Say hello to Google Allo: a smarter messaging app - <AUTHOR> https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/google-allo-smarter-messaging-app.html <comment><USER2> Not sure how common this is, but everyone at both school and work these days shifts seamlessly from mobile to dekstop and back. This has been one of the main reasons we tend to use WhatsApp and Slack, even for corporate communications as silly as that sounds -- because you can type long messages on it on the keyboard/desktop but also have access to it on the go.

What I don't understand is -- given Allo had a blank slate, why did they limit it to just mobile? They cover two major silos (Android + iOS), (one reason we dont use iMsg) but why not the third silo (non-mobile)?

<comment><USER3> This is exactly why so many of my friends and family use Hangouts née Gmail Chat.

We can use it in the browser at work just by keeping Gmail open in a tab. No IM applications to install or concerns about whether we're running Windows, OSX, or whatever.

Then the conversations follow when you log off whatever desktop or laptop you're on via the mobile app. About half of us use Android so it either comes standard or you can easily install. The other half uses iOS and unlike iMessage/iChat/Facetime, you can easily use it on iOS as well as Android.

I installed Allo today but so far I haven't had a chance to try it out. Frankly it gives me the same mild annoyance I felt when Facebook broke messaging out into a separate app (and when I just said screw it and uninstalled both).

As much as I use and generally like Google stuff, they drive me nuts with their approach a lot of the time. When GChat/Talk became Hangouts and started integrating Voice and SMS/MMS, it seemed like a move in the right direction, both for them as a company (wanting to be your one stop shop for messaging) and for me as a user (less apps, more seamless integration). Then SMS/MMS was split back off into Messaging, Voice...I haven't really heard much about Voice in a while which is weird because it was one of those things that seemed so promising at one point. And now Duo alongside the pretty great video chat already in Hangouts and Allo alongside Messaging alongside Hangouts.

I get the idea of maybe starting a secondary platform/service/app to see what sticks and what doesn't. At worst they can integrate the good bits into their main product (see: Inbox). But their messaging strategy seems more like publishing Inbox with the intention of just ditching plain old Gmail.

<comment><USER4> My lord, why isn't Allo just Hangouts 3? They had an established userbase, a name, a brand, and useful cross-platform tools already.

I get the desire to start fresh, but that's a lot of established traction in a very crowded market to just throw away.

<comment><USER5> > why isn't Allo just Hangouts 3?

I was wondering that too. I _honestly_ suspect some executive in Google's team wanted to have more visibility, team and power.

<comment><USER6> oh I thought this was some new Hangouts interface, but it's not is it?

So...Google Buzz.

If they want something really innovative, bring back open standards and a federated IM protocol. We went from AIM/Yahoo/MSN to XMPP .. and back to Google/FB. It feels like a regression.

<comment><USER7> XMPP was just to crack the egg. They had to dangle a big enough carrot to get users to switch. They knew once they had them switched that it would be VERY unlikely users would go back. So... lockdown! And they were right, how many people have switched back to AOL/MSN/Yahoo? I know I haven't.

<comment><USER8> I switched to FB Messenger because it's on mobile and desktop, and everyone I talk to is there. If MSN wasn't dead I'd probably still be using that.

Edit: Oh and more recently Discord has taken over my friend group's urge to talk with voices.

<comment><USER9> If only FB would release a proper desktop client for their messaging services. They could own that space.

<comment><USER8> I use messenger.com more often than I use Facebook at this point. I know it's not technically a desktop app but you could probably set up a shortcut with something like (assuming chrome. Don't know if FF has the same feature)

"path\to\chrome\chrome.exe" \--app=[https://www.messenger.com](https://www.messenger.com)

Edit: Actually testing that, that's actually pretty neat. I'm going to do that when I get home!

<comment><USER10> I use franz [http://meetfranz.com/](http://meetfranz.com/) specifically for that purpose

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So now google has Voice, Messenger, Hangouts, Allo, and Duo all with overlapping functionality? I wish they would just focus on making Hangouts work really well.

<comment><USER12> There was a NYtimes article a few years ago, which I thought perfectly captured the fundamental difference between Apple and Google's product planning process.

Apple runs on Intelligent Design. You have a room full of geniuses who decide what to build, make sure it fits perfectly into their overall product portfolio with minimal overlap or cannibalization, spend years in a dark secret room building it until it's perfectly polished, and then do a big-bang launch.

Google on the other hand, runs on evolution. You've got tens of thousands of smart people all over the company, each with their own cool ideas and visions. Director #1 decides it would be cool to have a single unified messaging/video app that works across all platforms; Director #2 decides it would be cool to have a messaging app that's perfectly customized for mobile phones and Random- Guy #3 decides to do a 20℅ project on a messaging app that integrates AI functionality. Instead of trying to pick a winner, and telling everyone else to abandon their projects, Google allows all 3 visions to play themselves out on a small scale, and then doubles down on the winner. Rather than having a perfect product portfolio like Apple, Google is almost like an incubator, full of interesting ideas and projects, even if they lack the structure that comes with Central Planning.

The downside of course, is brand confusion and dilution. People looking for a messaging app, and not having the time to explore all options thoroughly, will have a hard time figuring out which Google-messaging-app to go with. If they pick a non-optimal one, it's going to hurt the Google brand in their eyes. But the upside is innovation. Allowing multiple ideas to play themselves out at the same time, allows for so much more innovation, experimentation and iteration. And ultimately, I think those are the qualities that Google wants to prioritize.

<comment><USER13> The Google approach would be great, if they just separated it from the Google brand.

Like, when Unilever launch a new detergent, they give it a totally separate brand. If it fails, they drop it quietly, and if it succeeds they can roll it out worldwide.

I wish Google would do the same. Launch this as 'allo', with the fact that it's from alphabet buried in the small print. Once it's been doing well for a couple of years, they can think about pulling it into the Google brand and pushing it to every user in the world.

<comment><USER14> Without brand it's hard to stand out in the crowded messaging space.

<comment><USER15> Honestly crap like this is devaluing their brand. At this point I have 0 faith that Google will stick to any of their random products (Google Wave, Buzz, Reader, Code, Google+) and therefore I avoid using them.

<comment><USER16> It really is devaluing the brand. Bring back Google Talk.

<comment><USER17> Google Talk was perfect. PER-FECT. Of course they killed it!

<comment><USER18> They didn't even properly kill it, they just let it slowly stagnate.

Like they're doing with Hangouts now. No real new features have appeared in years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I really wish they wouldn't overload terms that they themselves invented. In Chrome, "incognito" means we don't save your local history, but it _does_ _not_ add to the transport security. Here, "incognito" means you've got end- to-end encryption (and presumably also doesn't save local history).

Why on earth would you re-use the same term when naming two things with similar (thus easily confused) consumer-visible attributes but completely different security guarantees?!

<comment><USER20> End-to-end encryption from your phone to Google's server, where neural networks now analyze all your data, Super cute! Lovely Labrador!

<comment><USER21> From their FAQ:

"Your chats are end-to-end encrypted and can only be seen by you and the person you're chatting with. Google can't read any of your messages, so you won't see any Smart Reply or Google Assistant features."

[https://support.google.com/allo/answer/6383724?ref_topic=637...](https://support.google.com/allo/answer/6383724?ref_topic=6376094&hl=)

<comment><USER22> Who validates that that statement is indeed true, we in our naivety should just plain believe it?

<comment><USER23> As much as people like a good conspiracy, that would be a pretty pointless one. There are tens of thousands people at google who could look at the source code, many of them with a left-wing/civil liberties attitude.

To get all of them to stay silent, and to evade analysis of the binary is, if not impossible, simply not worth whatever they could get out of reading my messages (esp. considering their uninterrupted stream of emails to read).

It's also why the concept of "brands" makes more sense than may are willing to admit: a blatant lie such as this would probably be worse for google than VWs little problem. Reading someone's private stuff is just bound to rouse more emotions than whatever comes out of the back of your car.

<comment><USER22> Yeah right.

[http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/21/12994362/allo-privacy- mess...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/21/12994362/allo-privacy-message-logs- google)

"Allo messages will still be encrypted between the device and Google servers, and stored on servers using encryption that leaves the messages accessible to Google's algorithms."

[....]

"The decision will also have significant consequences for law enforcement access to Allo messages. By default, Allo messages will now be accessible to lawful warrant requests, the same as message data in Gmail and Hangouts and location data collected by Android. "

<comment><USER24> > The version of Allo rolling out today will store all non-incognito messages > by default — a clear change from Google's earlier statements that the app > would only store messages transiently and in non-identifiable form. The > records will now persist until the user actively deletes them, giving Google > default access to a full history of conversations in the app. Users can also > avoid the logging by using Allo's Incognito Mode, which is still fully end- > to-end encrypted and unchanged from the initial announcement.

> Like Hangouts and Gmail, Allo messages will still be encrypted between the > device and Google servers, and stored on servers using encryption that > leaves the messages accessible to Google's algorithms.

Translation:

\- Incognito messages will not be logged, and will be encrypted end-to-end.

\- Non-incognito messages will transit over SSL, and be stored on Google's servers in an encrypted form that they will have access to (presumably this "encryption" is to prevent hackers gaining a DB dump from getting everything in plaintext).

\- Non-incognito messages will be logged indefinitely, unless a user explicitly deletes them. (This is a change from what was previously announced at Google I/O)

Correct me if I'm missing something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Lots of speculation about how long these apps will last. I personally suspect it's Hangouts that will be chopped. Google looked at Facebook Messenger and realised that the future was in personal assistants and the illusion of virtual/simulated AI, and realised also that Hangouts would become an unmanageable mess with more features added, so they are rolling out a Messenger competitor and a Hangouts video replacement with a transitional period to assess both feasibility, interest and to enable Hangouts customers to explore alternatives ahead of the shutdown, while attracting new business along the way.

