Loon is not competitive in a world with Starlink (even without Starlink it seems).
The business didn’t make strategic sense.
I still really liked their original goal of loon for all and the first video they made for it: https://youtu.be/m96tYpEk1Ao
It’s a little sad they had to downsize and give up. I guess Licklider was right to title the original internet paper an “intergalactic computer network”.
Musk started with interplanetary goals and he’ll at least end up with one that covers the earth.
Wouldn't this be considered 'strategic' to Google b/c it had the potential to provide additional eyeballs & ad revenue to users outside of their normal markets (US/EU)?
Eyeballs without access to terrestrial networking probably don't make a lot of ad revenue.
But, even if so, look at Google Fiber. Google benefits from networking build out, regardless of if they're providing the network; it's just as good for them if someone else builds the network. If starlink can fill the niche that Loon filled, that works just as well for Google, on someone else's capex/opex.
Or if the freespace optics they worked on for Loon can reduce backhaul costs for traditional cell towers, that might help get more deployed in areas that don't have connectivity; which again works well for Google.
The general idea of a global telecom is a good one.
The strategic failure was not recognizing that starlink’s approach to the problem made way more sense.
They didn’t see that as the existential threat it was.
Instead they downsized their implementation to running the network over poor countries and hand waved a bit about being able to provide connectivity in congested areas.
Loon has no viable future in a world with starlink.
Think of the investments in Loon, Taara, SpaceX and Google Fiber as part of a larger strategy to bring internet access with decent bandwidth to a larger number of humans. Some investments will not pan out, others will bear fruit.
Does this make sense for alphabet? I agree that it does as one of their many bets.
Does it make sense for Loon which spun off as its own company under alphabet with its own leadership and its own stock? That’s the strategic failure I’m talking about, Loon’s not alphabet’s.
They invested in multiple potential paths to a global internet. It's not surprising that they'd drop the investments that aren't as promising as the investments that are showing significant promise.
It's like saying I applied to multiple colleges, and because I only accepted one application, that the other applications were a failure. But, no, it could just mean that I preferred to go to the college that I accepted, but the others were a hedge against that path not working out.
Users who don’t spend are almost worthless to the advertisers. So google most likely will not receive any meaningful amount of money from countries with data coverage but without the customer base willing to pay for products advertised.
Loon can (could) handle normal LTE mobile phones. Starlink requires a phased array antenna the size of a pizza box which, to my understanding, cannot be fully miniaturized. That's not to say they aren't somewhat competing against each other, but Starlink doesn't strictly dominate as you imply.
Ok, but just to be clear, I wasn't trying to make a statement about cost; that can always be folded into the monthly payments or, as you say, philanthropically donated.
People often make fun of Google/Alphabet for their graveyard of failed initiatives/products. While some of it might be warranted, projects like this—that strive to solve a large, global issue through somewhat charitable actions—are generous and have only increased my respect for the Google/Alphabet/X team. I hope they don't get flamed for this, and hopefully some of their research and donation funds can live on and solve the issue that Loon originally intended to one day.
I think the days of Google Moonshots are coming to a close. In general Google hasn't been very good at shooting for the moon. They've lost their leadership and vision and all that's left is a giant advertising behemoth.
Did any of their moonshots really hit the mark or even come close?
I think it's generous to say it's in its final stages. They haven't even left Phoenix have they? And even in Phoenix, it's still largely a beta project in a few predefined areas.
It certainly seems like Google's most likely moon shot to take off. But considering only a few thousand people have used it, it's not exactly a big success.
Waymo, like any and all software, will never be “complete” - but I assume you’re referring to Waymo being ready for it’s first “real” release somehow - but we still don’t know how exactly Waymo will be integrated into cars or which automakers will go with them.
That point of mine now has me wondering what Waymo will look like in 10-20 years’ time when autonomous vehicles become both ubiquitous and un-cool because it’s nothing new anymore (just like how Facebook is un-cool today). Will Waymo’s maintainers be adding new features that benefit the consumer, or will there be pressure to “monetise” it from every angle? And to what extent will brand-conscious automakers go to hide the fact they’re using Waymo, e.g. will they insist on rebranding it - not just for themselves, but between their own sub-brands (e.g. Ford vs Lincoln, or VW and Audi)?
It's kinda weird to think of brain as an X project. DistBelief was developed out in the open in the main source code repo by people you think of as googlers, like Jeff. So what makes it "X"?
My own personal image of X was that if you had to drive to some old Air Force base to see it, it was X. Since brain was software, it doesn’t fit the model.
Waymo may / will earn them some money, either they sell it to a crazy big investor, or they license the technology out to a company backed by a crazy big investor.
Is Brain doing great? From a few things people have said, it sounded like Brain was struggling so Google bought Deep Mind instead. All of the really cutting edge AI stuff has come out of Deep Mind, not Brain.
I strongly disagree. Without a shadow of a doubt, the most successful/important AI model of recent times is the Transformer (from Brain). As another example, the fastest accelerators, TPUs, are from Brain. If you only look at "amount of output" and use # publications at e.g. NeurIPS as proxy, Brain vastly outperforms Deepmind. Deepmind really exceeds at flashy and showy PR releases like AlphaStar, not so much at laying the groundwork for AI breakthroughs. (Though of course AlphaFold or AlphaGo were great).
Brain is not a pure research group. It builds infrastructures/platforms for machine learning related tasks and its research part is relatively small compared to the entire organization.
Just to clarify here, Deep Mind in no way replaces Brain. The AI space, like any other space, isn't a single unified landscape. There are areas where Deep Mind is a true standard setter--particularly deep reinforcement learning (AlphaGo, for example)--and areas where Brain has been one of the standard setters--natural language processing springs to mind, where Brain has historically pushed the field forward with projects like word2vec, BERT, and the Transformer architecture generally.
Brain is also a much more general organization. They do things like develop Tensorflow, which is one of two most popular ML frameworks in the world (and until recently was far and away the most popular), and TPUs, which are ML-dedicated ASICs that have a huge impact on training and inference.
Both orgs are world class and historically important, and they certainly overlap, but they aren't replacements for one another.
alright I'm gonna ask the naive question: how exactly does Brain make money? is it offered as an independent product? or is it's incremental contribution to the rest of Google that high? what even is Brain, to Google devs?
To me it's an umbrella for all of the projects that fell out of an initial realization (by Jeff Dean and his circle) that Google's infrastructure was large enough to put into practice a class of older ML ideas that had spent years being thought infeasible. They developed the means of training huge models, then useful models that resulted from that, and follow-on project like TPUs.
This ignores the cost of sending data wirelessly over cellular networks so remote operators can see the vehicle, the cost of maintaining the software and hardware on the vehicle itself, the cost of maintaining the vehicle fleet, the cost of creating and operating a consumer-facing support system (!!! for Google), the cost of dealing with the enormous amounts of data those vehicles create (even for Google this is not trivial), the cost of maintaining the special HD maps necessary for the vehicles, not to mention the sunk cost of billions spent developing it.
That's not to say you shouldn't dream big (it's a moonshot after all). But there are plenty of reasons to think it won't be viable even if they can solve the technical challenges, and that much still isn't even clear yet.
Most importantly, their fleet could be made obsolete by personal ownership of assisted driving vehicles. So by any of car manufacturers... (Better version of Tesla autopilot for instance.)
