (https://slashdot.org/story/13/05/15/1926252/why-we-should-bu...) - actually another person who even looks at the topic a lot and still comes up with such ideas (never mind the comments below).
Kording is actually a data scientist (thus an "IT person"). His paper is a fun read, but not to be taken too seriously. It doesn't point out what is hard about understanding the brain.
If you want to learn more about the history of non-invasive glucose monitoring mentioned in the article, I recommend "The Pursuit of Noninvasive Glucose: Hunting the Deceitful Turkey" by Smith:
I think that instead of negatively reinforcing being "quixotic"(overly idealistic) and stumbling when taking on a complex project, let's positively reinforce the fact that they had the fucking balls to try.
In future, people will be able to use this project (including it's shortcomings) as a learning tool.
Kudos to the team for biting off more than they could chew, for now we all have a better of idea of what size bite to go for next time.
I agree with the sentiment, but still it is a bit worrying when we see so many hyped startups where a lot of scientists are like "yeah this won't work at all."
I mean I know that there are doubters for good ideas too but what's the line to draw in terms of skepticism?
I've never really understood this logic, primarily because as a theory it's not really falsifiable. If the concept could be applied to anything then it has lost all normative powers.
Should we positively reinforce people who jump of cliffs convinced they have a novel scientific theory of gravity that will allow them to fly? Presumably not. Then presumably we should take a similar view of those who attempt things that are similarly scientifically impossible, even if said impossibility is less obvious to a lay observer.
Think science vs engineering. The scientific method is to make an observation, hypothesis,validation through experimentation. Even if you prove your hypothesis false it is a win for science. These bleeding edge projects are as much about science as engineering.
The reason they were able to try these inane ideas wasn't because they had the "balls." There are plenty of foolish, arrogant, and naïve people out there who think they know better than the experts on any given topic you might care to name. The reason they were able to do this was because Google was showering the proceeds of their search advertising down on them.
I view the article differently (although I agree it is a learning tool): I see it as showing yet another example of what I think of as Silicon Valley hubris.
I've spent about 15 years in research on colloidal nanoparticles, much of that for biological applications of magnetic and fluorescent nanoparticles. There are countless barriers to creating the proposed "tricorder", each significant enough that overcoming even a single one would make one a "made man" in academia, e.g., "solving" RES uptake.
Look at this statement from the article, for one example of what I see as hubris,
"The particles were so safe, [Conrad] said, that animal testing could be skipped."
This statement contradicts advisory statements by the FDA, guidelines issued by the FDA, the general understanding of the frameworks put forward by the NNI (National Nanotechnolgy Initiative), general trends in the field, and (regulatory) common sense. This "tricorder" would be a combination of a hardware diagnostic platform, a pharmaceutical contrast agent, and some sort of software platform: it doesn't get any more complicated than that. It would take months for the FDA to figure out how to regulate this device. I am completely unable to conceive how anyone with any experience in this area could think that animal testing could be skipped.
Also, your statement that we should "positively reinforce the fact that they had the fucking balls to try" reads to me as if you are unaware that there are many of us in the biomedical world trying, very hard, fighting over scraps of funding and trying to move the ball down the field. We just aren't in the public eye or consciousness. It hurts to see a group like Verily get celebrated for trying when the rest of us get ignored (or worse, dismissed) when we're working on some pretty challenging stuff under some lousy conditions.
Another point with the hubris - why go the most complicated thing - continuous, in-body sensing , instead of half/quarter-yearly blood testing ? Sure it's somewhat better, but not that big of a deal, especially since you lose a lot in accuracy, cost, complexity, etc.
It's also actually something we see in the story of theranos, and it's quite puzzling - as almost as if you need to sell the project to the public and investors the same way you sell some mobile game.
I am glad that they did this but I don't think this rises to the level of "fucking balls to try". What is the down side of doing this with other people's money?
Well I'm thankful that Google is prepared to take big bets in health science, even when they don't work. Much better to spray money at this problem than - say - Nest.
Hopefully these are some of Edison's 9999 lightbulbs that didn't work.
While they may not "work" (read: they may not have the outcome that was expected from the beginning), they still "work" in that they help Google (and others) learn how to improve other things later.
It may not be the most fiscally responsible thing to do, but learning isn't cheap when you're trying to solve the problems they're trying to solve.