Personally, I like Duo because I can talk to my partner with video even though my partner is on Android and is a bit of a technophobe.

The almost-too-simple UI is much easier for my partner to use than Hangouts, and Skype is a dog. I also do not use Facebook.

Google, like Apple now, and like Microsoft before it, is playing catch-up to Facebook and arguably has been since Google+. It's like Hollywood: remakes are far from innovative and are loathed by many who liked the originals or who crave fresh material, but a remake is much easier to get through the boardroom and easier to make profitable. Google should be pushing the boundaries but it's afraid of tarnishing its credibility with potentially bad decisions. They also want to appear active I suppose, and to collect what data they can from people who are likely to be loyal to a Google competitor to Facebook.

I think Google should be thinking doing more than buying up tech talent in acquihires and inflating an already bloated app ecosystem that threatens what business they already have, but I'm not a business person.

<comment><USER26> I believe they've previously discussed Hangouts becoming business focused. Allo, I think, has the potential to replace the default SMS app (similar to iMessage).

<comment><USER27> Maybe, if they get rid of this boneheaded SMS relay bullshit. It's not 2008 anymore, iMessage got transparent SMS<->internet messaging right like 4 years ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Why isn't it always end to end encryption? I'm getting really paranoid and crochety in my old age of 29, as all I see is a tool to make me the product.

<comment><USER29> I'm back from that paranoia period, my conclusions:

\- In real life you have no privacy, but still you don't think about it (white pages, community hall inscriptions, driving license, medical history, ...), apart of white pages try to unsubscribe from any of them and see what happens. Internet made it just easier to track you.

\- your safety is based on 2 things your habits and the peers that know you and are willing to lend a hand (family, neighbors, friends ...)

\- what makes me feel secure about Google tools, is his business model, if they have a breach and expose people's data, they simply bankrupt, so their business relays heavily in security. (as soon as you enable 2 time factor, it becomes incredible difficult to hack you)

\- what I don't like of them, they are in EEUU soil and I'm European, so I don't know if I could eventually get into trouble (like is happening in Facebook, they simply don't listen to European cases about cyberbulling, something I didn't read yet from Google, maybe because they are not so popular, maybe because they are truly Not Evil).

\- so yes, I'm a product, and it also unlocks me to easily backup and access my family photos, that I can share via chromecast, or get my mails free from non nice spam and eventually find nice new products and know that I can click without exposing myself too much.

\- I do have kids, and what comforts me, I can delegate to Google the block of certain images/sites thanks to their advance AI, still is not perfect so by the time they start, I'll also keep an eye. It is different to explain something bad that he just accidentally found, that place them out of his way until he has the age to understand it.

\- and don't get started with the zero days exploits, the wrong architecture of some open source apps, and even the abandonware you have out there for free.

At the end, you need to trade something because one person alone can't get everything, and trust between peers is essential. And money made that trust easy, don't trust people, trust that they want the money :)

<comment><USER30> _In real life you have no privacy_ Please remove all locks from your doors and give me your address so I can watch you and whole family 24/7\. Privacy starts at home. It exists.

 _so yes, I 'm a product, and it also unlocks me to easily backup and access my family photos, that I can share via chromecast, or get my mails free from non nice spam and eventually find nice new products and know that I can click without exposing myself too much._ With all their services google gets to know most of your thoughts. You don't care. It's okay, I don't blame you. But please do not tell others "there is no privacy" just because you threw yours away for some services that make your life a bit more comfortable.

 _maybe because they are truly Not Evil_

'You have to fight for your privacy or you will lose it' \- Eric Schmidt. We (meaning mostly you) lost it a long time ago already. They sometimes show their evil face - you just don't remember/know/care.

 _delegate to Google the block of certain images /sites thanks to their advance AI_ This is kinda 1984 7.0 - just wait for them enabling it for everyone. Page ranks can/could decide elections already - do you really want them having so much power over everyone? Just because their search results are a bit better (read: personalised) than duckduckgo/etc. ? I sometimes really understand the need for russian/chinese firewalls. Even Canada (reminder: member of the 5 eyes) refuses to send their country-internal internet traffic through the USA even it would be cheaper and faster at the same time. It's forbidden by law.

 _At the end, you need to trade something because one person alone can 't get everything, and trust between peers is essential. And money made that trust easy, don't trust people, trust that they want the money :)_ In my eyes, you trade away far more than they give you.

<comment><USER29> Well, one of my habits is to keep those locks and avoid giving the address unless is really necessary. Certainly you can eventually find where I live and pay a visit, but I can ask you politely to leave or call the cops on you if your intentions are hostile, otherwise we can go to a neutral place, have a nice beer and chat about the topic. I see you mix privacy with security, please don't ;-)

Your second point is quite vast to reply here, but one example: think one second of a daughter that she wants to find her favorite princess in the internet without filter you find quite some porn actress with those names, and because are popular ... paaaam first place. Now how I explain to an infant what those girls are doing, wouldn't be easier to wait until she gets the maturity and I can explain better?

The last point, is my opinion nothing more. Is always a trade, it depends how much you will trade.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> You know what I really need? A new messaging app, so people can complain more about me not using whatever messaging app they're using.

I'm not saying that email and sms/mms don't have flaws, but at least I don't have to consider whether the recipient of my message has whatever random app is popular today. Have we seen the end of wide spread open protocols, because huge tech corporations are hell bent on controlling communications?

<comment><USER32> I can see how these apps can take off with kids, who are in school and see each-other every day.. so there can be some coordination on what app to use.

But for me, I don't see how I could use anything other than email/sms and expect someone else to use it.

<comment><USER33> I think kids too, aren't tired: I've probably tried >50 messaging systems, from irc to aim to msn messenger to hangouts. After a while, you just get tired of trying rehashes of the same thing, and want one that communicates with everyone. We had things like Pigeon, but companies keep closing off their systems to force you to have one app/program per system.

Eventually you get tired of trying new ones, and just go back to the reliable ones that work with everybody.

<comment><USER27> > irc

Man, why can't we just use IRC? It's as close to perfect as anything has ever gotten.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm surprised Google Duo hasn't become more popular. It's a great cross- platform video chat app. I especially like the feature where you can see the other party before you answer their call. I have taken calls because of that feature that I otherwise wouldn't have.

It's better than FaceTime because it works on Android. It's better than Skype and Google Hangouts because your cellphone number is your identity; you don't have to log in with any usernames or passwords. Extremely low friction.

<comment><USER35> I think there are other reasons, but I really dislike using my phone number as an ID.

Phone numbers are much harder to change , so if some annoying person gets a hold of it suddenly they can harass me across networks. This is a thing that actually happens! A big reason why I don't like telegram (even if everything else is awesome).

I'm cool with my account being linked to a phone number, but I'd rather avoid giving the phone number to people I want to talk to (instead handing out a network-specific username)

<comment><USER36> IIRC, Telegram allows you to set a username and give that out instead.

<comment><USER37> But you can still be nagged if someone finds your phone number.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Chat apps are like to-do apps. They're easy to make (albeit hard to make well) and you rarely have a strong reason to choose one over another, so you'll probably stick with whatever you (and your friends) are already using.

Besides, if I take up Allo and fall in love with it, I'll be sad when it disappears after Google stops supporting it in a few years. These features should be integrated into Hangouts, else they're dividing their own market. Though, ironically, if everyone with this sentiment went against their gut reaction and adopted Allo anyway, then Google would be forced to support it, as they do Gmail.

<comment><USER39> They'll just roll Assistant/other Allo features back into Hangouts, where all their users are. Unless they kick us all out by sunsetting Hangouts for non- Apps users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Boo.

All the shiny bells-and-whistles in the world aren't going to cover the fact that this should be end-to-end by default.

I suspect at least some of the folks working on it feel this way too, so I imagine it's really shitty for some of them to have it work this way. If WhatsApp is already end-to-end by default there's no reason at all that a new app trying to enter that already saturated space shouldn't be.

Sincerely, I hope this fails quickly.

My grumpy old ass will stay on Signal thanks very much.

<comment><USER41> If it were end-to-end encrypted by default, how would Google Assistant work?

<comment><USER40> Oh it definitely wouldn't.

I'd be fine with this though as, admittedly cynically, I suspect that Assistant's main reason for existing is to provide a justification for the lack of encryption.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Open Whisper Systems partners with Google on end-to-end encryption for Allo.

[https://whispersystems.org/blog/allo/](https://whispersystems.org/blog/allo/)

<comment><USER40> Dare I say that I'm actually a little disappointed by this?

I get where Moxie is coming from, and that he doesn't have the PR machinery that Facebook and Google do to really push Signal to the mainstream, but these are advertising companies.

When OWS takes this work on they're giving a tacit Moxie stamp of approval to the implementation, that could well change after OWS has moved on to other things.

tldr; History tells me not to trust these companies motives in the long term, and I don't see why Moxie should either.

<comment><USER43> > When OWS takes this work on they're giving a tacit Moxie stamp of approval > to the implementation

Which is completely irrelevant for any mainstream messaging app OWS has collaborated with. No "normal" person on this planet that uses these apps knows or cares about who Moxie is.

> tldr; History tells me not to trust these companies motives in the long > term, and I don't see why Moxie should either.

I doubt he does, but his goal with all this is to end passive mass surveillance, and he obviously thinks this is the best shot. I mean, Signal the app is certainly not going to become a significant player in this space, so we can debate if he's doing the right thing but I can totally see the how he can justify it even if he doesn't really trust them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I don't know of any other company that has discontinued as many products people actually used. Sorry Google, even if I didn't already have several chat apps and even if I didn't prefer to type on a real keyboard I still couldn't recommend your new products to friends and family. I just don't trust you anymore.

