What is Digg?91 Comments
- SomeImagination, on 07/05/2008, -7/+56Maybe Digg will be on there some day
- vinceislegend, on 07/06/2008, -1/+40Ever verbs they all are. Grammar some improving.
- SystemError51, on 07/06/2008, -0/+34Check out the other side of the coin, the list of companies Microsoft purchased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_acq ... - MavRevMatt, on 07/06/2008, -0/+26It does, but they're listed as notes on the bottom.
Baidu: Purchased a 2.6% share
AOL: Purchased a 5% share
Xunlei: Purchased a 4% share - MavRevMatt, on 07/06/2008, -0/+20You mean a search that would actually work? No way!
- jb0nd38372, on 07/06/2008, -2/+21If google was to aquire digg it could turn out to be an interesting purchase. Imagine being able to search for a term and having said term come up with a long list of comments about said term :P
- inactive, on 07/05/2008, -8/+20it would be nice for the list to say somewhere which ones were full acquisitions and which were partial. i know for sure that google only owns a small piece of Baidu and AOL, for example.
- Texmurphy01, on 07/06/2008, -0/+12I'm pretty sure they didn't derive Google Video from their YouTube acquisition.
- markbao, on 07/06/2008, -0/+9What about Writely? That was made into Google Docs.
- Temo1, on 07/06/2008, -0/+8Because you don't get Digg's relatively large community?
- MavRevMatt, on 07/06/2008, -0/+7This list is pretty useful to see how all these things fit into Google's services/what they became. Like Postini is used in Gmail now, but other things like Dodgeball have never surfaced in anything, although some people think Dodgeball helped in the creation of the modern Android platform kind of like they think Jaiku and Reqwireless were. Of course it looks like they bought Android, which I didn't know, in 2005. Quite interesting. I'd bet they weren't going to do anything with it until they needed to, such as when the iPhone came out, rather than waste time and money.
- e2superman, on 07/06/2008, -0/+6Google is as anti-competetive as MSFT. If you are a threat and have an innovative product they buy you out.
- yozef, on 07/06/2008, -0/+6Thats whats Wikipedia is for. You can click the edit button on top... and do it yourself :-)
- ElBeh, on 07/06/2008, -0/+6You can already do that with Google search. Just type in "Site: Digg " and you;ll get results for that term that are on Digg.
- addicted68098, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4Microsoft is a She
- LeeSoong, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5# 55 : Maine.
Through a little known legal loophole, google purchased the entire state of Maine.
The whole state will be converted into a water cooled server farm. - markbao, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4Google bought Baidu‽ Didn't see this.
EDIT: oh, 2.6% of it. That counts as an acquisition? - MaxIsBored, on 07/06/2008, -1/+5The googles are taking over.
- MacHarborGuy, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3News Corp
- fotoman, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3I was at one of those companies when Google walked in the door. Interesting how it only took 3 months for things to be finalized and 2 1/2 months after that for a new product to be released under the Google name, not just rebranded, but a new product derived from the technology acquired.
I was a contractor at the time, so I couldn't come along... :-( - tiiim, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3We already see a zillion articles bashing Microsoft.
- pw378, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3Google's stock has started its about turn? I think you confuse a burst of enthusiasm that briefly pushed the stock over $700 with a collapse in economic fundamentals or growth... Sorry, but Google is still growing at 40-50% year over year which is unheard of for a company as big as Google... This company has a long way to go and nothing in its path to slow it down...
- ZimbuTheMonkey, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3dMarc Broadcasting is listed as being bought for 1.2 billion, but it is actually supposed to be 102 million. Someone fix that.
- joe90210, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3this is how it's going to be in the future, the telecom companies all buy each other until 1 or 2 are left and the Google's and Microsoft's will buy up all the internet companies
- opiniastrous, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2What the ***** is wrong with Wikipedia!?
Wikipedia will be one of this century's greatest sources of information. Yes, it has been subject to controversy, given that it's so easy to edit, but vandals will tire of changing Wikipedia pages, methods for certifying information will strengthen, references from other sources will multiply and over time, Wikipedia can only improve.
I am going to go ahead and say that you are a currently studying at university. Hence, the notion that using Wikipedia for information is 'a new low'. A lot of lecturers push this idea on their student not because Wikipedia is wrong about everything, but because the information is hard to verify and academics are very keen on maintaining a culture of referencing throughout academia. Why? Well, there are two main reasons:
1) referencing helps to prevent falsification and abuse of information, and
2) referencing helps to protect the work of academics.