The phrase "value of full autonomy" is excluding fleet costs on purpose. It's about drivers.
Customer support is also going to be far far fewer than one person per vehicle.
The enormous amounts of data? If it's not valuable they can just discard it! Having sensors attached to something doesn't obligate you to store it forever.
Everyone knows the software/configuration costs are immense here. But that's the lion's share of the difficulty, and there's no reason to act like minor hurdles are bigger than they are.
> The enormous amounts of data? If it's not valuable they can just discard it!
I'm curious what the legal requirements for this will be. But I imagine they'd want to hold on to data of driving scenarios for at least a month, in case they get accused of wrongdoing by other drivers. If they had no data to back up their case with all those sensors, it would look awfully suspicious and essentially one witness against nobody - so they'd have to hold onto the data for however long the legal teams deem is okay.
This may sound crazy, but it's already happening at the scale of testing with just a few dozen cars.
They can be accused of a crash even if there isn't a crash though. And if they have no data to back up their side of the story, why would any court believe them? In other words - people can just randomly accuse them of hit-and-runs and they'd have nothing to say otherwise.
I don't see how it's any different from accusing random people of a hit and run.
Though enough data to disprove a hit and run wouldn't actually take up very much space. Medium-resolution camera views and some acceleration data? Sure, pop a single SSD in there and it'll hold more than a month's logs.
As an outsider, the reason why Waymo is way ahead is clear. Extremely talented team, access to Google infrastructure and expertise, deep pockets and a culture of prioritizing safety over everything.
Barring some radical breakthrough, progress usually follow an asymptote. Waymo has reached their asymptote after perfecting their autonomous driving for over 10 years, and is still not confident enough to launch it even in their spherical-cow geofence.
The real world is full of edge cases - cameras fogging up, proximity sensors confused by ice buildup, thick fog limiting visibility, sun low on the horizon blinding the cameras, badly marked construction sites, black ice, line markers under snow, potholes, slush, contradictory traffic signs, deep puddles, worn out ruts, suicidal wildlife, road debris, etc. etc.
The full self driving product that people expect isn’t a beta product that’s only available in a special region. To be accessible as running water, decades away is probably accurate estimation.
In the mean time we can all drive around in our self driving cars while we wait for them to become a reality? It doesn't make any sense. Either they exist, albeit in a limited form, or they don't. Does it get you from a to b in most normal daily use cases? If yes, then it counts.
I would apply the 90/90 rule here [0]. It looks ready, but I don't think their safety is up to scratch yet and I'm almost certain the cars aren't safe in adverse conditions.
> Seems like if you really want to make it possible, you can.
More like "if the hard groundwork has been done 60 years ago". It's not as if SpaceX had to quite literally invent the orbital rocket.
So after 60 years of manned spaceflight, 9 manned lunar missions, and 30 years of flying reusable crewed vehicles with a space station that has been permanently crewed since 1998 someone better do it MUCH more cheaply.
The culprit isn't just "space is hard" - it's decades of cost-plus contracts and heavy government involvement that kept costs high and results low.
We don't have the technology to get a person to Mars or to land them when they get there. We probably have the technology to build a spaceship that they could die in on the way there - but that's the closest that we realistically have.
There's much greater radiation exposure away from Earth's magnetic field. I believe this is still an unsolved problem. Proposed solutions for shielding are heavy and expensive.
You just have to keep the lights on and not die of cancer for six months. The radiation isn't that bad.
Edit: The specific number is under 2 millisievert per day. And "One sievert carries with it a 5.5% chance of eventually developing fatal cancer based on the linear no-threshold model."
> We’re currently at a few billion to put a whole horde of them on Mars I believe.
Uh... don't count your Mars shots before they're hatched. Even getting robot probes to Mars is very very hard. Only about half of Mars missions have been successful. In fact, since the fall of the Soviet Union only one organisation has succeeded in putting working probes on the Martian surface: NASA/JPL.
I don't think it's impossible that SpaceX will get there, but certainly not soon and not for "a few billion". If they succeed at all, it will require drawing on years on investment and expertise by NASA.
That's the total cost over the decade+ the program was in existence. Divide by 10 and it becomes roughly 10% of Google's revenue.
So it wouldn't be insubstantial, but they could fund a similar effort if they really wanted to. Shareholders would have a thing or two to say about that though, which is why Elon Musk is keeping SpaceX private.
That's not what the poster meant. It wasn't counting rockets, but the fact that the cost was spread out over multiple years.
Yes, if it were possible to go from zero to moon in one year then that would be all of Google revenue. But spread over 10 years that's just 10% per year.
The parent comment's point is that the money spent on the space program was likely very highly weighted to the first years building that first rocket. So dividing by 10 because it was roughly a decade is probably underestimating the budget needed to get to the moon.
I don’t think anyone was alleging that google should be literally landing people on the moon, so invoking the economics of moon landings specifically is hardly relevant.
At the peak of Apollo program spending in 1966, Dreier says, NASA accounted for roughly 4.4% of the federal budget — 6.6% of discretionary spending — more than the Manhattan Project that developed the first atomic bomb.
Not really; a moonshot is a huge investment to advance the state of the art in something where we know it's possible. It's not a wild shot in the dark.
Well if we're nitpicking, that was the payload, not the Saturn V booster...
But unfortunate though that was, it didn't represent a fundamental uncertainty in the achievability of the goal - simply a fatal engineering mistake, which was immediately rectified.
The point is, how do you know your path is to the Saturn V and not the Soviet N-1? In the case of Google Moonshots, nobody even know if they're going to use a rocket.
I'm sure the N-1 would have worked as well, if the project had been funded (in both time and money) properly. The Soviet failure to reach the moon was a project management failure, rather than the failure of a blind risk to pay off.
Depends how you define things but their work with Deepmind ('Our long term aim is to solve intelligence') is interesting. I'm glad we get breakthroughs in protein folding rather than just ads.
They bought Deepmind though, they didn’t dream it up as a moonshot. Plus you can argue that keeping the talent at Deepmind accessible to Googlers contributes to the development of Google’s internal models, which does mostly contribute to their bottom line.
they missed cloud not because they were too busy. They thought of their internal cloud infrastructure as a competitive advantage to be kept to themselves. Very similar to the Intel's thinking of their own fabs which has brought Intel to the current failure.
Wrt. moonshots - one need to have huge political capital inside the company to carry the high risk of large investment. I.e. one has to be Jobs or Musk. Even Yang failed. How Nadella succeeded it is kind of a miracle. It looks like there are no people of that caliber at Google these days, and without it you have a CFO touting "investing for long term" which in CFO mind obviously means investment like buying real estate and not a technology moonshot.
I think the main problem is they lost the edge on execution. Traditional "vision" is not strictly needed for moonshot projects; the vision for moonshots is provided by a small team working on their idea. But should the technology start panning out, the company needs to focus aggressively on finding a commercial home for this technology.
And this is where I think google (and many big companies) fail. Technologically, Loons worked. I did not believe it when I read about those, but looking at the trajectories in public ADS-B data (those balloons self-advertise) it is clear that they move as designed, doing 2D positioning using only vertical control and can stay afloat for months. Wow! Mission accomplished. But commercially, nothing happened.