I'm beginning to think that Alphabet (read: Google) just isn't very good at things that aren't related to advertising. There have just been so many failures (Verily, Nest, Glasses, etc.) as they have tried to get away from their core business - it almost looks like IBM back in the 90's as they tried (and mostly floundered at) becoming a services company over a mainframes company.
You can argue that they are trying 1000 things and 999 can fail as long as that 1 succeeds - but I don't think this is generating a good public view of them.
Just wait until they get into building cars and then abandon the project after a few thousand have been delivered to consumers.
The whole attitude that goes with software-as-a-service development does not go well with developing hardware. Many companies have tried, IBM, as you quote went the other way and made plenty of mistakes. Google (sorry, alphabet) is still seeing this as diversifying but that doesn't change much, I don't see how they will pull this off if they can't do a thing like 'glass' without damaging their reputation.
I think we're looking at different aspects of the whole 'car' thing. I'm talking about selling cars to the general public needing a different mentality than developing that car took in the first place. You need to support that car for the next 2 decades or so with parts and service and I really don't see google as capable of doing that. They have a hard time servicing their phones and tablets that are only a few years old and those are much easier to service than a car would be.
It's not that they are incapable, but they made a mistake when they designed the Android ecosystem(or they didn't have a real choice or time) - and now there are all sort of misalignment of incentives. Also the consumer electronics ecosystem tends towards disposability anyway.
But the automotive ecosystem in general is more aligned with long service, it's one of their main income sources. And since Google will most likely partner with some automotive OEM/OEM's, the infrastructure would be there, so it would be easier to align incentives(altough cars-as-a-service makes it a bit different, it may be for the better i think).
has their car been a failure? arguably one of the best economic upsides is being the first one to have a fully road-ready autonomous driving system.
chromebooks seem to be gaining in popularity (though that may be driven by shortsighted education purchases like the early iPad)
their broadband services seem to be incredibly popular in the areas they are servicing. (this is just anecdotal, i havent seen any hard numbers)
But i agree, they have had some high-profile failures in recent history, and its possible thats a sign of the organization growing to large/complex/whatever to be successful at exploring new product categories.
Their car will be a failure/footnote. Car manufacturers are already doing far more interesting things than Google is in the space. While Google is obsessed with replacing human drivers, and telling people to just trust the car, companies like Volkswagen have worked on self-driving UI that works with the user, telling them before the car makes a maneuver and such. While Google hasn't tested in snow, other car makers (like Ford) have.
Google's really only power in the self-driving car space is that Google is rolling out Apple-level marketing on the topic. People associate "self-driving car" with "Google" by default, because that's where all the media hype is.
But when it comes down to market time, car manufacturers know how to make cars. They know how to make vehicle interfaces people are comfortable and familiar with. They know how to built reliable, relatively bug-free products that don't need a software update every week to work correctly.
It's not really road-ready. Right now it requires a very precisely mapped set of roads. Plus, they've only been testing it in a state with very good weather. I'm very curious to see how it behaves in a harsh winter. Even then, there's the pretty public mess up with the bus a few months back.
You can argue that they are trying 1000 things and 999 can fail as long as that 1 succeeds - but I don't think this is generating a good public view of them.
That is a real problem. Organizations (not exclusive to Google) seem to quickly jump out and announce something before anything real is in their hands. Anytime you announce something a countdown starts in the minds of people. I learned this the hard way, of course.
There is no one story. Just experience. I don't really announce projects unless I intend to release a BETA or if I'm willing to make the failure of the project public. Don't confuse this with a fear of failure. Its more in line with managing the expectations of people. I once made a public comment of currently doing (a small bit of) research in the area of hydroponics (mostly brainstorming and prototyping). People mistook it as me going full blown into hydroponics. Still get emails regarding it.
I think the start of the count down clock is intentional. I have been on the opposite end where with out the countdown clock nothing real happens. And given the fiduciary duties of a publicly traded company talk first, results second is par the course.
Too many clocks counting down gives the impression of a high failure rate. Failure is fine. Problem is when you publicly continue to fail as an organization. Public opinion goes negative. For a publicly traded company public opinion is important.
I agree. Given the quarterly earnings report cycle publicly traded companies are poor fits for developing innovative work. It is not the investment vehicle most conducive to long term investing.
To be fair, nobody else has been successful at any of the moonshots Alphabet is going for either. It's not like they're getting trounced by the competition or anything, for the most part there is no competition.