<comment><USER17> RIP Google Talk, February 16, 2015. This was the end for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Google should open up their protocols, or use open ones. It's quite sad that Google of the past (which supported XMPP) is gone.

<comment><USER46> Google shut down XMPP support because none of the other large vendors were playing along. Because of how XMPP federation work, Microsoft could reach out to Google for presence and other information about friends, but didn't need to return the favor (they were doing one way federation). So it allowed for a "better" experience using other companies XMPP networks.

Edit: Source for my beliefs on the above: [http://www.ucstrategies.com/unified-communications- strategie...](http://www.ucstrategies.com/unified-communications-strategies- views/betting-on-xmpp.aspx)

Edit 2: removed Facebook as an offender. It was just Microsoft that was not sharing.

<comment><USER47> Facebook did provide XMPP service until the same time that Google ended it.

So that's definitely a wrong statement.

<comment><USER48> > Facebook did provide XMPP service until the same time that Google ended it.

They never supported federation.

<comment><USER47> They did support client-server federation, but not server-server federation.

<comment><USER48> Whats "client-server" federation? Only the fact that you are able to connect via an openly specified protocol or is there more to it?

<comment><USER47> And that they properly handled protocol extensions, etc.

Which in turn allowed you to use XMPP bridges, that pretended to be an XMPP client on one server, but were federated to another server.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Really waiting for the day where Google will accidentally release a new messaging app called Google Hangouts or some other name that they already use, because there are just so many it's impossible to keep track.

</comment><comment><USER50> Google's Duo/Allo strategy is the final straw after adopting Google Voice like 10 years and hoping that eventually Hangouts would not a pile of crap.

Beside the limbo that this leaves Hangouts in, Allo and Duo have no web/desktop client, which is where I do 90% of my messaging. I've made too many excuses and put up with half-assed experiences for the past 5-10 years. Unfortunately, my options are probably Facebook messaging or raw SMS.

Meanwhile Riot/Matrix have all of the functionality of Slack/Skype/Hangouts/etc, is open source, is federated, etc... and no one seems to care...

(Not to mention that I still can't even download Allo if I try...)

</comment><comment><USER51> Rolling out in India [https://twitter.com/juberti/status/778453572035878912](https://twitter.com/juberti/status/778453572035878912) If you can't wait, here's the APK [http://www.apkmirror.com/apk/google- inc/allo-by-google/allo-...](http://www.apkmirror.com/apk/google-inc/allo-by- google/allo-by-google-1-0-006_rc18-release/)

</comment><comment><USER52> So. Why make this a separate app? Why isn't this in Hangouts?

<comment><USER53> Because Hangouts is a bloated POS? Everyone I know who works for Google states this (and I can concur from using it at work).

<comment><USER50> How on earth is hangouts "bloated"? It's a friggin IM app with video calling built in. It's far more minimal than most other "alternative" IM clients.

<comment><USER54> I don't know why it's "bloated", but after a few minutes of video chat it's got my computer sounding like a jetliner preparing for takeoff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> The technology behind the feature is great, don't get me wrong. But there's something so empty about the Labrador response.

I want a discussion with a human. Not a human-curated conversation of algorithm-determined responses.

Simple human conversation isn't as much of a problem-to-be-solved as they seem to think it is.

<comment><USER56> This falls in an interesting uncanny valley. If you know the person on the other end is using allo who are you really talking to? The average google bot response powered by deepmind or the actual person on the other end?

<comment><USER57> Reminds me of when Facebook got slammed about their auto-happy-birthday feature: [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/29/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/29/facebook- happy-birthday-sms-notification)

<comment><USER55> That's a good comparison and I'd expect similar user backlash here.

I'm confused as to why they're choosing to lead with this feature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> If I'm bound to switch to something and bring friends to it, I'll rather do it with Wire[1], without any Google surveillance and data mining for "ad experience". It has a desktop client (electron based though) and isn't limited to 1 device. Not to mention E2E encryption ALL the time.

[1] [https://wire.com/](https://wire.com/)

<comment><USER59> How does this company plan to make money from this? I tried to browse through all the pages and I am not seeing it.

<comment><USER58> They're VC backed and plan a premium subscription sometime in the future. All of the current features will stay free. I think I've read it on their medium comment section or it's in the FAQ.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> This has SMS fallback!

[https://support.google.com/allo/answer/6376011](https://support.google.com/allo/answer/6376011)

<comment><USER61> Does it work with MMS, like Hangouts usually doesn't?

<comment><USER58> Nope. It's more or less glorified invite message over a service, that also receives replies from SMS. But since it doesn't show as sent from your mobile number, the receiver will have a separate thread in their SMS application.

[http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/09/20/allo-weird-sms- expla...](http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/09/20/allo-weird-sms-explained- other-answers/)

<comment><USER61> ...so if I used Google Allo, I would still need to also use Google Messenger for MMS conversations and Facebook Messenger for conversations with less-nerdy people.

The only thing Allo seems to have going for it is that it's not another blue speech bubble icon labeled "Messenger".

<comment><USER58> Basically, yeah. If we overlook everything, all that Allo offers is the Google Assistant and that's probably what they wanted - fresh set of data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I don't know about you guys, but I am quite sick of these messaging apps that don't really provide any added-value over their competitors. Moreover, these message apps are not decentralize nor are these companies altruistic, so it quite easy to conclude that these companies wants your data.

</comment><comment><USER63> Interesting that another trending story on HN contradicts google's post wrt the privacy features included in allo:

[http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/21/12994362/allo-privacy- mess...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/21/12994362/allo-privacy-message-logs- google)

I had a feeling Google's representation of their respect for user privacy was too good to be true. Clearly they only have an interest in marketing privacy, as opposed to actually delivering effective privacy controlling tools and features.

</comment><comment><USER64> Can't we just agree on one standard already? I hate having to use multiple messaging apps, that's the biggest UX failure right there, and it desperately needs fixing! Forget about all the other features!

<comment><USER65> agreed! This is what we're trying to do with Matrix ([https://matrix.org](https://matrix.org))

<comment><USER66> I couldn't easily tell what it is from reading the homepage

<comment><USER67> we're about to rewrite the homepage to fix that :) (i work on matrix, obviously)

<comment><USER68> So ... what does it do?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> >We can't wait for you to say hello to Google Allo! We're beginning to roll out Google Allo for Android and iOS, and the app will be available worldwide in the next few days.

I wonder if they are doing this because they expect issues or if they expect everyone to want the app. Personally, I just wish the stock Android messenger could communicate better with imessage group chats.

<comment><USER70> Without a valid macOS/iOS device key, it's not possible. The key allows your device to publish iMessage signing keys to the Apple directory service that recipient devices use to decrypt your iMessages. Without a device key, your device won't be able to do this.

<comment><USER21> Is it possible to harvest one from an old iPhone? I'd certainly buy an old iPhone that's mildly damaged if it meant I could use imessage on android.

<comment><USER70> Possibly, but it seems that the reverse engineering + the hassle of needing an Apple key has prevented any real compatible clones from being made.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Yey! Just what the world was missing, yet another instant messaging app...

<comment><USER72> Google's bid for the slack/FB message space, which is now (even Apple's pushing) the new apps/bot platform.

Google has no choice. I also don't expect them to fold up shop unless the 'bot market just fizzles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> This is what it looks like when you send someone an allo message and they don't have allo. I was surprised that it would send something like this without asking permission. I assumed it would fall back to SMS transparently.

[http://i.imgur.com/6aHNeMR.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/6aHNeMR.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER74> An app that writes my messages for me. Great, now I can be 1 step further removed from any contacts from my friends and family.

<comment><USER75> Inbox does this too and in my brief experience so far, it's been accurate.

I remember hearing about Amazon pre-emptively shipping goods to warehouses based on expected demand. If algorithms can anticipate our responses and our shopping, what will be left in the end?

<comment><USER76> I think it's a big difference to Amazon. They just forecast that in a given city x people will likely buy a certain product, so they already ship it there and only have to attach labels when it's ordered.

Google tries to exactly forecast what you will want to respond to a picture, which sounds a lot harder.

<comment><USER75> Not commenting so much on the difficulty or differences as much as on the ability of software/analysis to anticipate us, gradually doing what makes us us. With my buying history, analysis could do a reasonable job of choosing and buying my future clothes. Spotify suggests decent music based on what I've previously liked. With relevant data, a service could feed me satisfying food I liked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> I wonder how many users will come to depend on it before they shut it down.

<comment><USER78> I give it 2 years. Maybe only 18 months. I don't even know how many different (and confusing!) chat applications Google has launched already. Seems like their engineers, when they get bored, write a chat app.

<comment><USER79> Next time I see someone mention how great their monolithic repository is I'll ask how many chat applications you have to checkout before you can code at google.

<comment><USER80> There was an article posted on here a few months ago about Google's version control system. One of the main features is that you don't actually checkout copies of every file in the repository; instead they're faulted in as you need them.

My impression is that the monolithic repository only works because Google's built a bunch of custom tooling to support it. It doesn't mean any company can just roll all of their code into a single Git repository and call it a day.

<comment><USER46> This maybe? [http://m.cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/7/204032-why-google- sto...](http://m.cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/7/204032-why-google-stores- billions-of-lines-of-code-in-a-single-repository/fulltext)

The key here is CITC. All the source code lives "in the cloud" and pulls to your machine as it's needed (using a FUSE file system).