I do not know if it was because business types were not sold on it and did not build a commercial case; did the technical team simply live in their own bubble not talking to the outside; something else? But a 10-year "moonshot" project that pans out technologically and fails commercially indicates that the right hand ("internal VC") does not know or care what the left hand (techies) is doing, which is the problem at the company. My 2c.
Well, their target market is very poor people, which is not normally a great segment to expect to be early adopters of expensive new technoogies. Also they're competing against Starlink, which is basically the same concept but in space, which is probably impossible given that LEO is well understood and Musk can launch tons of long-lived satellites quite cheap.
All good points. I am just saying that moonshot projects are supposed to be "very high risk, high reward" projects -- unlikely to work, but if they do would provide big benefits. Your points argue that this is a "high risk, no reward" project, which is not the way to run a 10-year moonshot.
Occasionally starting moonshots as "high risk, uncertain reward" is OK for a short time, but if there is no clear reward on success after a year or two it might be continued as a PR or a charity, but not a moonshot. My 2c.
Selling stolen technology you tried to patent from under the company you suckered into believing into buyout, and then having those patents stripped by the Judge might have something to do with it.
I think so. I used to be a big fan of Google, they made a great search engine, gmail was ahead of the competitors. Even the moonshots were pretty cool/ interesting. Not sure when things went really sideways.
that strive to solve a large, global issue through somewhat charitable actions
Capturing eyeballs and mindshare before anyone else can is hardly charitable. It was 100% for the benefit of themselves, and everyone knows it. Facebook have tried the same scam.
While this could be considered a noble effort, I wish Alphabet would have tried harder. Google has enormous resources and talent. It seems like they dedicated relatively little to aggressively making Loon happen.
When the US took a moon shot, we actually made it to the dann moon. It was very expensive and risky and lives were lost. But we committed ourselves and accomplished the goal no matter what it took.
I hope that these Alphabet projects aren't just pr / recruiting investments disguised as big ideas about the future.
Since Ruth Porat came in they've really trimmed any expenditure that doesn't add straight to the bottom line
It's really hard to be a public company and to take big risks like this. The Apollo Program never would have worked as a startup or public company.
I personally had hoped they told analysts that taking large bets for often no financial outcome is just who Alphabet are - but they folded to the Wall St pressure
They do often tell analysts this. I have heard Ruth say countless times that they invest for the long term. This usually buys lots of time but ultimately it does need to show financial outcome. It would be strange to not expect this.
I am a staunch supporter of the space program, but... the Apollo program also got cut before it had achieved its objectives, and probably never would have made it to the moon at all if Kennedy had lived.
Kennedy was looking to either cancel Apollo (due to skyrocketing costs), or try to get USSR onboard for it (which probably would have caused it to stall). In addition to that, Apollo was extremely unpopular for the entirety of its existence, save for a brief period in the middle of 1969.
The space program's history is very different from what most people imagine it to have been.
I don't think this is a fair characterization of the situation, but my knowledge is mostly based on one book, Reaching for the Moon, a Short History of the Space Race[0], that I recently read.
You're right that Kennedy was ambivalent about it, and that working with the USSR was floated, but ultimately he did decide to go ahead with it. And there were people opposed, but "extremely unpopular" doesn't sound right. Like, I think the majority of the population was broadly in favor.
I worked on Loon for about 3 years. We had a team of over 200 people and launched thousands of balloons. Resource constraints were never the issue. In fact I think the lack of constraints contributed to some bad engineering decisions.
The technology worked. It was, in fact, totally possible to build solar-powered, balloon-borne LTE base stations that provided internet access directly to handheld phones.
But in the end, it was just a fundamentally flawed idea. Satellites don't pop and fall out of the sky. Balloons do, frequently.
Rich DeVaul, a founder of the project who is no longer with Alphabet, said surging demand for mobile connectivity made towers cost-effective in more of the world than he had estimated a decade ago, diminishing the need for Loon. “The problem got solved faster than we thought,” he said in an interview.
the problem is it doesn’t actually solve problems or improve lives in any real way. if they wanted to do that they’d give people mosquito nets and teach them how to read
it’s just corporate PR so people can fawn over them like your post and want to work there or use their products
It's depressing that you both have to worry about being flamed for expressing that view, and that those fears appear to be completely justified based on the responses you're getting. It's quite clear that Google's moonshots are largely about doing good for the world, and building exciting technologies to make the world a better place. And we should be commending them for it. Technology has consistently made the world better, and its been mediated by people and companies with an ethos of innovation, and a maybe slightly naive desire to pursue those goals even when they don't completely make financial sense.
Loon was a clear failure on the inside around year 3. That's when the rate of innovation dropped dramatically and key figures left. Google's main failing was continuing to fund it for a further 6 years with only mediocre progress.
I just choked on my Tea. Did you perhaps miss the fact they stole Loon technology from a company they were in talks of acquiring? got sued, lost, and finally quietly settled?
Given that Starlink will probably solve the same set of problems within a few years (that being access to internet worldwide in areas with minimal infrastructure) this isn't too much of a surprise to me.
You connect to Loon balloons with your regular cellphone whereas StarLink requires a "pizza-box-sized" antenna. They solve slightly different problems.
It's likely easier to set up a solar powered cell tower on the ground with a starlink antenna on top, than to float the same equipment on a balloon though.
That's a 12 inch medium pizza, without the box. An antenna of that size can't be carried by normal people going about their daily lives.
More people are willing to buy a phone and a phone plan (Facebook was even willing to subsidize the plan in India with Internet.org) than buying a phone, a phone plan, an antenna and a StarLink plan. That's even more true for people who aren't internet users yet.
Most people will already have a phone and a phone plan but missing coverage in many places. Starlink makes it pretty cheap and easy for network operators to place solar/wind powered cell towers without need to dig wired connections or make microwave chains. That can seriously speed up the rollout to improve coverage. And users don't have to do anything.
>...the road to commercial viability has proven much longer and riskier than hoped. So we’ve made the difficult decision to close down Loon.
I don't really understand - wasn't the whole premise of Google X and their "Other Bets" that "Google has deep pockets. Let's use this to explore radically big ideas, that are ahead of their time, and let the world catch up to them?"
Bringing "abundant, affordable Internet access, not just to the next billion, but to the last billion" is clearly an investment. You bring them the internet. You spur them to achieve great things. Then you reap the financial rewards.
But that's not a 10-year plan, that's a 20-50-100 year plan. But, there's no reason to think that Google couldn't think like a 20-50-100 year company if they tried.
So what happened? Did they really think that they were going to make money from the poorest 1B people on the planet BEFORE they brought them ubiquitous internet and helped them use that internet to improve their quality of life?
You mean starlink's failure will supplant loon's? Think carefully before you respond. I am one of about 5 engineers to help invent both globalstar and iridium.
> Think carefully before you respond. I am one of about 5 engineers to help invent both globalstar and iridium.
I don't think this kind of warning is a helpful part of the conversation.
If you want to make an argument against Starlink, fine, go ahead and make it. But what is the use of the admonition for someone to "think carefully before they respond"?
It seems to be the only real effect that is intended to have is to deter additional conversation.
Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and ignore your warning, and the credentials you present: I think Starlink is going to be a commercial success. If they solve the satellite interlink problem (which, admittedly, is a big problem), I think it will be a viable path to delivering a global internet solution.
