What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
67 Comments
- martrinex, on 07/12/2009, -0/+112Yes because opening 45 free twitter accounts is the same as spending billions of dollars buying twitter.
- inactive, on 07/12/2009, -4/+65Why would Google buy an unprofitable piece of crap?
- mrpunman, on 07/13/2009, -0/+15Why are you talking like a newscaster?
- inactive, on 07/13/2009, -2/+14Anybody wanna pitch in and buy Twitter with me? I've got $27 bucks in my wallet.
Who's in? - DavidTurnbull, on 07/13/2009, -1/+12To those asking the question, Google would buy Twitter because they could then tap into the hundreds of thousands of links being shared in real time and integrate those results into their search engine. In the case of Michael Jackson's death, people probably Twittered about the TMZ article. Although I'm sure Google indexed that page pretty fast, if they could tap into the data Twitter provides they could be including relevant results of news happening in real time.
- arunforce, on 07/13/2009, -2/+12Except Twitter isn't worth "billions of dollars."
- ralphthemagi, on 07/13/2009, -0/+9Wait, you mean YouTube?
Google's business is information. The more they know about you, the better they can target ads at you. Twitter provides real-time information about users. They could target ads to you based on what you are thinking at that very moment.
Hell, given the amount of geolocation that comes along with Twitter these days, they could probably target digital billboard ads based on the location of tweets. - sandipc, on 07/13/2009, -0/+8what's with - the - hyphens?
- inactive, on 07/13/2009, -0/+7Oooh, the couch. I didn't even think of that. Alright, we're well over $30 now.
- Twenty5, on 07/13/2009, -0/+7Part 1: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25pics/3713572643/siz ...
Part 2: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25pics/3714385858/siz ... - popstation, on 07/13/2009, -0/+6I got like $3 bux I think and probably I can gather some change from my couch
- DavidTurnbull, on 07/13/2009, -0/+6URL privacy? You do realize that Twitter is made up of public profiles and messages...
- yocouchdigga, on 07/13/2009, -0/+6ami - doinit - rite?
- koshythomas, on 07/13/2009, -0/+5We believe that YouTube is used indirectly to drive profits at the parent, and that Google is currently incentivised to keep these profits hidden from prying eyes. The key indirect benefits accruing to Google of owning YouTube are as follows:
YouTube gains Google a critical slice of growing online video eyeballs, which will attract more marketing dollars to the Internet as a whole. This is much more important in the USA, where the main competitor Hulu is ad-funded than the UK, where the BBC iPlayer is taxpayer funded;
YouTube gains Google yet more important meta-data which can be cross-pollinated with data from other Google services;
YouTube traffic strengthens Google specifically in peering negotiations and generally in network design;
YouTube is probably a small fraction of Google’s overall cost base, and the spin-off benefits from lower overall unit costs;and
YouTube positions Google very powerfully for a key role as a gatekeeper in the copyright world.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/26/google_you ... - PhoenixAvatar2, on 07/13/2009, -0/+5What was done to Youtube? I don't have any complaints about it, besides the occasionally buggy video.
- inactive, on 07/13/2009, -0/+5No, just an insane amount of privacy.
- CaughtThinking, on 07/13/2009, -0/+4Here's what I read: blah blah blah blah blahblahblah blah blah
and so on. - bkrangel, on 07/13/2009, -1/+5Better question: Why doesn't Google just marry it if it loves it so much?
- inactive, on 07/13/2009, -0/+4I think it's just the two of us,popstation. This could be tough.
But that's good, though.Most of the big internet ventures are run by duos, like Yahoo! with Jerry Yang and the other guy, Google with Sergey Brin and the other guy, or Digg with the other guy and the other guy.
Anyway, I can probably smoke generic cigarettes this week and save 10 bucks that way. Can you scrape up another ten? That would give us $50, which would be really good, cuz we need go to the bargaining table with a nice, round number. - seanrtilley, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3So let me get this straight...Google has 45 different accounts for the different parts of the companies. Geez, that sounds a lot more like using Twitter as an organizational tool. Buried for ***** crackpot conspiracy.
- ivand67, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3Just use Adblock
- Leprince, on 07/13/2009, -1/+4How come this its the front page?
- CaughtThinking, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3ROFL. Someone thinks coders with Twitter accounts are the people who run the business.
- rmartin8484, on 07/13/2009, -2/+5Twitter is stupid. I dont see the point to tell people what you are doing every minute of every day.