I'm not sure how one would quantify the effect that the Google Glass' faceplant has on Joe Blo's decision to choose between ios or Android, but I'm guessing it's negligible.
With Alphabet's space camp subsidiaries there does seem to be some dissonance. While pursuing far-sighted pie-in-the sky projects is laudable, the expectation that these projects be monetized within visible horizons is a bit naive. Lately Alphabet has been dealing with a reckoning of sorts. They kind of have to decide whether or not they're committed to throwing money at these projects indefinitely.
Larry and Segei have allowed themselves to get swept away by their grand visions for the future.
To be fair, Google has also failed at many of its attempts to compete with established players. They haven't made a dent in Amazon for shopping, Facebook for social, etc. I suspect they're strongly looking to create new markets because they're aware of how difficult it is to break into established ones. And Google doesn't seem to be happy settling for "third biggest social network".
They are tremendously successful in areas beyond search ads, but it's easier to remember the failures.
Also, reducing their successes down to their monetisation strategy isn't exactly fair. Search is the product, ads are the business plan.
I'd say that what Google aren't good at, is anything that can't be easily quantified. Anything where they can't just examine reams of data and A/B test to success. If it involves some sort of intuition or informed design, that is where Google fails.
EDIT: I might also add that future speculative profits are also something that can't be easily quantified. Hence all the myriad project cancellations.
Well, as I stated above, I believe it unfair and misleadingly reductive to simplify a business down to its monetisation strategy. They are primarily a search company that makes money from ads. They could probably make money other ways, but not as much.
The product is always what people use. There is a simple test for this: Without ads, people would still use search - Google would lose money hand over fist, but people would still use it. Without search on the other hand, no-one is looking at ads. Therefore the product is search.
If you are overly reductive about companies you end up talking absurdities. Newspapers are just ad companies. TV shows are just ad companies. Sports teams are just ad companies.
Just because the monetisation is indirect, doesn't mean that ads are what they are...
>> I believe it unfair and misleadingly reductive to simplify a business down to its monetisation strategy. They are primarily a search company that makes money from ads.
Except that Alphabet is publicly traded (GOOGL). They exist for no other reason than to keep shareholders happy. They are a company that makes money. They'd sell chickens if that would turn higher profits. While circuitous at times, every aspect of the company that isn't generating funds only exists to somehow support those that do.
If you get excessively reductive about any business you essentially boil it down to "they make money". Saying Google is an "ad company" is almost as useless as saying they're a "company". If you want to distinguish their industry from others to analyse them, ie. their products, their method of doing things, their reaction to market conditions, etc. then calling them an ad company helps no-one.
You reduce them down from search company -> ad company -> company, to the point where the reduction becomes meaningless.
It just serves no purpose to state that they are an advertising company, you could say the same thing about a sports team. Their product is search, the monetisation is ads. Just like no-one is watching their favourite football team for the beer ads, no-one is using search, maps, email or their phone for ads.
It's really more accurate to say that Google is a company whose goal is, and I quote, "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" -- and to do so while being revenue-positive so they can keep operating. This interpretation leads to better predictive value about Google's likely behavior. They probably wouldn't sell chickens. They might well offer subscription / ad free versions of their products (see YouTube red, contributor) to keep the revenue flowing via a different monetization strategy.
(They're paying my bills this year but this is purely my opinion from watching the company for a while).
"The purpose of this Corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity for which corporations may be organized under the General Corporation Law of Delaware. "
I know - but that's standard boilerplate verbiage used in almost every company's delaware filings. Again, I think it's worth going by whatever description of the company has the best predictive power. For example, Facebook has exactly the same language in their filing: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512...
But it's much more predictive to go by their mission statement, even though facebook too monetizes by ads and has given themselves permission to do anything. "to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected. " - it's fairly descriptive. Facebook is more likely to buy a messaging app (Whatsapp) that lets people communicate than to sell chickens.
I wouldn't call FB an advertising company either, even though 85% of their revenue comes from ... advertising. It's a boring, content-low descriptor that lumps many different companies into the same bin. I suspect that FB, too, if they thought there was money in it, would happily pivot to offering users a paid, ad-free subscription service. In contrast, they probably wouldn't pivot to running ads on billboards.
They don't need to be. Search advertising is their golden goose (and i don't think they are trying to get away from it!). The question is whether these failed experiments are informative, if they have contributed a body of knowledge that is proportional to the investment taken. Their car experiments seem to have sparked a bout of incremental improvements that is probably gonna create a wave. As for the rest, i am not sure if there are lessons to be learned here.
