Google Will Eventually Be Dethroned, Says Internet Pioneer

[captaincharisma]

another article from captain obvious

 

[Guest]

Pherule wrote:

> IPv6 is inheritedly flawed because it uses your network card's
> MAC address. This means that unless you spoof, you're stuck
> with one address, making it VERY easy to be banned from
> various sites, VERY easy to be tracked, and VERY easy to be
> targeted.
>
> I'll be eagerly awaiting IPv7 or whatever the next protocol
> will be, because as things are currently, I prefer NAT, even
> if it does suck.

This is a solved problem.

IPv6 doesn't require you to set your IPv6 address using your MAC Address. True - this is the mechanism used for Stateless Autoconfiguration, but there are Privacy Extensions for Stateless Autoconfiguration[1] that basically gives you a random host address that changes every 20 minutes. It activated by default in Windows XP, Vista and 7, and is possible to activate manually in the server versions of Windows, Linux, Mac OS X.[2]

If you don't want to use address autoconfiguration, you have the option as in IPv4 to manually configure your IPv6 address within your subnet.

Most likely, however, every household will be provisioned one or a few /64 networks, which may or may not be dynamically assigned, which would still mean they could tell if two computers are from the same household. This is little different in privacy point of view to today's situation with IPv4 deployed with NAT, where you can identify a certain household, but not the individual computer.

[1] RFC 4941 - Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4941)
[2] Heose Online - IPv6: Privacy Extensions einschalten (http://www.heise.de/netze/artikel/IPv6-Privacy-Extensions-einschalten-1204783.html)

 

[sonik777]

IBM has been around since 1911, Nintendo since 1889, Hudson's Bay Co since 1670. As long as a company can change with the times and evolve they can survive. I doubt Google is going to crumble.

 

[NuclearShadow]

It doesn't matter what ones opinion is on this matter or even if you are highly qualified in the field and come to the conclusion through your expertise. It is a obvious that Google will be dethroned eventually nothing lasts forever. Just like the search engines before Google. But regardless of how soon or distant this fate is one thing is for certain Google had played a giant role in the ease of use of finding the content you desire.

 

[carnage9270]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]a depression would take out apple, as its a luxery item.intel would fall on hard times while amd would thrive, as amd has viable all in one cheap soltutions[/citation]

Where have you been the last 4 years?

 

[cookoy]

the 3 top apps during the dawn of the PC - Wordstar, Lotus 123, dBase. Where are they now?

 

[cobra5000]

In other news, analyst predict the sun will rise in the eastern sky.

 

[kinggraves]

Personally, I think Google is already going the way of Yahoo. Yahoo was popular and overtook AOL in the sense that it brought a lot of common services together under one page. An average person could do a search, use an IM, free email, news, weather, all on one page. However, as competition emerged, they tried to innovate their services to compete and expand. This is where they went wrong, because most of their unique services were turned into worse copies. YIM is a poor man's Skype now. The Email is a clunky wannabe of GMail. They've failed many times to innovate their profile system to copy popular social media like Twitter/Facebook. It was better to BEGIN with than it is now. If people wanted to use those services, they'd use them. Do not change if you can't bring something new to the table.

But like most corporations, they roll over to the investors, and the investors demand they expand and not just settle with their current success.

Google is the same. They're trying to compete with some big boys on all fronts. If they succeed and bring something unique, they can stay in the game for awhile. If they simply try to be copycats they're going to fail just like Yahoo did.

 

[cchambers]

Maybe under normal circumstances, but we are in an era riddled with patent trolls. Patent trolls will greatly hinder any chance of Google's dethroning anytime soon.

 

[Guest]

Google doesn't have to go anywhere. The thing with google is, it has monetized perfectly. They have such a huge stream of resources, they can afford to either buy or force out anyone who stands in their way.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]carnage9270[/nom]Where have you been the last 4 years?[/citation]
when i think depression i think the 1929 one, not what ever we are in now.
dictionary may define it as a depression, but i cant see it as one.

