|
There was another thread going for a while about online advertising that wondered this same question, albeit in different terms against different areas. That graph going around is not the entire story. I notice at least some of those items are open-source software, or otherwise items of nonprofit, but the saturation is certainly going up in advertising while the underlying tech itself still seems reasonably sized. (At least, categorically.) Personally, I am hoping that the next downcycle affects adtech the most. It's currently the double-edged sword that is funding most media as a business model while simultaneously being the biggest conduit towards mass surveillance and privacy. (One of the biggest sources of security concern for general software development at the moment.) Even if it takes out a lot of other things along the way, I'll be happy if adtech is set back for a few years.
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:I can't tell you how many times I've seen nerds get pissed off when someone complains about Windows 10 upgrades because that person doesn't want the bother and risk (and for business, expense) of migrating to Windows 10 when his/her current system is just fine for the job. To be honest, some of the new features in Windows 10 were either ill-conceived or not entirely well thought out. In-operating system advertising seems like a huge security risk to me, and this is already on an operating system which is known for being high-maintenance about security and system integrity. It's unfortunate, because there are some straight improvements to the underlying system in there -- you just have to put up with another bad feature for every new good one. I'm still confused/disgusted by how Microsoft was trying to pass off in-OS adtech as if it was no big deal.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Why do investors keep believing that social media is somehow profitable? Serious question, because I just can't figure it out. What exactly is it that is preventing these capitalists from realizing that advertising as a business model is utterly and completely doomed? Morroque fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
cheese posted:The beating heart of both social media/mobile specifically and, frankly, the internet in general is real world companies that sell real goods and services (Toyota, Coca-Cola, Kleenex, Carnival Cruise, whatever) paying for online advertising. Turns out that a lot of that "traffic" that advertisers generate (by buying/selling clicks and views from a whole host of platforms) is artificially generated and total bullshit. It all comes crashing down if those companies turn their increasing doubt and skepticism about online advertising into smaller and smaller ad buys. This is what I don't understand. This fact is obvious enough to everyone, and yet that specific knowledge seems not present in the minds of investors who should know it the most. I'm aware Investor Storytime is a thing, but even it is premised on the promise of future returns of a thing not known for giving much in the way of returns. Even by what Shifty Pony said, Facebook is only going forward as is because it has found some other source of revenue besides advertising. (If at least around enabling microtransactions, which is a thing said to have value of some kind, I guess...)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:I've never worked at Google but I have worked at secure facilities that have very serious rules against code leaving the premises (technically i suppose they were "laws" Might I inquire as to what those knock-on effects are? Because, logically, if I had to manage source code I knew was pretty important, a secure premise would be one of the obvious solutions for doing that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2016 03:46
|
|
), and I've seen the practice have knock-on effects which...well, I'd be shocked if Google tolerated them. Or at least, intrigued to see how they avoided them.
|
All this talk about how many well-remunerated CS jobs there are, imminent market correction aside, is riling me up. Makes me wonder what exactly I'm doing wrong, as all my job applications thus far simply built a wall of silence - to both the big players and whatever local shops are around.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Software developers could theoretically have the same standards as real engineers, but they don't. The tech industry is a singularity of priviliged wealthy white manchildren, without even a shred of the public duty or discipline associated with traditional engineering fields. OG engineers were part of the army for fucks sake, remember? Can you imagine the average 26 year old tech bro working at a Silicon Valley startup in the army? Y'know, this always annoyed me too. I had to branch out from computer science in university because I always understood that software carries a very weighty social context, yet the curriculum seemed completely averse to even considering the idea. We had only one cyber-ethics course offered, but because it lacked any programming or mathematical component, actual computer science students were barred from taking it. ("Bird course," they'd say.) I had to jump between various courses in the liberal arts just to pick up the pieces, and while there are some improvements like surveillance studies gaining traction, all of it still seems to be happening outside of the labs. ... and considering they're part of the humanities now, you can imagine how little sway they're getting. In Canada, engineering schools have a ring bareing ceremony where new university graduates take an engineering equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath. It's a thing born out of 100 years of tradition. Sadly, because computer science is still relatively new, they're still acting like it's the lawless frontier they're departing to. I don't see that changing at this rate, as much as I might wish otherwise. Morroque fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Apr 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Unguided posted:If a driver is controlling eleven trucks they deserve eleven times their regular pay. This, but unironically.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Plorkyeran posted:Discord is Slack with a much less plausible business model. I'm actually worried about this because I kind of like Discord and I want it to do well, but I also get this creeping feeling that no matter how good the product turns out to be, the company will fail regardless due to how they have absolutely no discernible business model. (Or at least it will eventually go down the same road Skype did in terms of degradation of product quality and functionality.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:instead of colleges/grad schools having entrepeneurship classes, they should have "How not to get screwed by your employer/partner/co-workers" classes. Including the all-important "If it isn't on paper, it's not enforceable." What would be the research or body of knowledge that such a course would be based off of? Honest question. I'm sure we could get the ball rolling on that if the information was accessible.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
If the tech bubble ends up bursting because of Republican malfeasance, I will be pissed. This thing has been going on for too long that I want the bubble to burst purely on its own merits, without anyone else to blame it on.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Douglas Rushkoff for me alternates between "hack writer" and "not a hack" back to being a "hack" again. He's sometimes wrong and sometimes right, but he's both just often enough to be decent, average, or mediocre. I don't doubt his intentions, but I wish he was better at it. Here he is trying to highlight how the actual practical value of the company is not at all linked to what they company is valued at. Twitter is one example where the everyday value of the company is very apparent due to its userbase and the usefulness of the application itself. However, investors are mad because they can't make any other money off of it, so Twitter is a failure despite everything else Twitter itself does. It's an example that is more an appeal to others who haven't really been able to pay attention to this area of interest closely, hence why he jumps from one topic to another because ordinary people wouldn't really know the boundaries between them, even if they do have a general sense that something might be "wrong" with it. That's more or less what its like to write the general population rather than the specific interest group. He's bringing attention to the topic, but in doing so his arguments won't withstand much analysis from within.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 05:30
|
|