I think the biggest problem here is that we have too much media coverage and scrutiny on stuff like this today. 24x7 financial news, 24x7 tech news, and 24x7 financial/tech news!
Here's the deal - these are HUGE bets, with a HUGE risk of failure, and a HUGE reward. As a society we should be focusing on the willingness to take these bets, and allowing them to fail without pointing an laughing like a bunch of school kids at a science fair.
Scientific history is full of failure, and examples of failure leading to discovery and advancement. Let's embrace it and repeat after me - "Failure is Always an Option".
True. However Google PR tells the media about these bets in the first place. It used to be the case that R&D was kept under wraps. I'm sure a number of projects fail at Apple too but we never hear about them because Apple doesn't leak that info to the press.
A lot of research comes out of universities, where it gets publicized because people want their research funded.
Google's contact lens project for example, originally came out the University of Washington and Microsoft Research got publicity from it before it switched to Google. In fact, Microsoft Research still features the project: Medical Sensing via a Contact Lens (1)
This kind of thing is not a problem if you present it as blue-sky research. It can become a problem if reporters think you're moving from research to commercialization because then they expect a product launch.
Google's car came out of Stanford University's AI Lab. Google took it over after Stanford's car won $2 million in the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge competition (2). Again, it was great publicity for Stanford as a winning AI project, but it's a potential disaster for Google if it never turns into a good product.
Most of the major car manufacturers were, of course, doing similar research work, but generally keeping it fairly quiet....
Apple is a bad example; their secrecy means that humanity learns virtually nothing from most experiments. Most experiments fail -- either abject technical failures or merely commercially unviable at the time of their development. Hiding these away is a shame. People could learn from failures (not spending resources pursuing bad paths) or unviable explorations (revisit them later when conditions change).
I think a more useful example is Bell Labs and their Technical Journal. The journal involved a more-significant level of rigor without the PR and media hype.
Unfortunately, when the media follows every little happening (eg. patent publications)... big megacorps are left with two bad choices: let people draw erroneous, hyperbolic conclusions ("OMG! Ads in my eyes!") -or- address the PR and messaging directly head-on.
Publication may still be the solution, but the timing issues are acute. From a business perspective, you need to be filing IP as soon as you have reasonable evidence of a proof of concept. But by the time you have sufficient material for top-tier journal peer review, those patents are already being published. The solution might be (again) something like the Bell Labs Technical Journal... but that provides a lot of fodder for competitors and patent trolls. So it's a tough balance!
Either way... I applaud large organizations taking big technical risks and bets.
My post was in response to: "I think the biggest problem here is that we have too much media coverage and scrutiny on stuff like this today". The coverage happens because Google talks about it; irrespective of merits of taking risks.
Yes... I know. And I'm saying that Google talks about it because patent publication forces their hand. They must either own it and talk about it themselves, or let people wildly speculate when patents are published.
It's not the amount, but the quality. How many of the media people at the event had the faintest understanding of biology? The interns that are sent to these briefings don't have the skills to see the snake oil. Send a medical student. Send an engineer. Send a lawyer. Send anyone with experience in innovation within highly-regulated space. And listen to them. Do something more than photocopy the press release onto your "news" feed.
Completely agree, it seems like there is this consistent drumbeat of "nobody is working on big things", "devs are working on widgets instead of curing cancer" and here you have a group _trying_ to make some impact on core quality of life things for people and the criticism is essentially that it's not as easy (aka "floundering") as knocking out a Facebook app.
>[Conrad] promised a working prototype of the cancer early-detection device within six months. That was three years ago.
>Conrad rolled out the Tricorder to tech reporters in 2014, describing its scientific basis as proven. He predicted that high-risk patients would begin wearing the device within a few years, followed by widespread adoption.
What to take huge risks? Fine, but don't promise results are around the corner when they're not. Headlines with the words "arrogance" are completely appropriate here.
In this case I imagine the downvotes were because "I for one am not surprised" sounds glib and dismissive (and kind of braggy) without adding information. The question that follows it is fine, although to make it seem like less of an insinuation you could have added some (neutral) context for why you were asking.
Former employees, however, characterized Conrad in less complimentary tones.
They said he exaggerates what Verily can deliver, launches big projects on a
whim, and rashly diverts resources from prior commitments to the next hot
idea that might bring in revenue. This has led to what they describe as
difficult meetings with business partners, and resignations by demoralized
engineers and scientists in the face of seemingly impossible demands.
