What is Digg?Sponsored by adult swim
Aqua Teen Hunger Force view!
adultswim.com - Carl sings "I'll Be Home This Christmas" from the new Aqua Teen CD. Click here to watch. You almost kind of feel sorry for the guy.
93 Comments
- slimasian, on 12/01/2007, -0/+51After seeing Google's next strategy, you have to pause and admire their "grand scheme."
1) Announce and release completely open Android platform for wireless devices, signing on 30 devices for 2008 to be based on it
2) Announce and release completely open social networking platform that will be device agnostic, signing on major players in the social networking scene
3) Announce and (hopefully) succeed in getting 700 Mhz
Google truly is trying to reinvent the mobile experience. The thing of it is, you have US wireless carriers always claiming to reinvent the mobile experience with some fancy UI or some special integration with just their network...and here comes Google saying, you know what, this is not good enough. This is going to be an exciting time for mobile computing...go Google! - j4200, on 12/01/2007, -2/+48"Google has revealed the worst-kept secret in the tech world"
"Google's interest in the 700MHz spectrum auction has not been a secret" - pussieLicker, on 12/01/2007, -1/+34When other companies get greedy, google comes in and kicks some ass.
- fejimush, on 12/01/2007, -6/+30Go Google!
- theOster, on 12/01/2007, -1/+19been using googles products for years - can't say i've ever been sick of the ads.
- fejimush, on 12/01/2007, -4/+21It wouldn't be surprising if the majority of Google executives are open-minded progressive thinkers (not necessarily in the political sense).
It's also refreshing to witness a corporate entity with principles other than greed!
Forward the Google Foundation! - TheColonel, on 12/01/2007, -1/+17because any one of those 18 year old kids could turn into the founder of the next google, myspace, facebook, or even digg, or heaven forbid, a new technology platform that in 3 years we'll all say "*****, i coulda started THAT"
digg gives everyone the platform to stand and speak, and if they say something good, people listen. if they don't, no one listens. but it gives a voice to someone that has the potential to become someone .. is that really a bad thing? - ScottDaMan, on 12/01/2007, -1/+17// Ready to submit -- Really, honestly, like OMGWTFBBQ, seriously! Google + 700Mhz = REAL!!
- plbland, on 12/01/2007, -1/+16You had me at BBQ :o)
- Amablue, on 12/01/2007, -0/+12If any company is going to advertise to me, I want to to be google. At least they're not in-your-face, and they're relevant.
- Jorge777, on 12/01/2007, -0/+12Yes, it's what our current analog over the air channels are broadcasting on
- TomFrost, on 12/01/2007, -1/+12If you *weren't* hearing about it, then that would be "not good". The owner of this spectrum will get to dictate the advancement (or lack thereof) of technology in the United States -- thereby affecting the rest of the world -- for many years to come. If AT&T or Verizon buys this spectrum, we won't see half the technological innovation that we'd see with Google, simply because of the conglomerates' obvious wishes to lock it down as much as they're (il)legally allowed, keeping this new wireless range still at a level that's below what much of Europe has.
There's a lot of underhanded dealings going on to control the FCC into keeping Google out of the running for this, and the general American public has no idea. They don't understand that one of the same-old big telcos getting this would mean that we stay in the comparative dark ages. Getting everyone to aware of it is the first step. So if you're getting sick of how much you see it, my response would be "good, then maybe someone else is just now learning about it." - slimasian, on 12/01/2007, -0/+11Agreed with TheColonel, what makes digg so great is giving a relatively democratic platform for people to speak their views.
@undersky: Do I really come across as an 18 year old kid? :) No worries my friend, simply a technology professional enthused at a new development platform. - arjie, on 12/01/2007, -0/+10It's worth so much money because of the huge number of people who visit it every day. You seem to think that the purpose of digg was to be a think tank or something.
Anyway, here's some advice. Learn to treat things on their own merit not on the age or social stature of the person saying it. I can understand if you apply that criteria to claims of fact, but when it comes to an argument where the facts are indisputable you must argue the logic, not the person. Who cares if he's 18? If you disagree with what he says you must have some reason. Explain what it is. If you don't have a reason, perhaps you are being irrational. - lazyrussian, on 12/01/2007, -0/+9Keep your assumptions to yourself, they're not welcome here.
- AndrewWiggin, on 12/01/2007, -0/+8First sentece, he is saying that they didn't keep it a secret, hence it was the "worst-kept" secret.
Second sentence, obviously he is saying again that it was not kept a secret. - inactive, on 12/01/2007, -0/+8google's power is simple, it's so simple, I already said it. It's its simplicity.
Simple google.com front page was THE reason it took off. If you notice, ANYTHING they do is based on it. Recently they made a "checkout" page for purchases you can do with "google checkout"; if you do purchase something the user screen has only three things: your address/edit, your card/payment method/edit, you order history. What else do you need?
Simplicity. Google's power. - EndersGame, on 12/01/2007, -0/+7I only hope Google intends on winning the auction, instead of just making sure the auction makes it past the $4.6 billion limit in order to have their conditions met.
- inactive, on 12/01/2007, -1/+8Gimmie a phone that works...oh and please keep frickin ads off it.
- neo1513, on 12/01/2007, -0/+7what part of "not necessarily in the political sense" is that difficult to understand?
- inactive, on 12/01/2007, -1/+8When the say "Do no evil" as their motto they really mean it.
- LocalDocal, on 12/01/2007, -0/+7JQP,
Yes, we get it. Google is all about advertising. Do you have to make a dozen comments about the same thing? - Amablue, on 12/01/2007, -0/+6Goddamn would you stop spamming that same line over and over again.