<comment><USER80> Yes, that's it, and that's the key feature I was talking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> Imagine walking around and conversing with a friend and a salesman is hanging just behind you, listening to everything you say, and interjecting carefully crafted comments and "advice" designed to modify your buying behavior in response to what you're talking about. He's also recording your conversation and may or may not give it to the government or his advertising clients.

That's this, basically.

No thanks.

</comment><comment><USER82> As long as they(Google) don't study why WhatsApp is the most popular messaging app, I don't think they will ever dominate this market. Here are the most important 2 things in my opinion that made whatsapp #1 messaging app.

\- WhatsApp tried to reach everyone from the beginning. Founders knew that not everyone in world has enough money to buy a shiny phone every year.

\- WhatsApp uses minimal bytes possible to send your messages to other side. This will be the only choice for people who have expensive data plans all over the world, and those who are travelling often and roaming enabled.

I am not even sure if my 4 years old android phone will be able to install the app. So will this app have a great success? I don't think so.

<comment><USER83> That's literally the reason I even heard of or installed WhatsApp a few years ago. I was spending time doing work with my church in el Salvador and a bunch of the locals there used WhatsApp because it avoided the insane SMS fees the telco charged. I installed it just to chat with them internationally.

Now almost all my friends are on it and it's great. I love the cross-platform ease of use, E2E encryption, and easy web interface. I'm just scared of how Facebook will ruin it.

<comment><USER82> I think Google lately spending too much time in the Silicon Valley bubble and less time in the real world. Solutions they are coming up with have so little value outside the small bubble. WhatsApp solved a real world problem without being fancy or trying to do too much.

It kept it simple, efficient and treated everyone equal in its ecosystem.

I don't think Facebook will try to change WhatsApp. They are mostly interested in WhatsApp's user base. But even if they ruin it, success stories will not change. The next big thing will come from people that have similar mindsets like the ones created WhatsApp.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> So the play store still shows this as coming soon for me. They did the same type of launch for Duo and I really don't understand what they have to gain from this.

They're making a reentry into a very populated space. Facebook messenger, whatsapp, Skype, iMessage... why would you risk the scenario where someone finds this blog post in a newsfeed, looks at the app, finds it unavailable, and never returns?

It just doesn't make any sense to me. Clearly they're going to launch sometime in the next 12 hours. So the infrastructure is all in place and the final builds are made. Why not wait on the press release until it's actually available?

</comment><comment><USER85> How did Google get Apple to approve this app for the App Store?

It has fallback to SMS functionality[1], but SMS apps are rejected from the Apple App store [2].

[1] [https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/google-allo- smarter-...](https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2016/09/google-allo-smarter- messaging-app.html)

[2] [https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/](https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/)

<comment><USER86> > It has fallback to SMS functionality, but SMS apps are rejected from the > Apple App store.

Which guideline are you thinking of? My search for "SMS" only found two unrelated guidelines:

> 1.1.6 False information and features, including inaccurate device data or > trick/joke functionality, such as fake location trackers. Stating that the > app is "for entertainment purposes" won't overcome this guideline. Apps that > enable anonymous or prank phone calls or SMS/MMS messaging will be rejected.

> 3.2.2 (iv) Collecting funds within the app for charities and fundraisers. > Apps that seek to raise money for such causes must be free on the App Store > and may only collect funds outside of the app, such as via Safari or SMS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> I can't be the only one thinking in (12 + x) months, where x is between 0 and 24, there will be a post on the same blog: " _Say goodbye to Google Allo_ ".

</comment><comment><USER88> Does anyone know how the app preview message notifications[1] are implemented? Is it open to us third party app developers?

[1] When a message is sent to someone without Allo installed, they'll still receive a notification and can reply directly from it [https://support.google.com/allo/answer/6385770](https://support.google.com/allo/answer/6385770)

<comment><USER89> Might be that it is based on Instant Apps[1] which was announced at this year's Google IO

[1]: [https://developer.android.com/topic/instant- apps/index.html](https://developer.android.com/topic/instant-apps/index.html)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> Looks like this is an attempt to do the same thing that iMessage has done for iPhone. If Apple released iMessage for Android it would probably lay waste to most other messaging services. People will pay to get upgraded to the blue bubble.

[https://twitter.com/search?q=green%20bubble%20text&src=typd](https://twitter.com/search?q=green%20bubble%20text&src=typd)

<comment><USER91> Haha wow. I don't know what to make of this. Is being an apple user this important now a days?

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> From those gifs in the post, I assume it requires Google to scan every word I send. It will sense my tone to change the text style, and suggest how I should response. Well, why don't you just say it for me then? I'd love to see a bot representing me talks to my friends. And, a messaging app provides Incognito mode, lol, is there any other way to imply my conversation isn't private enough?

<comment><USER93> Your friends will have their own bots. The bot-bot conversations will have ads sold against them. The ads will be bot-clickfrauded.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> I've always wanted a messenger with bonzi buddy integrated...

</comment><comment><USER94> I'm quite sure the "smart reply" feature will eventually have a Google Gorilla scandal[1] of its own.

1\. [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/07/01/google-mistakenly- tag...](http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/07/01/google-mistakenly-tags-black- people-as-gorillas-showing-limits-of-algorithms/)

</comment><comment><USER95> Google is a mess. Really sad to see they're doubling down even further on invading user privacy, never mind the encryption that isn't even enabled by default. Pathetic.

</comment><comment><USER96> Does not seem to work with Google Apps account.

Which makes the list:

* Allo

* Google Fi

* Google Play Music Family Plan

* Google Play Store Family Sharing

* Google Spaces

* Google Trips

* YouTube Red

* YouTube Music

It's a growing list.

I'm always amused by the "One account. All of Google" header on the login pages. Google Apps accounts do not grant access to all of Google as the products do not work for it (it's not a permissions thing the domain admin can fix).

<comment><USER97> All of those things are consumer services and not really marketed at businesses or education. It makes sense that they aren't available. There are a lot of edge cases and high level decisions that go into enabling a service for enterprise access.

Enabling Google Fi on Cloud: Suddenly Project Fi needs a dashboard to track all of the Fi accounts for the organization. It needs mass canceling and modification tools. It needs a dedicated support group separate from the main Fi support. Not to mention possible uptime guarantees that would likely be needed. It balloons the development significantly with no real benefit to the service itself. Also businesses aren't likely to use it.

<comment><USER96> Probably worth pointing out that Google Apps at one point was called Google for Family.

Maybe also view this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwqDlvJyGI8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwqDlvJyGI8) that's Google's apps team telling people as recently as yesterday how to turn your Gmail account into a business account.

Imagine you're a small business owner, and that's your only email... you're just about to lose a hell of a lot of things you may take for granted.

Also... [https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/play/86WVa8b_...](https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/play/86WVa8b_3i4) that's a lot of people complaining about this. That topic grows daily.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> Google is the kid who accomplishes little despite having a genius IQ as he's unable to focus.

Google needs to build a single messaging application (ala iMessage) into Android, Gmail, Google Docs, etc. Then, once that's done, support the messaging app on all mobile platforms.

Most people outside the tech world do not even know what iMessage is, but they use it daily. That is how integrated it is into Apple products - perfect. Google can do this on a much larger scale, but chooses, instead, to focus on pet projects they'll lay out to pasture in 12 months.

APPL and AMZN are going to eat Google's lunch.

</comment><comment><USER99> So how do I get this going? Ask my friends to install a new messaging app just to talk with me? Unsure if I have that much of an influence even if I wanted people to switch. :P

</comment><comment><USER100> Isn't the main feature of this (smart reply) something that can be easily implemented by other messaging apps? And the stickers/emojis and Google Assistant are already available in other apps. Granted, Google has the power to integrate things really well and make it a premium experience that can win users over. Also, how does this relate to Google Hangouts/Gmail Chat? Lots of questions so it will be interesting to see how this will turn out.

</comment><comment><USER44> According to reports Allo doesn't support quick reply on Android N, any kind of reply on Android Wear, or notifications on more than one device. If there was any chat app that should support all of those it should be Google's new and shiny, which begs the question: Have Google made these features hard to use on Android, or are Allo's developers just not good at writing Android apps?

</comment><comment><USER101> Google Allo: Why people such as Edward Snowden are advising against using the app

[http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and- tech/fea...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and- tech/features/google-allo-should-i-download-it-privacy-issues-problems-fixes- snowden-a7321216.html)

</comment><comment><USER102> Great. Let's plan an experiment of using smart replies on both sides. It's like 2 bots chatting! Hope the smart reply adapts to individual's style with time, otherwise, it gets boring easily and the other party might know when a template response sent as 'sorry, no longer interested in you!'

</comment><comment><USER103> More messengers - less desire to use them. My anecdata show shift to jabber and IRC for older and more tech folks.

<comment><USER104> That's what makes hangouts appealing, you can still you your XMPP client. Maybe allo will support it too.

<comment><USER105> XMPP support is still around, but from what I've been able to gather it's their old Google Talk system bridged into Hangouts. I fully expect it to go away without warning at some point in the future, and I would be very surprised if Allo ever supports it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER106> Another messaging app? Who gives a fuck?

</comment><comment><USER107> TL;DR; "We had to react very quickly to Apple updated iMessage so instead of updating one of our existing clients we rolled out this new App which is a carbon copy of iMessage*"

PS: Oh and yeah we have made this useless encryption as an opt-in per session variable instead of standard...

</comment><comment><USER108> In many countries, "allo" is the first word of a phone conversation.

But Google Allo doesn't do any phone call, I think it will confuse users.

[https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/All%C3%B4](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/All%C3%B4)

<comment><USER76> Especially because the two biggest competitors (FB messenger and Whatsapp) have phone calls in their chat apps. I think a lot of people will be disappointed finding out that you can't use voice in Allo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER109> The Google surveillance machine has many faces. The only way to win is to not play the game.