- rezivor, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3Colonel Sanders doesn't like twitter. Not a surprise
- Palaceguard, on 07/13/2009, -1/+3And I don't see the point making comments on digg
- rmartin8484, on 07/13/2009, -0/+2its like ok...im typing on here...so im gonna post it on twitter. oh, now im eating a bagel - better twitter that one too. and NOW im going to the bathroom. .....Gonna twitter that also.
NO ONE CARES - l800LEMMINGS, on 07/13/2009, -0/+2maybe if they weren't working on the wave
- PhoenixAvatar2, on 07/13/2009, -0/+2Adblock. I've never heard of the ads you mentioned until now.
- inactive, on 07/13/2009, -0/+2Better question: Why doesn't Google just buy the internet if they love it so much?
- inactive, on 07/13/2009, -3/+5That mentality is sooooo pre-Iranian election fraud .
- trac3r, on 07/13/2009, -0/+2they just going to build their own twitter someday, with blackjack and hookers
- DarkShadow791, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1There is such a thing as private profiles, and they are used more often then you'd probably think.
- 96EK4, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1In fact, just forget the blackjack and the twitter!
- theOster, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1you dont follow people like that, if you do, then you're doing it wrong. twitter is made fro breaking news. blurbs that joe citizen can post before cnn even konws whats ahppening. living in new york, i've searched twitter on several occasions and gotten much more info that any other "news" source.
and just to point out the trend if it isn't obvious - communication will always bleed out from the few to the many. it used to be the church and govt that told you whatever info they thought appropriate, then came the printing press, radio, television, the internet, webpages, blogs, and now twitter. it's getting to the point where anyone can have a voice.
and it's not leaving anytime soon, so i'd suggest just learning to live with it. - Shaggy3, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1Because Google isn't stupid.
- DarkShroud, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1@DavidTurnbull, there is a big difference between being able to see something and index it as opposed to Google having direct access to everything.
- linagee, on 07/13/2009, -2/+3Thousands of dollars. Maybe hundreds.
- flamyngo, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1I wish I could type peewee herman's laugh... I'd put that right here.
- gubatron2, on 07/13/2009, -2/+3"unprofitable"?
innocence is bliss. Look at the links inside twitter.com and think again. Can't imagine what a sponsored link that doesn't look like an ad costs on that site.
Also data mining, and real time access to its data are worth millions a month. - inactive, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1you have an extremely unrealistic and ignorant view of how much online advetising is worth to anyone but the person supplying the ads.
- rodrigo74, on 07/13/2009, -1/+2At least the places I watch (CNN, BBC World etc) have been using Twitter more and more, not less, to my extreme annoyance.
- DavidTurnbull, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1I never saw that article so obviously it wasn't the same people...and I'm not saying integrate Twitter with Google, I'm saying they could use the data to held mould search results. It's not like there'd be a separate column with "Results from Twitter" or anything.
- inactive, on 07/13/2009, -1/+2A better question is WHY buy them?
Google already took a major bath with the YouTube fiasco. They are probably a little gun shy about pulling off any major acquisitions right now. Esepcially with a looming dot com bubble burst that could very well see the value of hteir own company decrease by 75% or more. - inactive, on 07/13/2009, -1/+2Haha I was gonna say exactly the same thing. Twitter is one of the most wanted stupid invention.
"My snake had a heart attack." - my tweet - inactive, on 07/13/2009, -1/+1Really? You have only about $20 to your name?
- inactive, on 07/13/2009, -0/+0koshy...yes...the register BELIEVES that. They are wrong, but they believe that. First of all, what they are suggesting that Google is doing is illegal. And second of all, it is absurd. YouTube is not drawing more people to Google.com. Certianly not NEARLY enough to make up not only the tens, if not hunderds of millions of dollars a year that YouTube is losing on its own, but also enough to actual show a return on their investment.
That ridiclous Register article was written by an obviously delusional fanboy who thinks that google can do no wrong and that eveyrone on the internet sees them as some great company that never makes a mistake. He is wrong on all counts. - inactive, on 07/13/2009, -0/+0When Microsoft announced they were integrating Twitter with Bing to do this, everyone on Digg said it was stupid and htey didn't wantthis.
If Google ever did htis, it would be the smartest move ever, according to the very same people on Digg. - rmartin8484, on 07/19/2009, -0/+0well everyone that uses it always updates what they're doing all day and its retarded. good thing i dont use twitter.
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is