59 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] threadHundreds of lecture hours and a plethora of courses in chemistry, org. chemistry, drug development (chemistry), statistics (with focus on medical topics), anatomy, physiology, (some) bio-chemistry, and neuroscience later I have learned sooooo much.
All simplistic/optimistic (or in the case of antibiotics pessimistic) mass-media headlines are almost complete bullshit. In that field you MUST look at the details. Which of course require some knowledge to understand - but actually not all that much, just some basics. I've also met quite a few doctors by now, some of them in research, and see a common path from youthful optimism to disillusionment. Not as in "giving up", just getting rid of baseless optimism about what is achievable and with what effort, and resetting goals (to much lower levels).
For an easy example, how many IT people think the brain works like a computer? That it's "binary based"?
For illustration, here are two serious (but fun) papers written by a biologist and by a neuroscientist, respectively:
"Can a biologist fix a radio?—Or, what I learned while studying apoptosis" - http://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/fulltext/S1535-6108(02)00133...
"Could a neuroscientist understand a microprocessor?" - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055624
I think engineers benefit greatly from studying some (freshman university level) biology, bio-chemistry, physiology. In engineering everything is so much simpler, so one tends to try and use ones experience in ones own field when looking at those fields. In reality it's a great mess. If you had to debug source code written by evolution over more than a billion years you'd have no chance - no chance at all - with any of the methods you used. Even the most disgusting project messed up over decades by rotating hoards of unqualified programmers who in addition all couldn't care less and managers who magnified the mess could not remotely create a software project as messed up.
Imagine Microsoft Office Suite source code run through several obfuscation tools. On top of that, the test suites only test an incredibly tiny amount of potential inputs (the amount of "inputs" where a biological system fails exceeds the ones when it works by several orders of magnitude) - and they go "green" as long as the software starts and runs at all for some very small amount of time, even if it runs badly. An it's still easier to debug than even a tiny biological system.
I don't actually know any IT people who think the brain works like a computer, or that it's "binary based". I know people who think that neural nets attempt to approximate the neural activity of the brain, and also that it's a pale imitation at best, with many modes of action not properly modeled. I know people who think that free will is a myth and that everything we think is just chemical and electrical reactions in the brain, which is likely correct.
BBC, 2015:
> Analysis: Antibiotic apocalypse
> A terrible future could be on the horizon, a future which rips one of the greatest tools of medicine out of the hands of doctors.
Note the "apocalypse" and the "terrible" future. Of course, not sensationalized at all...
As for part 2 of your comment all you have to do is read comment sections.
Yes, those who ask are told that is not so, but how many ask?
Even "scientists": "The scientist planning to upload his brain to a COMPUTER: Research could allow us to inhabit virtual worlds and 'live forever'" - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2879803/The-s...
"The Singularity Is Near: Mind Uploading by 2045?" - http://www.livescience.com/37499-immortality-by-2045-confere...
I'll stop here. And that's from people who actually thought about that subject, in comment sections you find replies from normal people who don't make headlines.
Remember the excited comments when the Human Brain Project (HBP) was announced? I just looked at some comments on this very website when the announcement was being discussed... Or a random brain related Slashdot headline: "Why We Should Build a Supercomputer Replica of the Human Brain" (https://slashdot.org/story/13/05/15/1926252/why-we-should-bu...) - actually another person who even looks at the topic a lot and still comes up with such ideas (never mind the comments below).
[pdf] http://www.mendosa.com/The%20Pursuit%20of%20Noninvsive%20Glu...
In future, people will be able to use this project (including it's shortcomings) as a learning tool.
Kudos to the team for biting off more than they could chew, for now we all have a better of idea of what size bite to go for next time.
I mean I know that there are doubters for good ideas too but what's the line to draw in terms of skepticism?
Should we positively reinforce people who jump of cliffs convinced they have a novel scientific theory of gravity that will allow them to fly? Presumably not. Then presumably we should take a similar view of those who attempt things that are similarly scientifically impossible, even if said impossibility is less obvious to a lay observer.
I've spent about 15 years in research on colloidal nanoparticles, much of that for biological applications of magnetic and fluorescent nanoparticles. There are countless barriers to creating the proposed "tricorder", each significant enough that overcoming even a single one would make one a "made man" in academia, e.g., "solving" RES uptake.