Yes, they want to make money. No *****. They're a company. The difference is that they make products with the user's interest in mind, actively make their products better, and put a lot of effort into making ethically sound business choices. The other companies gimp your hardware, limit your choices, and charge your for stuff that should come free or near free (like texting, the first example that comes to mind) - fuzzmeister, on 12/01/2007, -0/+6It's "Don't be Evil", actually, which is quite different than "Do No Evil". Also, advertising is the only way Google can provide good services without charging for them. If you want high-quality services that don't track you for ads, you'll only find services that you have to pay for.
- roflsd, on 12/01/2007, -0/+5Quite a jump there.
Google wants the 700 spectrum to open it up to anyone that wants to use it. This means a cell phone provider could create their own device with an open OS like Andriod that you could put whatever apps you want on it, and you can pick your carrier that provides service on the 700 MHz spectrum. Google will then have the ability to make and sell a phone/OS/service which you could choose to purchase over a multitude of other phones/platforms/services in which case their phone might have a lower price because it has some adverts on it.
So,
Does Google directly profit from this? -No
Would this require you to buy something from Google? -No
Does this create a new arena for competitive business that would benefit the people and businesses? - Very much - inactive, on 12/01/2007, -1/+6No you didn't.
- moocow1452, on 12/01/2007, -0/+5Hrm, I see your point.
- JQP123, on 12/01/2007, -2/+6Not at all. But I'm not naive either and I do prefer to call a spade a spade.
Most people here seem to think that Google's highest priority is something other than making money and being successful. I find it highly hypocritical that people who object to on-line advertisers using browser cookies for tracking seem to have no problem with Google profiling them through some much more invasive techniques in order to deliver targeted advertising. - Neem, on 12/01/2007, -2/+6Sounds like the setup line for the next Bruce Willis movie, the rest might go like this:
A company with nothing to lose, in a world filled with monopolistic duchebags.....
THIS IS SPARTAAAAA! - slimasian, on 12/01/2007, -1/+5kupo? :)
- Amablue, on 12/01/2007, -0/+3Google wouldn't do verbal ads. It would be a turn off for the customer, and thus they wouldn't be able to sell it well. They'll find a better way to do it. The people at Google aren't idiots.
- blast_flame, on 12/01/2007, -0/+3Google innovates plenty. For instance Google allows its employees 20% of their time or one whole day of the work week to work on their own projects.
- RoboDonut, on 12/02/2007, -0/+3How did you manage to shift from "Die Hard" to "300" in one line?
- undersky, on 12/01/2007, -1/+4u telling me digg listens to "something good?" digg listens to something witty, or sensational, or apple, or bad ass, or plain stupid, in other words, popular and resonating with the digg population. if that happens to be good, sure, but digg could only say things as good as its average intelligence. everything deviated from the mainstream is discouraged and silenced through the dugg system.
- Akaji, on 12/01/2007, -0/+3Yep, they tend to keep them pretty unobtrusive. I'm all for Google taking over the world if it means more freedom from corporate tyranny.
- JQP123, on 12/01/2007, -1/+3"When other companies get greedy, google comes in and kicks some ass."
But only if they have a way to make tons of money in the process. - ScottDaMan, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2Damnit people are digging down an MTV reference? WTF is the world coming to..........
- TomFrost, on 12/02/2007, -0/+2Google Maps. Google Docs. Gmail. Google SMS. GOOG-411. Plans and proof-of-concept for a wide-access WiFi network. ALL of these things for absolutely no cost and extremely minimal advertising, if any. ...How could you possibly consider any of these things to be NOT innovate at the time google released them? They have an obvious dedication to producing the best products with little to no fees or ad annoyance to the consumer. AT&T and Verizon both fail when you get to the "obvious dedication" part. And again at the "best products" part.
- skyshock1, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2So if Google does end up winning the 700 Mhz spectrum, what then? They still have to put up all the infrastructure (towers) for a nation-wide wireless network for it to run on.
This might take a while..... - kristianfreeman, on 12/01/2007, -1/+3This whole entire thread is just stupid.
- inactive, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2what does all this mean? I don't understand.
- AndrewWiggin, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2Who gets the money?
- blast_flame, on 12/01/2007, -1/+3You just hate people making money/successful people/capitalism don't you?
- fuzzmeister, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2...advertising which is simple. By deciding to go with targeted, text-only ads, Google had far more success than if they had used flashy banners.
- nfollmer, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1Damn, I meant summarize, not summaries
- djadamjay, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1moot
- 586FAC75, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1No, seriously I did.
- RCourtney, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1Whoever wins it will have to roll out phones/devices that work on it - thats a mute point. And the big telcos want it for plenty of reasons, not the least of which are control of a finite resource and the ability to expand beyond their current offerings. I remember a financial news article stating the general valuation of the spectrum back when Google first offered up the 4.6B reserve price was that it would go for around 15B. For Google, controlling what gets on that spectrum (devices that can support their ads being primary), and expanding their reach to our everyday lives in the form of a cellphone like device which serves their ads is, in the long run, probably worth a lot more than they will pay for the spectrum.
- withoutashovel, on 12/01/2007, -1/+2I dunno why you're digging him down. Actually I don't get why some articles people digg someone down for posting something that came before it and others the dupe is the top comment.
- JQP123, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1"But think of the work the existing cell companies will have to do to get their equipment working on a new frequency."
Install a new transmitter or modify an existing one. As for the phones, getting them to work on a new frequency should be a fairly simple re-design. The only physical change required may be the antenna design. With a modern phone design, most everything is driven by software anyway. Since they're always producing new models, they could easily work this in and happily so since it would give the user another reason to upgrade. -
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