First of all, my comment was in response to a flippant comment "Oh Starlinks gonna win." In that context its more information than the original commenter gave along with their 1-bit opinion.
Oh yeah and I also interviewed with Loon.
Iridium solved the satellite interlink problem (but only wirelessly at 10 Mbps). They could have used laser crosslinks but they didn't know how to implement a search / sync up algorithm (fast sub-second search algorithms were available before iridium was built but they failed to take advantage of the MIT research.)
The basic problem is that Iridium / Globalstar / Loon / Starlink are all fill-in systems for terrestrial internet. And since we've been deploying terrestrial internet for 25Y, the number of places missing higher-speed internet is smaller and smaller each year. All the rich customers have all been reached by faster, cheaper wires. The poor customers ... well they are poor, they will not pay much for service. And there are fewer of them every year ...
No LEO system can actually penetrate a building with a data signal. It's a physics problem with sending a signal 400 mi wirelessly. Reusable rockets don't solve that physics / power problem. Iridium has a special +35dbm channel that can ring a phone inside a building, but you have to walk outside (in the rain, snow, whatever) to take the call. Same with starlink. Physics hasn't changed since the mid 1990s. It is not expected to change in the next billion years, either.
So its just not a smart thing to build satellite internet. period.
Well, look what happened in India: Jio sank $N billion dollars on building out 4G everywhere, and a billion or so people got much better internet access. The answer is clear: we can get there by laying more of the kind of infrastructure we already have in the developed world, and it's just a matter of getting the will to put it in place.
Which is approximately their parent company's yearly operating income. And then they sold 33% of Jio for $21B. (e.g. Google owns 7.7% of Jio for $4.7B).
I believe gravity is what happened, in the particular case of Loon.
I never understood it. It is expensive to keep things fighting gravity. The only way to avoid that is to either a) not put them up above the earth, or b) put them high enough that gravity isn't much of a force, like low earth orbit.
It doesn't take a genius to understand that, but it took Elon Musk to prove it.
Hey, 9 years is a pretty good run for any product, especially a ambitious one with no clear revenue model. And the shuttering is paired with a $10M donation to continue the support of the mission.
I know Google gets hate for shutting things down, but they have hundreds of products – I can't think of any other tech company with such a wide range of products. They make bets, and with bets comes a certain amount of failure. I'd guess they have a better "success" rate than, say, YC.
Does google have anything successful outside of: search, adsense, chrome, chromebooks, and android? Those are all large accomplishments to be sure, but it seems like they should have more products out there that people actually buy.
They have at least a dozen services that have over a billion users. Others not mentioned in your list: Youtube, Photos, Drive, Maps, Gmail, Docs. And probably slightly more trivial ones like translate, calendar, flights, news, finance, and other stuff that are kinda part of search. Their hardware/home line isn't doing that bad either.
I mean, maybe after 15 years they seem status quo. But almost all of these were revolutionary at the time... do you remember videos before Youtube, collaboration before Docs, email before Gmail or maps before Maps?
Yes, Google makes money off ads. But how does that discount them being innovations (which, btw, is a qualification you came up with... nobody above you even said they were).
Maybe the innovation is that Google bought some interesting new translation/mapping/phoneOS thing and made it robust enough to power half the world?
Sure, they bought it because they saw that it will go nicely with their adtech thing.
Or who knows. Really. Google is very big. They always has been quirky and enormously successful and profitable. It's very hard to attribute causality to its actions retroactively, especially because even the small numbers are in the billions range, but they are always dwarfed by the adtech blob.
But there's room for nuance. 74% of their revenue was from adtech in 2019 (11 months, 162B USD)
One of the big problems of Google is that anything that does not integrate with adtech just doesn't really makes sense for them. They have no real model of what to do with things that are not adtech. Chat apps? Whatever the current flavor is. Social network? Yeah, we tried to copy FB, made everyone put +1 buttons everywhere, but ... did not really matter, as it was an insecure hack and it did not really give that oompfh to adtech that they expected.
But they could have kept G+. There's a constant need for a FB alternative. Every time FB fucks up a bunch of people would have tried G+. I'm not saying G+ was good, but shutting it did not make much sense. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I forgot about YouTube and Gmail (things I use daily), so thank you. Maps is amazing too.
My question wasn't to be a jerk. It was a legitimate question asked out if ignorance.
I still kind of feel like they could be in a lot of additional areas like logistics where they could put all their capital and software edge into becoming a global leader.
I think Amazon already has mastered logistic, and it's a pretty difficult field to get into. Similarly, Apple has decades of experience in hardware now. It is definitely hard to find a sector that is large enough yet under developed.
One example of a new one they're trying is Stadia. Gaming in general is an already large and growing sector, and while there have been some attempt at game streaming, none of been as serious. You can see it will be big by the fact that Microsoft (xCloud) and Amazon (Luna) both also jumped in a year later also.
As far as actual moonshots/X go, I believe they have (or had) a few around energy tech. They've funded quite a lot of research into various fusion tech [1]. They also have a lot efforts in Biotech, may it be with Verily, or just DeepMind doing interesting research, such as solving Protein Folding recently [2].
So I definitely wouldn't say they are lacking breadth, honestly if anything it's hard to remember everything they do, as you pointed out :)
Cloud gaming is where we're headed, arguably Google might have been a little early - but they probably rather wanted to be too early than too late.
There's already a few players in this space that are well respected like Nvidia, growth is kinda unavoidable and arguably Stadia gives you the best experience since all games are optimized for it, with the trade-off of having to "rebuy" them outside of Steam.
Keep in mind android they bought, then the leader of that project "resigned" for sexual harassment. So it's continuing but I doubt it'll be more than incremental improvements, as we've seen in the past 5 versions.
But I think Gmail and Maps were fairly innovative products when they came up. Both in terms of "wow I didn't think this would be possible before" and being viable businesses.
I use iOS, and have no love for Android but... that's an insane statement.
There's almost 3 billion android phones out there, and one guy leaving isn't going to cause Google to throw up their hands and shrug. Phones are just really, really good now, and there's not much you can really innovate on.
Honestly this shouldn't even get put in the same pile. The whole point of X is to try moonshot ideas that are truly out there. By definition they are ideas that have a low chance of making it.
Google is cursed by its own success. Any product they release will always be on shaky ground when compared to their advertising and search money-printing monopolies.
At this point, they should give up and settle into their role as the 21st century IBM.
This is not a Google Project, it's an Alphabet 'Moonshot' designed to maybe shake things up, create a market, discover new solutions/opportunities/induce investment with a very high risk profile and no obviously commercial outcome i.e. quasi NGO stuff that VC's won't touch.
There's no way to compare Loon to a regular commercial venture.
It's just stuff the founders want to do and that's fine.
IBM builds their own line of processors and operates some of the biggest supercomputers (e.g. Summit at Oak Ridge). I know at least one guy who works on a pretty ambitious project at Google, and last I talked to him, he lusted after the insanely crazy things he used to get to do in an IBM-internal dev shop.
I am currently reading "The Idea Factory" [1], the story of Bell Labs and its innovation streak for many decades. There were so many amazing things Bell Labs worked on - all directly related to solving business problems. At one point, they were given a task of developing the most perfect lubrication oil dispenser with a requirement that it dispenses exactly 15 drops of oil per squeeze of the trigger. They worked on Tractors that dug channels for laying telephone lines to materials that lead to the invention of the transistor to solve the problem of unreliability of vacuum tube based switch boards. Some worked on improving manufacturing and invented what we call Quality Control. Everything was deep and wide, but still tied to the Bell's business.