</comment><comment><USER110> I just don't understand why. Encryption and stickers and gifs are things you could add to hangouts easily. 'Assistant' is just a wrapper for google now in a less convenient form. What is the point.

<comment><USER111> After playing around with it for a bit, Google Assistant is the killer app.

I wanted to show my friend Bill Wurtz's wonderful "History of Japan" video. So I just typed "@google bill wurtz japan".

Google Assistant immediately added the video to our chat. So this seems super nice if you just thought of something you want to show a someone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER112> The useless predictive reply stuff makes it feel more like a tech demo than an actual product. Why on Earth would I want a machine actually expressing sentiment for me, even if it's really cool that it can?

<comment><USER113> > Why on Earth would I want a machine actually expressing sentiment for me, > even if it's really cool that it can?

My old 'phone came with a bunch of pre-prepared SMS messages to make replies quicker, like "OK", "Sorry, can't talk now", etc.

One of them was "I love you too".

</comment></comment><comment><USER114> Does Allo also require one to necessarily allow access to contacts on the device to use it? This was a must in Duo, and so I abandoned the app after denying it permission to access my contacts because it wouldn't work otherwise (like allowing me to enter a phone number manually). Regardless of what other people generally do, I wouldn't want to upload my complete contacts list to a service provider like Google (or Facebook).

Also, the default being not end-to-end encrypted is not favorable to me. But I do like the option of having it available (like Telegram's secret chat).

<comment><USER115> I'm not sure I understand your complaint/concern. We're talking about text chat and video chat clients, and you're concerned with giving them access to your contacts? How are you going to contact your contacts with the apps if they don't know who your contacts are?

All communication apps are going to require access to your contacts so that your contact information can be used to communicate with your contacts. Duo and Allo are tied to phone numbers. They use phone numbers to identify users, so without access to phone numbers (contacts), they can't function. This is the same as all text message (SMS) clients, and the same way that many other chat clients work (Signal, WhatsApp, etc.).

</comment></comment><comment> Flip-per So if Allo, Whatsapp and Signal itself use the protocol and implementation of Signal, wouldn't it be possible to freely choose one of these clients which then can communicate with all other clients?

<comment><USER116> I'm afraid not. Federation isn't supported at all as far as I'm aware. It was on the Signal roadmap early on, but things have changed:

[https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is- moving/](https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER117> My response is the same as when Duo came out [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12297084](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12297084)

</comment><comment><USER118> Hello and Goodbye Allo. Not interested in yet another messaging product.

</comment><comment><USER119> I find it interesting that people are complaining both about the lack of a web app and about Google keeping message history on their servers. I'm assuming they will eventually build a web app, but you can't build a useful one unless you have the message history on the server, encrypted in such a way that the web server can decrypt it and serve it to the browser.

Unfortunately, you really do have to choose between privacy and having a web app. I'm not sure which I value more, TBH.

</comment><comment><USER120> Just installed the app and asked the google assistant - "Are you on Facebook?"

The reply -> "I'm not on facebook, but I do like things a lot (y)"

</comment><comment><USER121> Am I too old school to miss Google Talk even today?

</comment><comment><USER122> I just texted a friend and she replied "Good morning... why google allo". The message that she received from me included a message letting her know that I added her to Google Allo to chat along with a link to unsubscribe. I normally try to have more substance in my comments than just an anecdote, but this is simply highly un-nerving...

</comment><comment><USER123> >but everyone at both school and work these days shifts seamlessly from mobile to dekstop and back

Maybe the communication protocol is based on Hangout. Some people reverse- engineered the protocol and open-sourced it. It's called hangups.

I'm not sure, but was WhatsApp mobile-only in the past and someone reverse- engineered the modified XMMP protocol? never used it.

</comment><comment> github-cat So this is what I get when I use Google Assistant. [http://www.pixelstech.net/fun/279-Am-I-talking-to-Google- Ass...](http://www.pixelstech.net/fun/279-Am-I-talking-to-Google-Assistant-or- ET)

</comment><comment><USER124> I always wondered what word we would use after "smart" wore off. Apparently it's now "smarter"

</comment><comment><USER125> Still says "Unregister" (or Pre-register if you hadn't registered) for me (I'm in India).

</comment><comment><USER126> This time is different, I'm sure.

</comment><comment><USER127> > _Google Allo makes it easier for you to respond quickly and keep the > conversation going, even when you're on the go. With Smart Reply, you can > respond to messages with just a tap, so you can send a quick "yup" in > response to a friend asking "Are you on your way?" Smart Reply will also > suggest responses for photos. If your friend sends you a photo of their pet, > you might see Smart Reply suggestions like "aww cute!" And whether you're a > "haha" or "" kind of person, Smart Reply will improve over time and adjust > to your style._

So for Google instead of snowflakes we are glorified chat bots? I like it. I hope one day it can imitate me so well I can delegate all my chats to it. It will be like a mini-me!

> _Have some fun. Ask your Assistant to share that funny YouTube video or play > games with friends right in your group chat — for instance you can compete > to guess a movie title based on a series of emojis._

Oh great, now I have a tireless assistant to help me spam my friends and make them procrastinate!

<comment><USER57> > I hope one day it can imitate me so well I can delegate all my chats to it. > It will be like a mini-me!

Next step is when both ends do this and cut out the human middle (wo)men.

<comment><USER127> Yeap! And after work we can have a meta-chat about what our mini-mes chatted while we were working.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER128> Is it weird to anyone else that the first GIF they show is of an iPhone using Allo and not Android? What message is Google trying to send (excuse the pun)? To me, it really shows that they are prioritizing iPhone over Android...

</comment><comment><USER129> I installed it and am comparing it to updates in macOS Sierra that I installed today.

Even though Siri hooks into Wolfram Alpha so it does very well with 'calculation style' questions and general world questions, without Google's greater knowledge of what we are doing it can't compete.

The question for people to answer individually is do they want give up more private information and have a great Google experience, or, they want more privacy, in which case Apple comes out the winner.

With Allo, asking about my future airline reservations works, but asking for future shuttle reservations did not, which was surprising since Google Inbox highlights the upcoming shuttle reservation.

EDIT: it turns out that you can't make Allo your SMS app on Android, it is separate. Allo looks cool, but I deregistered and uninstalled it: SMS, email, and separate Google Now works well for me.

<comment><USER130> You know when you search Google for a question and sometimes it will highlight the answer in a card at the top of the page by itself? I'm really surprised it's not doing that in Allo.

<comment><USER131> Basically part of the answer and a hyperlink to the full answer. Guess, they will add it soon enough.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER132> It's almost as if they want you to abandon their stuff even before they do...

</comment><comment><USER133> I Have WhatsApp running on my iPhone, Windows PC, on my iMac and Laptop. I haven't tried Allo yet, but I'm not happy with any app like this taking off that isn't cross-platform.

<comment><USER134> Whatsapp wasn't on the web not too long ago. They also started with Chrome only which was annoying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER135> This reminds me a lot of Telegram in incognito vs secret chat and the stickers. I wish Google good luck in such a competive field and especially one that is completely dependent on the network effect

</comment><comment><USER136> All I want from this newest addition to google chat services is a decent overview of who is online and who is not. The rest is just icing on the cake.

</comment><comment><USER137> Yet another Google product that'll I'll like and they'll kill off in a year. I'm getting tired of this pattern from them

</comment><comment><USER138> Google just keeps pushing boundaries trying to legitimise spying. This is really creepy, and its surprising that Google and folks who work there think its ok to do this. Might as well have an NSA drone tail you.

It's as if Google's ad business is just a front for a global intelligence gathering operation.

There is a real problem with Google here and a golden opportunity for less privacy invading businesses to take its place. I am sure as users becoming more aware they will increasingly gravitate to businesses that can operate less creepily.

</comment><comment><USER26> I wonder if the WhatsApp "problem" Brazil has been having somehow influenced the change of stance of encryption?

</comment><comment><USER139> If both Allo users have responses recommended by the app, who's chatting with each other -- the users or the apps?

</comment><comment><USER140> I dislike it - there's no history between app installs. The least I need is another ephemeral messaging app!

</comment><comment><USER141> Just like omnichannel, chat apps need to be 'omnichat', i.e. be present on mobiles and desktop.

</comment><comment><USER142> Express yourself with photos, emojis and stickers.

This is where I decided I'm done reading, and this is not for me.

</comment><comment><USER30> Why would someone use Allo - giving everyone the awkward feeling that my responses are computer-written?

</comment><comment><USER143> I faintly remember the early 'oughts, back when I used to be excited about the stuff Google did.

</comment><comment><USER144> This looks a lot like Wave wanted to be. Communication & smart agents helping things along.

</comment><comment><USER145> Just don't fat-finger the verification code.

I did, and now I can't create an account.

</comment><comment><USER146> If they want an instant network effect there's a really simple play...integrate it with Pokemon Go. If it's the only official IM program that'll work with/is tightly coupled with Pokemon Go enough people will install it.

Might sound silly but I think that would actually be a great play for Google.

</comment><comment><USER147> Why do they need another-nother-nother messaging app?!

</comment><comment><USER148> Says it's available for iOS. Not available for iOS.

</comment><comment><USER149> Great, another App we'll get bundled in our Android devices. (>_<) I don't think so Google!

[https://telegram.org/](https://telegram.org/)

</comment><comment><USER150> So this is what 2016 looks like in tech...

</comment><comment><USER151> This is Googles big play into chat bots.

</comment><comment><USER152> Can't find it. Is it US only?

</comment><comment><USER153> Installed it. Liking it so far.