Look at this statement from the article, for one example of what I see as hubris,
This statement contradicts advisory statements by the FDA, guidelines issued by the FDA, the general understanding of the frameworks put forward by the NNI (National Nanotechnolgy Initiative), general trends in the field, and (regulatory) common sense. This "tricorder" would be a combination of a hardware diagnostic platform, a pharmaceutical contrast agent, and some sort of software platform: it doesn't get any more complicated than that. It would take months for the FDA to figure out how to regulate this device. I am completely unable to conceive how anyone with any experience in this area could think that animal testing could be skipped.Also, your statement that we should "positively reinforce the fact that they had the fucking balls to try" reads to me as if you are unaware that there are many of us in the biomedical world trying, very hard, fighting over scraps of funding and trying to move the ball down the field. We just aren't in the public eye or consciousness. It hurts to see a group like Verily get celebrated for trying when the rest of us get ignored (or worse, dismissed) when we're working on some pretty challenging stuff under some lousy conditions.
It's also actually something we see in the story of theranos, and it's quite puzzling - as almost as if you need to sell the project to the public and investors the same way you sell some mobile game.
Hopefully these are some of Edison's 9999 lightbulbs that didn't work.
While they may not "work" (read: they may not have the outcome that was expected from the beginning), they still "work" in that they help Google (and others) learn how to improve other things later.
It may not be the most fiscally responsible thing to do, but learning isn't cheap when you're trying to solve the problems they're trying to solve.
You can argue that they are trying 1000 things and 999 can fail as long as that 1 succeeds - but I don't think this is generating a good public view of them.
The whole attitude that goes with software-as-a-service development does not go well with developing hardware. Many companies have tried, IBM, as you quote went the other way and made plenty of mistakes. Google (sorry, alphabet) is still seeing this as diversifying but that doesn't change much, I don't see how they will pull this off if they can't do a thing like 'glass' without damaging their reputation.
Just compare their slowness and deliberation vs Elon Musk's carelessness and speed with recent stuff.
But the automotive ecosystem in general is more aligned with long service, it's one of their main income sources. And since Google will most likely partner with some automotive OEM/OEM's, the infrastructure would be there, so it would be easier to align incentives(altough cars-as-a-service makes it a bit different, it may be for the better i think).
chromebooks seem to be gaining in popularity (though that may be driven by shortsighted education purchases like the early iPad)
their broadband services seem to be incredibly popular in the areas they are servicing. (this is just anecdotal, i havent seen any hard numbers)
But i agree, they have had some high-profile failures in recent history, and its possible thats a sign of the organization growing to large/complex/whatever to be successful at exploring new product categories.
Google's really only power in the self-driving car space is that Google is rolling out Apple-level marketing on the topic. People associate "self-driving car" with "Google" by default, because that's where all the media hype is.
But when it comes down to market time, car manufacturers know how to make cars. They know how to make vehicle interfaces people are comfortable and familiar with. They know how to built reliable, relatively bug-free products that don't need a software update every week to work correctly.
That is a real problem. Organizations (not exclusive to Google) seem to quickly jump out and announce something before anything real is in their hands. Anytime you announce something a countdown starts in the minds of people. I learned this the hard way, of course.
I'm not sure how one would quantify the effect that the Google Glass' faceplant has on Joe Blo's decision to choose between ios or Android, but I'm guessing it's negligible.
With Alphabet's space camp subsidiaries there does seem to be some dissonance. While pursuing far-sighted pie-in-the sky projects is laudable, the expectation that these projects be monetized within visible horizons is a bit naive. Lately Alphabet has been dealing with a reckoning of sorts. They kind of have to decide whether or not they're committed to throwing money at these projects indefinitely.
Larry and Segei have allowed themselves to get swept away by their grand visions for the future.
They are tremendously successful in areas beyond search ads, but it's easier to remember the failures.
Also, reducing their successes down to their monetisation strategy isn't exactly fair. Search is the product, ads are the business plan.
I'd say that what Google aren't good at, is anything that can't be easily quantified. Anything where they can't just examine reams of data and A/B test to success. If it involves some sort of intuition or informed design, that is where Google fails.
EDIT: I might also add that future speculative profits are also something that can't be easily quantified. Hence all the myriad project cancellations.
The product is always what people use. There is a simple test for this: Without ads, people would still use search - Google would lose money hand over fist, but people would still use it. Without search on the other hand, no-one is looking at ads. Therefore the product is search.