When I look at Google X and bunch of modern corporate labs (Lab 126, Facebook probably has something, Intel Labs (drones!), Microsoft Labs), I see a whole lotta hoo haa about tech innovation, but nothing with a long term vision of integration, capitalization and sustenance. No sense of practicality and pragmatism. May be Loon is a way to make Google an internet company (ISP), I could be wrong but as an outsider, it feels like a PR stunt than anything else.
The difference is that Bell scientists were always focused on core business problems and not just chasing fantasies. OK sure, Shannon was doing whatever with mice and unicycles...but he earned it! All of Bells big accomplishments were tightly coupled to business needs: Information theory => everything, transistors => bad vacuums, fiber optics => latency.
Similarly Google has had huge contributions on "research" focused on their core problems: MapReduce, BigTable, Borg, BERT, etc.
I think another very important component was that they were innovating in an area where they had a legal monopoly - there was no risk that their competitors would steal away their inventions. This is not the case with Waymo for instance.
Facebook Reality Labs does VR and AR, eg the Oculus Quest. They innovate and develop great mass-market consumer hardware but they've started doing an awful job in every other respect (their family sharing model sucks compared to Steam). I'm looking forward to see them being disrupted by a real competitor soon.
It seems that something like Loon is much more risky and large scale than those Bell Labs projects - which seem like regular r&d risks (although many of them).
And if it have worked reliably and affordably, they probably could have found some way to monetize it.
This is quite a surprise. Only recently, Loon collaborated with seasoned reinforcement learning researchers to build more efficient navigation controllers for the balloons, titled "Autonomous navigation of stratospheric balloons using reinforcement learning" [1]. Although, it would appear that much of the gains come from a simulator that they've been developing for a while.
Of course. My point was that it appeared like they were actively working on developing new technologies. Usually, a project that is expected to shut down would mostly lose momentum months before. Although, it is possible that this work was done months ago and only came out now due to the slower Nature review cycles.
I think their self-driving cars project is probably what X could be at its peak, incredibly challenging projects, high profit potential, well financed.
Projects like loon seem more like a project that a university would get grant funding to finance.
Think about the many hard problems to be solved. They had cost-effective high-endurance stratospheric balloons - decades of military projects never really got there. They had very detailed stratospheric wind models - decades of atmospheric science research never really got there. They had a flying LTE network. Each of these solutions was almost certainly too expensive and “niche” for any conventional funding agency to consider, but necessary for Loon to work.
Judged by the person who thinks putting cars in tunnels is the solution to urban transit? No thanks. Your average third grader is a more qualified engineer than Elon Musk.
Elon Musk is not an engineer. He hasn't built a thing is his entire life. His biggest accomplishment is hitching a ride on the success of Paypal before getting fired for trying to move their infrastructure to Windows (lol).
My niece, on the other hand, just built a pretty cool rocket out of a soda bottle!
If SpaceX is less comically incompetent than Tesla, I'd wager it's because Elon Musk hasn't been paying as much attention to it.
While SpaceX is in the news, there’s also the Amazon LEO initiative: Project Kuiper. They’ve received FCC approval and have access to Blue Origin rockets to launch.
I don't think they will, but I really wish they would open source and release some technical data on exactly what components/subsystems and design they were using for photovoltaic panels, charge control and monitoring systems, and batteries.
> Isn’t launching a satellite much more expensive than a balloon?
Historically yes, but while I don't know the numbers, a launch provider that is able to reduce the cost by about an order of magnitude might have an advantage here (SpaceX are also launching 60 of them at once).
It also seems like satellites would be a bit less vulnerable to outside interference than balloons.
This summer I had the luck of actually seeing a Loon balloon floating way up in the sky. Viewing it with a telescope was surreal, especially at night, you could see it blink!
Loons are cute toys that got 100x the deserved media attention vs their actual impact. Actual remote internet connectivity is mostly being addressed through the grungy, mind-numbingly routine job of increasing the coverage of terrestrial networks. The folks doing that unrewarding work should get recognition for actually making a difference in people's lives over the long run.
Optical beam link technology is old tech. It's also badly affected by weather and pollution (rain, clouds, fog) which is why people who do point-to-point communications for a living tend to prefer microwave.
IMHO, this is NO different from google closing down any other product. If, however, this news came with a grant of all the patents into the public domain, then it would be another story.
Could a startup set up a commercial balloon based mesh network without running into patents now held by google? Probably not.
THIS is the problem with these "skunkworks" type projects from megacorps. They suck all the air out of the room and prevent others from innovating.
Loon didn't fail, Google/Alphabet just decided they were going to discontinue funding. Now they hold a pool of patents they don't intend to do anything with. Now they will point that funding elsewhere and do the same.
Yes in principle, but probably not for this idea. If a startup was really wanted to take this on, they would be very well funded. At that point, they could easily license/buy any IP monopolies owned by Google.
Well it doesn't need to be a global network of stratospheric balloons - i.e. there are related aspects that could be undertaken with much more limited funding on a local scale.
For example, if you wanted to use a laser link to communicate between two ground-tethered weather balloons, you would need to account for the movements of the balloons to correct the link alignment. Lo and behold, first patent on the list (https://loon.com/legal/patents/) is for that exact thing (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8634974B2/en).
What about control the descent of a balloon by letting out some of the gas? You know, like flight balloons use, but "with a computer". Yep, patent for that too.
LOADS of the patents are basically "mesh network but with ballons"
These are obvious things you would need to do, and yet they are patented.
In short, they took away the ability to do ANY balloon based communications - not just a stratospheric global mesh network of current maneuvering autonomous balloons.
Of course, this shit shouldnt be permitted. The patent system is broken, as we often discuss around here.
IMHO, if these megacorps had ANY honour, they would release all patents to public domain - with revocation clause from another entity if that entity creates a derivative patent without same license. THAT is how to foster innovation - everything else should be a trade secret.
> If, however, this news came with a grant of all the patents into the public domain, then it would be another story...THIS is the problem with these "skunkworks" type projects from megacorps. They suck all the air out of the room and prevent others from innovating.
> Loon didn't fail, Google/Alphabet just decided they were going to discontinue funding. Now they hold a pool of patents they don't intend to do anything with. Now they will point that funding elsewhere and do the same.
They did EXACTLY what you are asking for the last X project that was sunset.
> In 2020 Makani’s journey as a company came to an end. To share the lessons and insights the Makani team gained from their 13 year journey developing an entirely new kind of wind energy technology, the team created The Energy Kite Collection, a portfolio of resources including a technical report, Makani’s entire avionics, flight controls and simulation code repositories, flight logs for every crosswind flight of the M600 prototype, technical videos, a new simulation tool called KiteFAST created with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and a non-assertion pledge for the free use of Makani’s worldwide patent portfolio.
Yeah. This is how prejudice works. It doesn't matter what you do, if you're X you'll be (pre)judged as an X and nothing short of an immaculate behaviour will prevent people from just pointing at some past mistakes or self-serving behaviours to undo all positive actions you may have done
264 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 268 ms ] threadLoon is not competitive in a world with Starlink (even without Starlink it seems).