</comment><comment><USER154> Say hello to privacy invasion

</comment><comment><USER155> Not available in UK store ...

</comment><comment><USER156> useless for me until they introduce equivalent of web.whatsapp.com

</comment><comment><USER157> I'm sure Ello are delighted with Google's respect for trademarks.

</comment><comment><USER158> Encrypted or not?

</comment><comment><USER118> Goodbye Allo.

</comment><comment><USER159> Allo Taxi Lebanon is going to be pissed!

</comment><comment><USER160> wow, conversing with an AI. Skynet is near.

<comment><USER93>
        I see. Why do you feel
        that way? -Eliza

</comment></comment><comment><USER161> they should have just made this an iMessage app

</comment><comment> ryan-allen I don't like canned replies. I made a tampermonkey [0] user script [1] to remove auto reply suggestions from Google Inbox, they drove me nuts. I found them utterly patronising! If only I could remove them from my phone, too.

[0] [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgf...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgffkkebhmkfjojejmpbldmpobfkfo?hl=en) [1] [https://gist.github.com/ryan- allen/fd45c6f7396fffe28b6b3b517...](https://gist.github.com/ryan- allen/fd45c6f7396fffe28b6b3b51797bb14f)</comment>


Command line interface for Signal/TextSecure - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/AsamK/textsecure-cli <comment><USER2> I wonder why this didn't get more traction, for me this means Signal is finally approaching a full fledged WhatsApp alternative (with matrix and ring hot on its heels)</comment>


Cal physicists make a radio 10,000 times thinner than a human hair - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/01/BUTBT44A2.DTL

<comment><USER2> Wow, 10,000 times thinner than a human hair! That's, like, a hundred billion times smaller than a football field! If you stacked twelve double-decker buses on top of one another, the pile would be 43 billion times larger than one of these radios. If you put 3.8e14 of these radios together they'd stretch from the earth to the moon.

Seriously though, I don't know why science journalists like that unit of measurement so much.

<comment><AUTHOR> Because everyone has held a piece of hair in their hands and can grasp the size, the human hair is an excellent human scale reference for attempting to describe very small measurements.

<comment><USER3> Usually units like that are used because they make the scale easier to grok. Unfortunately, with large numbers, humans fail to truly understand the scale between them (e.g.: you can innately feel the difference between one and a thousand more easily than between a quadrillion and a quintillion). This is also the reason why you'd prefer eating dots in Pac-Man to give you 100 points a piece rather than 1 million.

Thus, having to say "1/10000" defeats much of the point of using the width of a human hair as a unit. I don't think it's much harder to innately grasp 5 nanometers than 1/10000 the width of a human hair.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hmmmm....no mention of any potentially Orwellian uses?

<comment><USER4> I...I can hear the voices. They don't stop, they're telling me to...read 1984??</comment></comment>


Amazon announcement on June 18 - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/+amazon/posts/QWZeja9kgtb

<comment><USER2> 'Project Smith' 3D eye-tracking phone with motion-sensing UI a la Kinect.

      The screen itself is not 3D, but the front of the phone has 4 cameras
      placed on each corner of the phone, this is to track the user's
      eyes/head and move the UI to give the impression of 3D. Similar to
      what iOS 7 is achieving simply by using the phone's accelerometer.
      The advantage being that it's not based on how the phone moves, but
      how the head moves.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6485698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6485698)

</comment><comment><USER3> It likely does eye tracking which creates a very stunning 3d effect. Sounds awesome.

Here's a demo of the effect: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9kPI7_vhAU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9kPI7_vhAU)

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm betting it's the amazon phone with the 3D display that was leaked.

<comment><USER5> Indeed, it would make sense with people moving their head around. Link to rumor: [http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732474410...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324744104578473081373377170)

<comment><USER6> I hate links to wsj because they are always behind a paywall

<comment><USER7> Try following the result here:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=Amazon+is+Developing+Smartph...](https://www.google.com/search?q=Amazon+is+Developing+Smartphone+With+3-D+Screen)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Obviously a handheld device (phone) of some sort with a motion sensor/face tracker? Lets you rotate an item view by moving your head?

</comment><comment><USER9> if this is inferred 3d from head tracking going to be really interesting how amazon deals with this for 3rd party developers. How do you implement and design a 3d mobile app and have it gracefully degrade to 2d? I think the reason we haven't seen this sooner come out of Apple is because of the design challenges, not just for the metaphors that need to be invented but because of all the necessary API/semantic work necessary to have a graceful migration to 3d. If things are not set up to make 3d a natural, universal extension of the mobile experience for all apps, for a phone with enough users that make it worthwhile to do so, it will be doomed to be a gimmick.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm not really sure how related this is, but T-Mobile is also having an Uncarrier announcement on the 18th: [http://www.cnet.com/news/t-mobile-to- usher-in-uncarrier-5-0-...](http://www.cnet.com/news/t-mobile-to-usher-in- uncarrier-5-0-on-june-18/). I don't think an Amazon phone announcement would be the primary focus of such a "special" (according to T-Mobile) announcement, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a connection - perhaps they are the launch partner for this hypothetical phone?

</comment><comment><USER11> Split discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7848334](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7848334)

</comment><comment><USER12> This is interesting, especially given the developer questions:

> Are you interested in developing apps that utilize a novel type of sensor?

> Do you have machine learning experience? Please describe.

> Describe an innovative way in which you have used gyroscopes, > accelerometers, compass, or other sensors in your app development

Those all involve positioning.

</comment><comment><USER13> An announcement of an announcement does not make for a good HN post. Let's wait until something of substance happens.

<comment><USER14> Dang, you've been doing some great work, and I really appreciate it, but won't you just let us talk about what we want to talk about without berating us about it all the time? You've been making some pretty heavy-handed imperatives lately, and while I haven't seen any evidence of you using your powers of moderation to act on those comments, the fact that you're a known moderator, and by all appearances the most active one, does make me a bit uncomfortable. Add to that the extreme difficulty of determining when the mods are using their powers, due to the backend secrecy of HN, and it seems like a very dangerous tack to be taking with regards to the site.

This article has started to drop suspiciously quickly - whether that's users flagging it or you or another mod messing with the votes I don't know. But it's worrying.

In this case, the webpage itself was pretty boring, but it led to a discussion about a very interesting piece of technology and UI idea, one which I and, judging by its high-front-page status, a number of other HN readers, enjoyed very much. I'd hate for discussions like this to be stifled by overmoderation.

<comment><USER13> I'm dismayed that even one user would feel like I'm berating them all the time.

The question here isn't what you can talk about. Two discussions on this are currently open; you're welcome to keep them going. It's whether the story and/or discussions are substantive enough to belong on HN's front page. I'm not seeing the substance here. The story is an announcement of an announcement, and the top comment on the main thread just now is [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7848774](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7848774), which is the opposite of what HN calls for. This makes sense, given that there's no actual substance to discuss.

That's my call on that story, anyway. Of course, we don't get every call right. This job involves guesswork, and we rely on the community to point out our mistakes.

Your point about HN moderation seeming heavy-handed is really a side effect of greater transparency. Because what we do has gotten more visible, it seems like it's new. But it isn't new—it's the way things have always worked. Hacker News from day one has been a blend of community upvotes and active curation. Sadly, one consequence of greater transparency is that some people feel like we've suddenly become heavy-handed and manipulative. It isn't true, but I understand why it might seem that way.

<comment><USER14> Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the well-thought-out response. The moderation has always made me a bit uncomfortable, but its results are pretty plain to see, so I guess I'll shut up and put up. You're probably right that my uneasiness is due to increased transparency, which is actually a very positive development, IMO.

Thanks again for the work you do. Sorry for the somewhat knee-jerk reaction.

<comment><USER13> Not at all, and thanks for posting this follow-up. It brought my dismay level back down. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Someone pull a CSI and enhance the reflection in the glasses at about 43 seconds in!

</comment><comment><USER16> The video looks like a parody of an Amazon product announcement.</comment>


How to Love Your Enemies: The Behavioral Science of DIY Depolarization - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-to-love-your-enemies/ <comment><AUTHOR> From the article:

When we stop thinking of ourselves as advocates for a position, and more as truth-seekers, happy to accept appropriate uncertainty, we become less likely to think of those with different views as "enemies."</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best way to scrape HN profiles? - <AUTHOR>

I'm currently working on a small weekend project where I need to get the HN karma value for a given subset of users. (It's just a fun exercise and I'll share it once it's ready).
I'm using the HN API provided by Algolia [0] but I realised it's just updating the values every time there's a new post or submission from that user.
Anyone aware of an API where I could grab this value without getting IP banned by HN like i probably would if I access/scrape 1000 user profiles every hour?
Thanks!
Edit: If it's updated once every 24h that's perfectly fine for my use-case.
[0] https://hn.algolia.com/api/v1/users/dewey <comment><USER2> The Algolia API allows for 10,000 calls per hour so you wouldn't get IP banned for your use case.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm aware of that, the problem is:

> it's just updating the values every time there's a new post or submission > from that user.

Source: [http://hn.algolia.com/about](http://hn.algolia.com/about)

<comment><USER3> So the problem is that the karma count in the API is not updated if a user has not submitted anything recently? So a comment from 2 days ago that is still getting upvoted would not update. You could scrape user profiles at a rate of 2 per minute and still respect robots.txt ([https://news.ycombinator.com/robots.txt](https://news.ycombinator.com/robots.txt)). But to scrape more and be a good citizen, use the API with limitations, or some combination of the two (e.g. if you have a list of 1000 users, use the API first, and for users who may not have posted in the last 48 hours, scrape them directly). You could also try contacting YC staff and asking for permission to scrape at a higher rate.