If you are overly reductive about companies you end up talking absurdities. Newspapers are just ad companies. TV shows are just ad companies. Sports teams are just ad companies.
Just because the monetisation is indirect, doesn't mean that ads are what they are...
Except that Alphabet is publicly traded (GOOGL). They exist for no other reason than to keep shareholders happy. They are a company that makes money. They'd sell chickens if that would turn higher profits. While circuitous at times, every aspect of the company that isn't generating funds only exists to somehow support those that do.
If you get excessively reductive about any business you essentially boil it down to "they make money". Saying Google is an "ad company" is almost as useless as saying they're a "company". If you want to distinguish their industry from others to analyse them, ie. their products, their method of doing things, their reaction to market conditions, etc. then calling them an ad company helps no-one.
You reduce them down from search company -> ad company -> company, to the point where the reduction becomes meaningless.
It just serves no purpose to state that they are an advertising company, you could say the same thing about a sports team. Their product is search, the monetisation is ads. Just like no-one is watching their favourite football team for the beer ads, no-one is using search, maps, email or their phone for ads.
(They're paying my bills this year but this is purely my opinion from watching the company for a while).
"The purpose of this Corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity for which corporations may be organized under the General Corporation Law of Delaware. "
But it's much more predictive to go by their mission statement, even though facebook too monetizes by ads and has given themselves permission to do anything. "to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected. " - it's fairly descriptive. Facebook is more likely to buy a messaging app (Whatsapp) that lets people communicate than to sell chickens.
I wouldn't call FB an advertising company either, even though 85% of their revenue comes from ... advertising. It's a boring, content-low descriptor that lumps many different companies into the same bin. I suspect that FB, too, if they thought there was money in it, would happily pivot to offering users a paid, ad-free subscription service. In contrast, they probably wouldn't pivot to running ads on billboards.
Here's the deal - these are HUGE bets, with a HUGE risk of failure, and a HUGE reward. As a society we should be focusing on the willingness to take these bets, and allowing them to fail without pointing an laughing like a bunch of school kids at a science fair.
Scientific history is full of failure, and examples of failure leading to discovery and advancement. Let's embrace it and repeat after me - "Failure is Always an Option".
Google's contact lens project for example, originally came out the University of Washington and Microsoft Research got publicity from it before it switched to Google. In fact, Microsoft Research still features the project: Medical Sensing via a Contact Lens (1)
This kind of thing is not a problem if you present it as blue-sky research. It can become a problem if reporters think you're moving from research to commercialization because then they expect a product launch.
Google's car came out of Stanford University's AI Lab. Google took it over after Stanford's car won $2 million in the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge competition (2). Again, it was great publicity for Stanford as a winning AI project, but it's a potential disaster for Google if it never turns into a good product.
Most of the major car manufacturers were, of course, doing similar research work, but generally keeping it fairly quiet....
(1) https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/researchconnections/science/...
(2) http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/october12/stanleyfinish-1...
I think a more useful example is Bell Labs and their Technical Journal. The journal involved a more-significant level of rigor without the PR and media hype.
Unfortunately, when the media follows every little happening (eg. patent publications)... big megacorps are left with two bad choices: let people draw erroneous, hyperbolic conclusions ("OMG! Ads in my eyes!") -or- address the PR and messaging directly head-on.
Publication may still be the solution, but the timing issues are acute. From a business perspective, you need to be filing IP as soon as you have reasonable evidence of a proof of concept. But by the time you have sufficient material for top-tier journal peer review, those patents are already being published. The solution might be (again) something like the Bell Labs Technical Journal... but that provides a lot of fodder for competitors and patent trolls. So it's a tough balance!
Either way... I applaud large organizations taking big technical risks and bets.
>Conrad rolled out the Tricorder to tech reporters in 2014, describing its scientific basis as proven. He predicted that high-risk patients would begin wearing the device within a few years, followed by widespread adoption.
What to take huge risks? Fine, but don't promise results are around the corner when they're not. Headlines with the words "arrogance" are completely appropriate here.
In this case I imagine the downvotes were because "I for one am not surprised" sounds glib and dismissive (and kind of braggy) without adding information. The question that follows it is fine, although to make it seem like less of an insinuation you could have added some (neutral) context for why you were asking.
https://www.statnews.com/2016/03/28/google-life-sciences-exo...