The business didn’t make strategic sense.
I still really liked their original goal of loon for all and the first video they made for it: https://youtu.be/m96tYpEk1Ao
It’s a little sad they had to downsize and give up. I guess Licklider was right to title the original internet paper an “intergalactic computer network”.
Musk started with interplanetary goals and he’ll at least end up with one that covers the earth.
Loon for all started too small.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_Computer_Network
—-
Related:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23419880
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25601473
But, even if so, look at Google Fiber. Google benefits from networking build out, regardless of if they're providing the network; it's just as good for them if someone else builds the network. If starlink can fill the niche that Loon filled, that works just as well for Google, on someone else's capex/opex.
Or if the freespace optics they worked on for Loon can reduce backhaul costs for traditional cell towers, that might help get more deployed in areas that don't have connectivity; which again works well for Google.
The strategic failure was not recognizing that starlink’s approach to the problem made way more sense.
They didn’t see that as the existential threat it was.
Instead they downsized their implementation to running the network over poor countries and hand waved a bit about being able to provide connectivity in congested areas.
Loon has no viable future in a world with starlink.
Think of the investments in Loon, Taara, SpaceX and Google Fiber as part of a larger strategy to bring internet access with decent bandwidth to a larger number of humans. Some investments will not pan out, others will bear fruit.
Does this make sense for alphabet? I agree that it does as one of their many bets.
Does it make sense for Loon which spun off as its own company under alphabet with its own leadership and its own stock? That’s the strategic failure I’m talking about, Loon’s not alphabet’s.
They invested in multiple potential paths to a global internet. It's not surprising that they'd drop the investments that aren't as promising as the investments that are showing significant promise.
It's like saying I applied to multiple colleges, and because I only accepted one application, that the other applications were a failure. But, no, it could just mean that I preferred to go to the college that I accepted, but the others were a hedge against that path not working out.
That's a real shame if true, because they solve different problems. Loon is like a super high range cell tower and could fill in a lot of gaps.
But yes, you’re right that being able to use LTE and existing phone radios was a point in loon’s favor.
The price per base station is quite high right now. Estimates range from $500 - $2500 (based on teardown)[1].
1 https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/kwkep4/tsp_181_star...
Did any of their moonshots really hit the mark or even come close?
It certainly seems like Google's most likely moon shot to take off. But considering only a few thousand people have used it, it's not exactly a big success.
It’s not a moonshot, it’s an absolute necessity.
That point of mine now has me wondering what Waymo will look like in 10-20 years’ time when autonomous vehicles become both ubiquitous and un-cool because it’s nothing new anymore (just like how Facebook is un-cool today). Will Waymo’s maintainers be adding new features that benefit the consumer, or will there be pressure to “monetise” it from every angle? And to what extent will brand-conscious automakers go to hide the fact they’re using Waymo, e.g. will they insist on rebranding it - not just for themselves, but between their own sub-brands (e.g. Ford vs Lincoln, or VW and Audi)?
Per their wiki article:
> Astro Teller has said that Google Brain paid for the entire cost of Google X
even assuming that Waymo has zero expected future profitability.
My own personal image of X was that if you had to drive to some old Air Force base to see it, it was X. Since brain was software, it doesn’t fit the model.
Great work, Google Brain team!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-youtube-pulled-these-men-d...
https://xtechnews.com/2020/01/28/study-of-youtube-comments-f...
Brain is also a much more general organization. They do things like develop Tensorflow, which is one of two most popular ML frameworks in the world (and until recently was far and away the most popular), and TPUs, which are ML-dedicated ASICs that have a huge impact on training and inference.
Both orgs are world class and historically important, and they certainly overlap, but they aren't replacements for one another.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/e8bfse/way...
If one remote operator can supervise 10 mostly autonomous vehicles, you've gotten 90% of the economic value of full autonomy.
That's not to say you shouldn't dream big (it's a moonshot after all). But there are plenty of reasons to think it won't be viable even if they can solve the technical challenges, and that much still isn't even clear yet.
Customer support is also going to be far far fewer than one person per vehicle.
The enormous amounts of data? If it's not valuable they can just discard it! Having sensors attached to something doesn't obligate you to store it forever.
Everyone knows the software/configuration costs are immense here. But that's the lion's share of the difficulty, and there's no reason to act like minor hurdles are bigger than they are.
I'm curious what the legal requirements for this will be. But I imagine they'd want to hold on to data of driving scenarios for at least a month, in case they get accused of wrongdoing by other drivers. If they had no data to back up their case with all those sensors, it would look awfully suspicious and essentially one witness against nobody - so they'd have to hold onto the data for however long the legal teams deem is okay.
This may sound crazy, but it's already happening at the scale of testing with just a few dozen cars.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/06/gm-settles-with-motorcy...
Though enough data to disprove a hit and run wouldn't actually take up very much space. Medium-resolution camera views and some acceleration data? Sure, pop a single SSD in there and it'll hold more than a month's logs.
The real world is full of edge cases - cameras fogging up, proximity sensors confused by ice buildup, thick fog limiting visibility, sun low on the horizon blinding the cameras, badly marked construction sites, black ice, line markers under snow, potholes, slush, contradictory traffic signs, deep puddles, worn out ruts, suicidal wildlife, road debris, etc. etc.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule
That's about Google's entire revenue for 2020. I don't think even Google could put a man on the moon at those rates. Literal moonshots are expensive.
I prefer to think of a moonshot as longer than a longshot, whatever that might be worth.
It sure is sad though, coming from the acquisition before Google X that had just so many great players throughout.
And SpaceX will soon have the capability to do it with zillion times less. Seems like if you really want to make it possible, you can.
More like "if the hard groundwork has been done 60 years ago". It's not as if SpaceX had to quite literally invent the orbital rocket.
So after 60 years of manned spaceflight, 9 manned lunar missions, and 30 years of flying reusable crewed vehicles with a space station that has been permanently crewed since 1998 someone better do it MUCH more cheaply.
The culprit isn't just "space is hard" - it's decades of cost-plus contracts and heavy government involvement that kept costs high and results low.
Edit: The specific number is under 2 millisievert per day. And "One sievert carries with it a 5.5% chance of eventually developing fatal cancer based on the linear no-threshold model."
But wow what a drawn-out load of nothing a mission like that would be.
Uh... don't count your Mars shots before they're hatched. Even getting robot probes to Mars is very very hard. Only about half of Mars missions have been successful. In fact, since the fall of the Soviet Union only one organisation has succeeded in putting working probes on the Martian surface: NASA/JPL.
I don't think it's impossible that SpaceX will get there, but certainly not soon and not for "a few billion". If they succeed at all, it will require drawing on years on investment and expertise by NASA.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mars-exploration/missions/historical-l...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53589767
So it wouldn't be insubstantial, but they could fund a similar effort if they really wanted to. Shareholders would have a thing or two to say about that though, which is why Elon Musk is keeping SpaceX private.
Yes, if it were possible to go from zero to moon in one year then that would be all of Google revenue. But spread over 10 years that's just 10% per year.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/apollo-11-moon-landing-how-much...
as a percentage of the yearly federal budget, it's not that extreme.