<comment><AUTHOR> > So the problem is that the karma count in the API is not updated if a user > has not submitted anything recently?

Exactly.

> or some combination of the two (e.g. if you have a list of 1000 users, use > the API first, and for users who may not have posted in the last 48 hours, > scrape them directly)

That's a good idea, I'll try that for now. Thanks!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


English docs for Element - A Desktop UI for VueJS are online now - <AUTHOR> http://element.eleme.io/#/en-US <comment><AUTHOR> After nearly two months of working with a professional translation team, we finally have all the docs translated.

Last week we released Element 1.0.0 after nine release candidates. Today, together with the English docs, we released version 1.0.1. Our community cannot thrive without you guys, so please don't hesitate to use Element today!

</comment><comment><USER2> I just found out about Element last weekend when I thought about porting the SemanticUI components we need to VueJS and looked for alternatives. It's fantastic to see an English version now, though Google Chrome already translated the site well enough to get started.

The only component I am missing is a from-to range slider to narrow results.

Element UI would even be better if it would share the same API with MintUI.

</comment><comment><USER3> LGTM

</comment><comment><USER4> niubility</comment>


Lingt (YC S09) Acquired by Dictionary.com - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/us/2010/12/31/dictionary-com-acquires-language-learning-service-lingt/

<comment><AUTHOR> Lingt had some cool game mechanics useful for the educational market, which can now be found at <http://flashcards.dictionary.com/></comment>


The most valued "White Space" – Super WiFi - <AUTHOR> http://techbiztrends.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/the-most-valued-white-space-super-wifi/

<comment><USER2> The article is mostly wrong as to where the white space frequencies come from. He talks about the Guard Bands put between two transmission channels to reduce interference, which is only an incredibly minor gain, if any at all.

White space actually comes from considering your frequency allocation on two geographic scales. When the allocator gives out tv spectrum, they make sure that two adjacent tv zones aren't on the same frequency so that they interfere, as you would expect. TV Masts cover a large area though, so if you are only transmitting a short range you can be cleverer.

Let's say you have Mast A transmitting in Zone A on frequency A, next to Zone B (etc.). If you're in the middle of zone B, you can safely transmit on low power using frequency A, because you're too far from A to interfere.

This is what white space does - intelligently reuses unused bits of frequency at short range (shorter than a TV Mast). This is already how frequencies for things like Radio Microphones are done - you apply for your licence, and someone in an office somewhere works out what frequencies you are allowed to use at your address without interference. White Space intends to do the same thing automatically, probably with some form of database based solution (using a known location, possibly from GPS).

</comment><comment><USER3> Hopefully this doesn't get heavily regulated and becomes a licensed spectrum by the time it gets a chance to take off the ground. This should revolutionize the carrier model, and at the very least it would force them to go All-IP.</comment>


The first arbitration institution develops Arbitration Rules on GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Cryptonomica/arbitration-rules <comment><AUTHOR> And I think this is first and only legal international arbitration, that works with Bitcoin</comment>


When I Worked at Google... - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22when+i+worked+at+google%22&btnG=Search

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess it's true that nobody wants to leave Google (<http://www.paulgraham.com/mit.html>).

<comment><USER2> Microsoft's oh, only 23 years older than Google...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Results 1 - 10 of about 1,280 for "when i worked at denny's"

<comment><USER4> Results 1 - 50 of about 20,800 for "i work at google"</comment></comment>


Why aren't we using solar powered ships? - <AUTHOR> https://alexsmith.io/?p=276

<comment><USER2> I think the larger the craft, the more this would make sense. I had the idea of a long pontoon craft for inter waterway trade powered by solar panels based on a patent I had seen[1]

Although that was for a ground-effect craft[2], the long flat deck seemed perfect to mount solar panels. I'm not well versed in hydrodynamics, but I imagine the smaller contact area with the water would reduce drag for the initial launch phase as well.

[1] [https://www.google.com/patents/US5746146](https://www.google.com/patents/US5746146)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle)

<comment><AUTHOR> I think ground effect requires too much power to be practical, hydroplaning on the other hand may be possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I too have wondered this. I think these guys have done some research on the matter: [http://www.seasteading.org/](http://www.seasteading.org/)

...but I don't know of the current state, if any, of their conclusions.

<comment><AUTHOR> It makes a lot of sense. If a business can turn a variable cost (fuel) into a fixed cost (solar panels) it's generally advantageous.</comment></comment>


Never short a country with $2 trillion in reserves? - <AUTHOR> http://mpettis.com/2010/02/never-short-a-country-with-2-trillion-in-reserves/

<comment><USER2> Office vacancy rates in Pudong are over 50%. Many of the signs of excess capacity are readily apparent in China: it is only the massive currency injections, in keeping the currency pegged to the dollar, that have allowed such expansion unjustified by demand.

One way or another, China has borrowed from the future and will have to pay for this excess expansion. It could be a crash, or it could be years of stagnation as the nation attempts to use up the excess capacity it has built.

This is a good piece written by someone who understands the underlying economics.

Chanos has been criticized as just recently beginning to study the Chinese economy, but sometimes being fresh to a subject helps distance an analyst from recent past--which can be a good thing.

<comment><USER3> China is taking all the massive cash it is making now because there is no other really big and cheap factory, and sticking it into infrastructure. Buildings, roads, subways, minority villages - all of that is being built up.

Even if you have a crash, a built road is still there and a built office still exists. Pudong is empty because the offices are expensive and it's not really in town - if a crash happens that forces the government to reconsider whom they want to target pudong at, then there will be enough people moving in there when the prices are right.

China is not developed, it's developing. It's not borrowing from the future - the U.S is borrowing from the future and giving it to china. China is taking the money and building infrastructure.

Property is not expensive in china. There is no excessive inflation or speculation. China has the typical bubble of any rapidly growing economy, but the huge internal market, massive infrastructure development, and large population of highly educated people, and the introduction of chinese businessmen to secondary markets in Africa and South America mean that the fundamentals of the chinese economy are fine. If there is any bubble, it will blow over and growth will continue.

<comment><USER4> Infrastructure for infrastructure's sake? If it crashes and forces the government to re-think things, you think this happens instantly? That crash is figuring things out and filling up the excess capacity.

<comment><USER5> Better to spend it on roads than on cheap Chinese merchandise.

<comment><USER6> I happen to like cheap chinese merchandise. I'd rather pay $1500 for a Macbook Pro manufactured there than $2000 for one manufactured here.

<comment><USER5> Long term that's a losing strategy. It means you are willing to export all your production facilities to another country, creating a massive trade- imbalance in the process.

Think about how strange it is that not just your macbook, but almost everything you can buy has been manufactured on the other side of the planet, can be transported, imported and _still_ be sold cheaper than you could produce it locally.

It's a bit like selling your birthright.

Also, don't forget that those workers abroad are usually working in circumstances that local authorities would not tolerate.

A nice bit of backstory about moving production to China.

A few years ago, rubbermaid was forced to raise its prices because of the developments on the raw materials market.

Wall-mart refused to accept the rise, dropped the rubbermaid product line, rubbermaid filed for bankruptcy, and then the whole production was moved to China and wall-mart signed a distribution deal with the new owners of the moulds.

<comment><USER6> No, all it means I'd prefer Chinese people to do what they're good at, and Americans do what they're good at. If we can't manufacture cost-effectively in this country, then it's fine for it to happen somewhere else. I don't view manufacturing plants as a birthright.

<comment><USER5> Manufacturing cost effectively and manufacturing cost effectively while maintaining workplace safety, paying a living wage and respecting the environment are two different things, and it is the latter that you are comparing with the former.

So the only reason why you can buy that stuff manufactured in China cheaper is because of a combination of lack of respect for human beings, sloppy environmental controls and unsafe work place practices.

If those were brought up to the same standards that are held in the developed countries the prices would be roughly the same after import duties and transportation costs are figured in.

<comment><USER6> > Manufacturing cost effectively and manufacturing cost effectively while > maintaining workplace safety, paying a living wage and respecting the > environment are two different things, and it is the latter that you are > comparing with the former.

It would be interesting to see some objective measurements about how much of the cost difference is explained by which differences in practice. For example, I think the "living wage" paid to manufacturing employees in the U.S. frequently exceeds the real living wage by a substantial margin, which they exact from their employers via a monopoly on labor (unions).

<comment><USER5> Let me give you just one example, not even looking at the cost of waste processing and such, because they don't apply to this story.

A friend of mine is an interesting character, something of a mechanical/electrical genius, he can literally fix any machinery.

One of his jobs involved flying to China to help with the repair of a machine that mass produced latex condoms.

While he was there the proud owner of the condom factory announced he had just finished the creation of a factory for car jacks that were sold in large numbers to the big three car manufacturers for inclusion with their vehicles.

He got a tour of the 'new' factory.

He described a scene straight out of the worst of the beginnings of the industrial age. Workers, mostly women and children stood at endless tables in very bad light operating hand operated machine tools and tool-and-die stamping machines.

Plenty of them were missing fingers or worse, and the pace was literally feverish, the noise deafening.

It was the most unsafe machine shop he has ever seen and he's been in quite a few of them. Now, arguably this is low tech stuff, not comparable with your macbook, and I'd hope that Apple held their suppliers to a higher standard.

But responsible waste management and safety cost a lot of money when you factor them in to the end price of a product, no matter whether it's a nike shoe, a macbook or a car jack.

<comment><USER6> Fair enough, but Apple apparently has very stringent inspection practices with the factories it maintains overseas in order to ensure things like this aren't going on. Yet they still choose to do business here rather than there. I admit it's possible they are simply lying about these practices, but I think it's more likely that a substantial portion of the savings have nothing to do with human rights or basic environmental issues.