 

[tical2399]

Vint Cerf, father of the internet??? Blasphemy. Al Gore will NOT be pleased that others are using his title falsely.

 

[ojas]

[citation][nom]Ozymankos[/nom]Well there are 7 billion people on this planet and only 4 billion addresses in a 32 bit virtual spaceThey should have seen it comingbut this was 70 years ago[/citation]
more like 40, you mean.

now someone will say "no, 39".

 

[zak_mckraken]

[citation][nom]oxiide[/nom]This is just like Nostradamus.1.) Make a prediction that is almost guaranteed to happen someday.2.) ???3.) Prophet. :3[/citation]
Best. Comment. Evar.

 

[jbo5112]

Google also has an amazing data infrastructure. The last Google killer I read about delivered terrible search results if you were lucky enough for your query not to crash under the load. I can see Microsoft failing before Google. Microsoft spends $2 on their online services for every $1 they bring in, and PC's are slowly becoming a less meaningful market segment. There are viable alternatives to pretty much everything they produce, and usually something free in the mix. I don't expect any of the companies to go anywhere soon. The article seems to be more sensational fud than fact.

 

[frank_drebin]

All kings are eventually dethroned and all empires eventually fall

 

[ithurtswhenipee]

Al Gore demands a paternity test.

 

[ukulele97]

yeah, ten years ago I would have never thought that Microsoft will fail, but it is inevitable now. how to change matters. that old ibm's linux-prodigy video is so relevant (learn & listen needed for change).

 

[robochump]

The #1 objective of any business is to remain relevant and so far Google has invested in tech that can improve the way of life thus securing its relevancy into the future. Internet companies like AOL on the other hand failed to capitalize on DSL and did little to nothing to be more than just a ISP except for Instant Messenger which is STILL the only profitable segment of AOL...lol.

 

[Tab54o]

This isn't even article worthy. Dethroned, well nothing lasts forever so obviously. WTF? This si just like all the stupid articles about. PCs will eventually die, etc.

 

[contrasia]

Sure google might die out eventually, but it could be a very long time because they've expanded beyond a single product. In Japan, there was a business known as Kongo Gumi, which lasted for 1,400 years. There are others, not to mention how many businesses survive the century mark, Coca Cola included (And they kept going with a single product for how long?! Of course they have more now, but wow did it take a long time before they even needed to).

I agree this is a pointless article. It will eventually fall, but it's anyones guess as to when. It'd be like trying to predict your own death, it's not something you can really guess as considering how many unknown factors could pop up along the way. Anyone going to guess the world is going to End this year (2012)? After all, the end of a mere calender must surely mean the end of the planet right?

btw in regards to the comment about they should've seen it coming for the networks, considering they thought PCs would get bigger and more expensive, I don't think they imagined the average home user would acquire systems themselves, or that it'd be used for so many things beyond making calculations or organising a few bits of data. They didn't even think CDs were going to last if I remember correctly?

 

[redeye]

well, google's main patent expires in 2020, they better come up with a better mousetrap...

 

[A Bad Day]

Companies are less likely to fail if they expand their business into other markets, and do it efficiently.

Take Enron for an example. It started out as a gas-distribution company, and rapidly expanded into other markets and countries. Then they imploded because essentially every single one of their expansion fell apart and their financial record keeping was non-existent and completely fraud.

One example was buying up a water company from Argentina when it was going through privatization. Then the employees destroyed all of the computers and record keeping because they were afraid of Enron. Enron had several million customers, but didn't know who they were...

 

[youssef 2010]

[citation][nom]Article[/nom]"We absolutely know that there could be somebody just like Larry and Sergey [Page and Brin of Google] on some university campus with an idea we don't have that could explode on the scene and take the business away," he added.[/citation]

I don't think Google would be as short sighted as Microsoft was when they refused to fund the Google founders. I bet Bill Gates is still regretting that decision