I believe the DoD budget (entirely non-NASA) is presently running around 700 billion a year.
some very quick searching tells me the total federal budget is something like 3500 billion a year. 4.4% of that would be 154bn a year.
No Saturn V rocket ever failed.
But unfortunate though that was, it didn't represent a fundamental uncertainty in the achievability of the goal - simply a fatal engineering mistake, which was immediately rectified.
Wrt. moonshots - one need to have huge political capital inside the company to carry the high risk of large investment. I.e. one has to be Jobs or Musk. Even Yang failed. How Nadella succeeded it is kind of a miracle. It looks like there are no people of that caliber at Google these days, and without it you have a CFO touting "investing for long term" which in CFO mind obviously means investment like buying real estate and not a technology moonshot.
And this is where I think google (and many big companies) fail. Technologically, Loons worked. I did not believe it when I read about those, but looking at the trajectories in public ADS-B data (those balloons self-advertise) it is clear that they move as designed, doing 2D positioning using only vertical control and can stay afloat for months. Wow! Mission accomplished. But commercially, nothing happened.
I do not know if it was because business types were not sold on it and did not build a commercial case; did the technical team simply live in their own bubble not talking to the outside; something else? But a 10-year "moonshot" project that pans out technologically and fails commercially indicates that the right hand ("internal VC") does not know or care what the left hand (techies) is doing, which is the problem at the company. My 2c.
Occasionally starting moonshots as "high risk, uncertain reward" is OK for a short time, but if there is no clear reward on success after a year or two it might be continued as a PR or a charity, but not a moonshot. My 2c.
Selling stolen technology you tried to patent from under the company you suckered into believing into buyout, and then having those patents stripped by the Judge might have something to do with it.
https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/07/29/google-settles-ip...
Was there really ever anything more?
Capturing eyeballs and mindshare before anyone else can is hardly charitable. It was 100% for the benefit of themselves, and everyone knows it. Facebook have tried the same scam.
When the US took a moon shot, we actually made it to the dann moon. It was very expensive and risky and lives were lost. But we committed ourselves and accomplished the goal no matter what it took.
I hope that these Alphabet projects aren't just pr / recruiting investments disguised as big ideas about the future.
It's really hard to be a public company and to take big risks like this. The Apollo Program never would have worked as a startup or public company.
I personally had hoped they told analysts that taking large bets for often no financial outcome is just who Alphabet are - but they folded to the Wall St pressure
https://youtu.be/UYoSyLqv9rM
She does say this quite a bit!
The space program's history is very different from what most people imagine it to have been.
You're right that Kennedy was ambivalent about it, and that working with the USSR was floated, but ultimately he did decide to go ahead with it. And there were people opposed, but "extremely unpopular" doesn't sound right. Like, I think the majority of the population was broadly in favor.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030023046X/
The technology worked. It was, in fact, totally possible to build solar-powered, balloon-borne LTE base stations that provided internet access directly to handheld phones.
But in the end, it was just a fundamentally flawed idea. Satellites don't pop and fall out of the sky. Balloons do, frequently.
> But in the end, it was just a fundamentally flawed idea. Satellites don't pop and fall out of the sky. Balloons do, frequently.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-loon/alphabet-sh...
>>>
Rich DeVaul, a founder of the project who is no longer with Alphabet, said surging demand for mobile connectivity made towers cost-effective in more of the world than he had estimated a decade ago, diminishing the need for Loon. “The problem got solved faster than we thought,” he said in an interview.
it’s just corporate PR so people can fawn over them like your post and want to work there or use their products
I just choked on my Tea. Did you perhaps miss the fact they stole Loon technology from a company they were in talks of acquiring? got sued, lost, and finally quietly settled?
https://www.wired.com/story/the-lawsuit-that-could-pop-alpha...
https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/07/29/google-settles-ip...
https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/innovation-at-amazon/amazon...
More people are willing to buy a phone and a phone plan (Facebook was even willing to subsidize the plan in India with Internet.org) than buying a phone, a phone plan, an antenna and a StarLink plan. That's even more true for people who aren't internet users yet.
I don’t know what kind of barbaric society you hail from, but here in civilization 12” is a small pizza. ;-)
That's quite a bit bigger than even a large pizza.
I measured out 59cm on a measuring tape and compared it to my refrigerator, and that's much larger than any pizza I have ever seen.
I don't really understand - wasn't the whole premise of Google X and their "Other Bets" that "Google has deep pockets. Let's use this to explore radically big ideas, that are ahead of their time, and let the world catch up to them?"
Bringing "abundant, affordable Internet access, not just to the next billion, but to the last billion" is clearly an investment. You bring them the internet. You spur them to achieve great things. Then you reap the financial rewards.
But that's not a 10-year plan, that's a 20-50-100 year plan. But, there's no reason to think that Google couldn't think like a 20-50-100 year company if they tried.
So what happened? Did they really think that they were going to make money from the poorest 1B people on the planet BEFORE they brought them ubiquitous internet and helped them use that internet to improve their quality of life?
I don't think this kind of warning is a helpful part of the conversation.
If you want to make an argument against Starlink, fine, go ahead and make it. But what is the use of the admonition for someone to "think carefully before they respond"?
It seems to be the only real effect that is intended to have is to deter additional conversation.
Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and ignore your warning, and the credentials you present: I think Starlink is going to be a commercial success. If they solve the satellite interlink problem (which, admittedly, is a big problem), I think it will be a viable path to delivering a global internet solution.
Oh yeah and I also interviewed with Loon.
Iridium solved the satellite interlink problem (but only wirelessly at 10 Mbps). They could have used laser crosslinks but they didn't know how to implement a search / sync up algorithm (fast sub-second search algorithms were available before iridium was built but they failed to take advantage of the MIT research.)
The basic problem is that Iridium / Globalstar / Loon / Starlink are all fill-in systems for terrestrial internet. And since we've been deploying terrestrial internet for 25Y, the number of places missing higher-speed internet is smaller and smaller each year. All the rich customers have all been reached by faster, cheaper wires. The poor customers ... well they are poor, they will not pay much for service. And there are fewer of them every year ...
No LEO system can actually penetrate a building with a data signal. It's a physics problem with sending a signal 400 mi wirelessly. Reusable rockets don't solve that physics / power problem. Iridium has a special +35dbm channel that can ring a phone inside a building, but you have to walk outside (in the rain, snow, whatever) to take the call. Same with starlink. Physics hasn't changed since the mid 1990s. It is not expected to change in the next billion years, either.
So its just not a smart thing to build satellite internet. period.
I'd say it was a really good investment for them.
It looks to me like Google made a couple of bets over the last 10 years on different paths to getting worldwide internet access.
One path is looking more promising than the other, so they're culling now.
I never understood it. It is expensive to keep things fighting gravity. The only way to avoid that is to either a) not put them up above the earth, or b) put them high enough that gravity isn't much of a force, like low earth orbit.
It doesn't take a genius to understand that, but it took Elon Musk to prove it.
Meanwhile... Google launched balloons.
See also: FB project Aquila.
Or, I suppose more simply, "weather".
I know Google gets hate for shutting things down, but they have hundreds of products – I can't think of any other tech company with such a wide range of products. They make bets, and with bets comes a certain amount of failure. I'd guess they have a better "success" rate than, say, YC.
(Ugh, I hate defending Google, but alas)
It seems to me they are all boring, obvious, copied, or purchased products that complement their ad selling business.