Now, although Wikipedia has encountered difficulties with vandalism, falsification and abuse of information, the situation can only continue to improve as more and more contributors fact-check information and add references, making vandalism, falsification and abuse difficult. Over time, the problem will dissipate under the sheer weight of cross-referencing, the lack of incentive to misrepresent information (and in the few cases where there is an incentive to misrepresent information, the chance of being publicly exposed for doing so). This is not the case in academia because unlike Wikipedia, individuals claim credit for all the knowledge they write about, creating a constant incentive to lie or misrepresent information.
This is connected to the second point, that academics are concerned with the protection of their own intellectual property because it is connected to their fame and livelihoods. From this perspective, they are not as concerned with the spread of knowledge as they are with self-protection and promotion.
So in conclusion, referencing improves the likelihood that the information you read is accurate. However, referencing does not make information accurate. That quality is inherent to the information itself. Hence, it is possible for Wikipedia to be perfectly accurate without ANY references. That's in theory of course, but as I said, in reality Wikipedia can only get stronger. Don't you recall reading articles about Wikipedia being more accurate than number of closed encyclopaedias? I do. - FutureGuy, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Since its MS the obligatory comment.
"They don't innovate, they just buy companies.."
/s - xtractor, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2i had to read the sentence "ever who they all are" several times to make sure it wasn't my eyes messing me up.
- pw378, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Google sold its Baidu shares a long time ago...
- Coolaborations, on 07/06/2008, -4/+6It's interesting how the list stops abruptly when the GOOG share price stopped skyrocketing (and started its about turn).
I knew about Applied Semantics before it was acquired by Google; also their acquisition of UseNet (Deja) was an obvious indication that Google was no longer *organizing* information -- instead, they prefer to *OWN* it (same deal with YouTube -- only I think that was a really big mistake... perhaps it will later be remembered as "the beginning of the end"?) - ZimbuTheMonkey, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2I'm a wiki-virgin... so I'm too scared to touch that stuff.
- inactive, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2The only plus side of Google acquiring Digg that I can think of is the LONG AWAITED fix of the Digg search.
- leakus, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Go on the wikipedia discussion page and change it.
- iChaz, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1when kevin decides he wants to move to other ventures, he'll probably be pretty psyched to get a deal offer from google.
- trendy59, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1don't forget their massive partnerships as well, like tele atlas being the sole provider for a majority of their mapping data affecting applications such as the gps app being used on the i phone
- Tyrghast, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Ravatar has a point, we usually take what we want. That's because with housing, utilities, food and gas what they are, we can't afford entertainment.
- adidos, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1@Zimbu: Break your wiki-hymen. But just like your first time in bed, be careful, go slow, and make sure you get it in the right place.
- zydeco, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1I'd take that bet, since it's wrong. Andy Rubin founded Android after selling Danger (makers of the Sidekick), and had a track record of developing mobile phone software. So why would he sell the company to someone that "wasn't going to do anything with it"? And even so, how do figure that anyone at Google knew about the iPhone while it was under development all those years? Half of *Apple* didn't even know it was under development!
Google's strategy for Android is vastly different from Apple's iPhone. You can read half a dozen interviews with Google and Rubin himself that explain what they are up to. It's not to develop an 'iPhone Killer', but sadly that's the phrase that will get used over and over when the first phones launch. - ultrafez, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1@thcobbs;
I was referring to all of the Apple and Linux fanboy comments saying (for example) "M$ SUCKS ROFL" - I wasn't trying to start an argument. I think all OS's have their pros and cons, and the choice pf which is the best is purely based on which OS you feel most comfortable working in. - Ravatar, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1@Tyrghast: That on top of the overwhelming majority running adblock.
- adidos, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1< strike>Yahoo< /strike>
- Loonacy, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1They didn't fully derive it from YouTube, it's just that's where the YouTube acquisition was used. You can also see how several advertising based acquisitions were then used in AdSense.
- agsinger, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1once you're lucky, twice you're good
- finn, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1i was going to check the list out until i read that last bit 'wikipedia,' then the credibility went flying out the window
pass - centran, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1I think it is important to note that a lot of these acquisitions are not just buying out a company and re-branding the old product. A lot of these acquisitions are to get some kind of technology, infrastructure... or heck, maybe even just the coders. Google then creates a new product or adds a new feature to one of their old products.
- cforce05, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2Man i miss pre-google youtube...
- thcobbs, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1@ultrafez
Probably the same as if you searched google code for "*****" - SniperGX1, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1The cake is a lie.
- agentlame, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1I agree... with everything you said. I contribute to Wikipedia on a weekly basis, and use it no-less then three times a day.
But why is it on Digg's front page? It's like digging the definition of a word, or a google search.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshmallow is not a news story. - ZimbuTheMonkey, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1But I'm a wiki-boy, not a wiki-girl...
EDIT: God damn reply button. -
Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is