<comment><USER7> Even supposing Apple has perfect inspections, the workers only need money to buy goods on their local market - and their local goods and services going to be much cheaper because they're manufactured under those same poor working conditions. So Apple still gains from Chinese working conditions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is the most level-headed view I've read on this subject. A worthwhile read.

</comment><comment><USER9> I remember reading the Friedman piece several weeks ago and thinking to myself, "This guy drank the China kool-aid too." It's part of the whole American declinism notion that pops up every ten years or so and I've never believed it. We were there with Japan in the 80s, The Soviet Union, the EU, and now China (and India too). It's easy to believe China is going to be the next superpower if you look at its growth relative to the U.S over the last decade. But the thing that's always made me skeptical about any country replacing the U.S as the world's lone superpower any time soon isn't our resources. It's our sense of mission and purpose in the world. It's something that nobody else has. Only we have it because it's in our cultural fabric. It's not something you create on purpose. It grows organically out of a hapenstance of historical events. It informs everything else about us. You see it when you travel to other countries and come back. Americaness is optimism and hope. It's a source of our soft power, which is extremely attractive to the rest of the world. It's why everyone wants to be American but nobody secretly wishes they were Chinese or Nigerian or Brazilian. China or Russia or the EU or India don't have that sense of mission and purpose in their psyche. No amount of military hardware or GDP growth can compensate for that.Superpowerdom is unsustainable without it. So China could be a paper tiger.

<comment><USER10> Except for China. They actually have a very similar concept of destiny and mission.

I think the issues with China are going to be much more practical. They remind me a lot of the Soviet Union. A closed society that is very effective at giving the appearance of prosperity, while under the covers things are very different. They'll be able to keep it up for a decade or two, but over time the whole thing crumbles as the base was never truly well built.

Our biggest advantage lies in the risk taking aspects of our culture. We're a people that celebrates the type of risk that leads to true innovation. The cool thing: It's not just the U.S. anymore. Europe has caught on as well.

I do think the United States is going to weaken (relatively) in the coming decade. We'll still be a world power, but I think we'll be sharing that with a re-awakened Europe.

<comment><USER11> "It's not just the U.S. anymore. Europe has caught on as well."

Europe has taken on U.S. style risk taking? I have honestly not heard or read this elsewhere. Can you elaborate?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So Chanos may turn out to be wrong, but not for the reasons Friedman thinks he is. This is probably a reasonable view.

Professor Pettis is also correct in asserting that the role of central bank reserves is one of the most misunderstood concepts in economics. In fact, nowadays, almost any economic concept as it relates to governments or sovereign states are routinely misunderstood. Probably because that is precisely the part of the economy that the average person feels they understand so well.

For instance, many people worry, rightly by the way, about our USD1.4 Trillion deficit. They feel qualified to comment on its implications authoritatively since we can SORT OF understand the concept. Yet you see no publicly expressed concern at all over the USD500 Trillion house of cards that is the derivatives market. Very few people understand derivatives markets well enough to know the implications of this situation. I think this causes us not to think about it and to hope that someone else will deal with it before the bottom falls out.

Now understand that these guys are not average at all. I have attended Pettis' talks and he is definitely not average. But I think the same sort of intellectual dynamic goes on even in their circle.

</comment><comment><USER13> _This is because it is about central bank reserves, a topic that to my dismay probably generates more confused and mistaken thinking than any other topic in economics._

not understanding the basics of sovereign accounting is understandable. could you make heads or tails of a companies finance if they did all their accounting in their own stock?

</comment><comment><USER14> A good counterpoint to the title quote would also be "Never expect a good thing to last forever".

At some point growing investments gain a momentum all their own. I.E. everyone invests in China because of their double digit growth; and China has double digit growth because everyone invests in them.

The problem with a compounding growth curve is that it gets so steep that it shoots past the place where it should have found equilibrium.

</comment><comment><USER15> Wow, Michael Pettis melts one particular face in specific and lays out a historical precedent analogous to China's current horde of foreign reserves. Without cribbing his article too much, my main takeaway is the underlying economic imbalances at play in China that have resulted in their accumulation of foreign reserves, particularly 2 trillion US dollars.

</comment><comment><USER16> I hope China will invest more on its Infrastructure & Irrigation projects.

</comment><comment><USER17> If one factor - large reserves - leads to economic problems than this guy is dead on. But it doesn't.

Economic success or failure is due to many factors.

He should have chose to argue with Jim Rogers, who has much more credibility, than Friedman.

<comment><USER2> His argument is that large reserves do not protect from economic problems. This is in response to Friedman's assertion that the Chanos analysis is wrong because despite excess capacity, China can use its currency reserves to stave off recession, which isn't true.

In the article he states explicitly that large reserves do not necessarily cause economic problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> A country that can draw from a larger pool of "geniuses" can afford channeling that resource into a larger set of activities. Dividing China into 4 will result in a set of nations with a reduced set of talent to distribute in key national industrial and scientific efforts.

<comment><USER19> Yes, but how will that help the broad economy?

For example, it could help you to increase your level of military technology, but it doesn't provide markets for all those factories who's export markets are drying up.

Haven't we learned that central planning doesn't work (for long) for this sort of thing? See Japan, Inc.

<comment><USER18> You've misunderstood [my] post. The article is arguing that China's massive population (and consequently the size of a cream of the crop brainiacs slice) is irrelevant, which made little sense. [edit]</comment></comment></comment>


Wixi: one more webOS ?  - <AUTHOR> http://main.wixi.com/ Wixi was presented at TechCrunch40. The activation code "tech40access" may still work. The business model is based on disk storage renting.

<comment><USER2> Oh, I find really annoying when people call it OS when they want to mean, at much, desktop. In this case I would call it web-media-player.

</comment><comment><USER3> YComb have a couple of very good questions in their application: "What is the problem you are trying to solve?" and "What do your users have to do now?"

With these guys I am not sure how to answer those two, especially the 1st one. "Share! Access Everywhere!" on a company's front page used to be cool... like 5 years ago.

Sharing and accessing from everywhere IS NOT a problem anymore.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Wixi was presented at TechCrunch40. The activation code "tech40access" may still work. The business model is based on disk storage renting.</comment>


Ask HN: Custom Website vs. WordPress Website ranking problem? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> It has been my experience that anything that you can do with a custom site, you can do with a WP site and vise versa.

If you are having SEO issues it is probably not your platform, but how it is being used. Maybe get a lighthouse audit and make sure your design is mobile friendly. Create content that people want to read.

Hope that helps.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. And to add, if you have no knowledge of SEO you'll probably be better off with Wordpress (+ the Yoast SEO plugin), but if you know what you're doing you can achieve the same thing with a custom CMS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't understand the question.

<comment><AUTHOR> Does custom website provide any special factor to rank in Google</comment></comment>


Finding Startup Co-Founders DON'T - <AUTHOR> http://sacstarts.com/blog/adam-kalsey/2007/01/04/finding-startup-co-founders

<comment><USER2> From the way it is worded I would bet it is two MBA guys, who never wrote a line of code in their lives (but know a bunch of acronyms), expecting to find a guy, who would build the whole thing singlehandedly for 5% of equity max? Are you freaking kidding me?

This attitude clearly displays no respect for technical abilities involved building a web company from zero. They are looking for a brilliant code monkey who would sit quiet in the corner and code away why they are making the world shattering "business decisions".

In my view they should get to know another acronym: KMA.

<comment><USER3> This is an epidemic among business types. They very often just don't have the imagination to know whats involved.

You could build a giant rocket, complete with moon lander and robots to build a habitat once it arrived and connect it to a giant red button that said "launch"... You'd still have to tell the MBA what button to push, and after he did, he _really would_ believe that he had single handedly colonized the moon.

All of the engineers would think him a slimy weasel for making such a claim after all of their hard work. He would just think that they were jealous because while he was busy with the hard, visionary work of moon colonization, they just sat around and fiddled with rocket parts all day.

<comment><USER4> "This is an epidemic among business types"

While I agree with your basic premise we're not all like that. I've heard the exact same thing from engineers - "hey I built this great product and it should sell itself, how hard can it be to market and sell it?

It's common to dismiss the work needed to accomplish a task in an area you are unfamiliar with. Especially if the people doing the task are good at what they do. Then they make it seem easy. This goes for both tech and biz people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The News.YC headline for this is a touch confusing. When I clicked on it, I thought the OP was summing up the article as "Don't look for startup cofounders." In fact the article is "don't look for cofounders via an unreasonably demanding Craigslist ad."

<comment><USER6> don't -> don'ts

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This sounds like the good old "I have an idea, and I'll give you 5% if you build it" fallacy.

A tell-tale sign of someone who doesn't know what it takes and where value is added and wealth created.</comment>


What to do when faced with "Not Invented Here" - <AUTHOR> http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/184107/my-boss-has-a-bad-case-of-not-invented-here

<comment><USER2> This doesn't really sound like "NIH."

At least from the tidbits of conversation given in that post, it sounds like his boss is being responsible, and trying to evaluate the risk of the various possibilities.

[The questioner, on the other hand, sounds very inexperienced, and seems to have latched onto the (dubious) label "NIH" simply because they know it sounds bad...]

</comment><comment><USER3> The accepted answer to this question nailed it. Btw. this post should be labelled "Why a boss should not always listen to his junior programmers" :)</comment>


How to negotiate a job offer - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aV550-lVgf_2pAWtOwn8a0NU4Uh3356elhsE-91z5Kw/edit?pli=1

<comment><USER2> Awesome! Wish everything was this short and sweet.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Courtesy of Mr. Casey Patton.

</comment><comment><USER3> awesome!</comment>