Yes, Google makes money off ads. But how does that discount them being innovations (which, btw, is a qualification you came up with... nobody above you even said they were).
Hotmail and Mapquest would like to chime in here...
Hotmail was full of spam, insecure and you had to delete your emails when you were done with them.
Mapquest had directions but the maps were static and you couldn’t interact with them.
I’m not saying Google invented email or maps, but they did define how we currently think of them.
Sure, they bought it because they saw that it will go nicely with their adtech thing.
Or who knows. Really. Google is very big. They always has been quirky and enormously successful and profitable. It's very hard to attribute causality to its actions retroactively, especially because even the small numbers are in the billions range, but they are always dwarfed by the adtech blob.
But there's room for nuance. 74% of their revenue was from adtech in 2019 (11 months, 162B USD)
But that means they made 40+ billion from other "stuff" ( https://d3jlwjv6gmyigl.cloudfront.net/images/2020/04/Google-... ).
One of the big problems of Google is that anything that does not integrate with adtech just doesn't really makes sense for them. They have no real model of what to do with things that are not adtech. Chat apps? Whatever the current flavor is. Social network? Yeah, we tried to copy FB, made everyone put +1 buttons everywhere, but ... did not really matter, as it was an insecure hack and it did not really give that oompfh to adtech that they expected.
But they could have kept G+. There's a constant need for a FB alternative. Every time FB fucks up a bunch of people would have tried G+. I'm not saying G+ was good, but shutting it did not make much sense. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
My question wasn't to be a jerk. It was a legitimate question asked out if ignorance.
I still kind of feel like they could be in a lot of additional areas like logistics where they could put all their capital and software edge into becoming a global leader.
One example of a new one they're trying is Stadia. Gaming in general is an already large and growing sector, and while there have been some attempt at game streaming, none of been as serious. You can see it will be big by the fact that Microsoft (xCloud) and Amazon (Luna) both also jumped in a year later also.
As far as actual moonshots/X go, I believe they have (or had) a few around energy tech. They've funded quite a lot of research into various fusion tech [1]. They also have a lot efforts in Biotech, may it be with Verily, or just DeepMind doing interesting research, such as solving Protein Folding recently [2].
So I definitely wouldn't say they are lacking breadth, honestly if anything it's hard to remember everything they do, as you pointed out :)
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/05/29/135179/google-ha...
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4
There's already a few players in this space that are well respected like Nvidia, growth is kinda unavoidable and arguably Stadia gives you the best experience since all games are optimized for it, with the trade-off of having to "rebuy" them outside of Steam.
But I think Gmail and Maps were fairly innovative products when they came up. Both in terms of "wow I didn't think this would be possible before" and being viable businesses.
There's almost 3 billion android phones out there, and one guy leaving isn't going to cause Google to throw up their hands and shrug. Phones are just really, really good now, and there's not much you can really innovate on.
At this point, they should give up and settle into their role as the 21st century IBM.
There's no way to compare Loon to a regular commercial venture.
It's just stuff the founders want to do and that's fine.
When I look at Google X and bunch of modern corporate labs (Lab 126, Facebook probably has something, Intel Labs (drones!), Microsoft Labs), I see a whole lotta hoo haa about tech innovation, but nothing with a long term vision of integration, capitalization and sustenance. No sense of practicality and pragmatism. May be Loon is a way to make Google an internet company (ISP), I could be wrong but as an outsider, it feels like a PR stunt than anything else.
Highly recommend this book.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Idea-Factory-Great-American-Innovatio...
Similarly Google has had huge contributions on "research" focused on their core problems: MapReduce, BigTable, Borg, BERT, etc.
And if it have worked reliably and affordably, they probably could have found some way to monetize it.
Oh, and Fire TV, and Echo.
Yeah, Lab 126 definitely did its job. Literally every product integrates is a core part of the Amazon experience.
[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2939-8
https://storage.googleapis.com/x-prod.appspot.com/files/Gimb...
I think their self-driving cars project is probably what X could be at its peak, incredibly challenging projects, high profit potential, well financed.
Projects like loon seem more like a project that a university would get grant funding to finance.
Musk is offering $100 million to the team providing the best carbon capture technology.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-musk-carbon-capture/e...
My niece, on the other hand, just built a pretty cool rocket out of a soda bottle!
If SpaceX is less comically incompetent than Tesla, I'd wager it's because Elon Musk hasn't been paying as much attention to it.
In a world in which satellites stayed very expensive I could imagine it being a bit more successful.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-lawsuit-that-could-pop-alpha...
this project was dead in the water a long time ago, and for years
For example, providing Loon antennas to a telecom provider, and decreasing the infrastructure cost of setting up networks.
Historically yes, but while I don't know the numbers, a launch provider that is able to reduce the cost by about an order of magnitude might have an advantage here (SpaceX are also launching 60 of them at once).
It also seems like satellites would be a bit less vulnerable to outside interference than balloons.
Then they served their real function: marketing
Could a startup set up a commercial balloon based mesh network without running into patents now held by google? Probably not.
THIS is the problem with these "skunkworks" type projects from megacorps. They suck all the air out of the room and prevent others from innovating.
Loon didn't fail, Google/Alphabet just decided they were going to discontinue funding. Now they hold a pool of patents they don't intend to do anything with. Now they will point that funding elsewhere and do the same.
For example, if you wanted to use a laser link to communicate between two ground-tethered weather balloons, you would need to account for the movements of the balloons to correct the link alignment. Lo and behold, first patent on the list (https://loon.com/legal/patents/) is for that exact thing (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8634974B2/en).
What about control the descent of a balloon by letting out some of the gas? You know, like flight balloons use, but "with a computer". Yep, patent for that too.
LOADS of the patents are basically "mesh network but with ballons"
These are obvious things you would need to do, and yet they are patented.
In short, they took away the ability to do ANY balloon based communications - not just a stratospheric global mesh network of current maneuvering autonomous balloons.
Of course, this shit shouldnt be permitted. The patent system is broken, as we often discuss around here.
IMHO, if these megacorps had ANY honour, they would release all patents to public domain - with revocation clause from another entity if that entity creates a derivative patent without same license. THAT is how to foster innovation - everything else should be a trade secret.
> Loon didn't fail, Google/Alphabet just decided they were going to discontinue funding. Now they hold a pool of patents they don't intend to do anything with. Now they will point that funding elsewhere and do the same.
They did EXACTLY what you are asking for the last X project that was sunset.
From https://x.company/projects/makani/:
> In 2020 Makani’s journey as a company came to an end. To share the lessons and insights the Makani team gained from their 13 year journey developing an entirely new kind of wind energy technology, the team created The Energy Kite Collection, a portfolio of resources including a technical report, Makani’s entire avionics, flight controls and simulation code repositories, flight logs for every crosswind flight of the M600 prototype, technical videos, a new simulation tool called KiteFAST created with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and a non-assertion pledge for the free use of Makani’s worldwide patent portfolio.
However, this is certainly not the norm. Lets see if it holds true for Loon.
Talk about bias...
They dont own any patents, they stole the tech from a startup, got sued, lost (patents) and finally had to settle.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-lawsuit-that-could-pop-alpha...
https://www.law.com/therecorder/2019/07/29/google-settles-ip...