Slashdot Mirror

Nevermind, I found them, under "Ideas". No wonder Google hasn't given out any money, the ideas are really terrible.

No kidding. These are some of the WORST ideas I've ever seen, for a couple for reasons.

1. They are really vague with no specific ideas on how to accomplish any of them. It's unclear how ten million would help any of them to happen, or even what the money would be spent on.
2. They don't even make sense half the time. Take this one for instance "Help social entrepreneurs drive change". What the heck is that supposed to be? What is a "social entrepreneur"? Anyone who knows what an entrepreneur is knows there isn't any such thing. The google picture representing it was a guy standing around idly blowing flower petals, which is a pretty apt depiction of this supposedly great idea.

Kudos to google if they keep their money and pay nothing out for any of these. The money will be put to much better use if google uses it to develop more products and services instead.

Side Note: As a freedom loving individual who believes in limited government and free markets, I'd actually rather see the money burned than used for most of these ideas... "Work towards social conscious tax policies"? I might puke...

There are 16 ideas. I agree it could be clearer but those might be the finalists.

(Posting as AC for personal reasons related to my submission.)

people with truly great ideas are going to want to 1) have something to do with seeing them happen, and 2) want to benefit personally. (Even non-profits pay good salaries!) So I don't think this model provides adequate benefit to the idea owner to relinquish control of their intellectual property. Will the really good ideas come out?

If your idea is a slam-dunk winner for profitability, or if you expect to make money on an idea, go talk to a VC firm. If you've got a good idea you should be able to get it funded. The current system already works for this kind of idea.

What about all the ideas that could help many people, but require substantial investment and would at best break even? Outside of philanthropic efforts (such as this contest), the current system fails. VC firms won't touch something that won't turn a profit, and charities often focus on the immediate problems for which they have the money on hand to solve[1].

This contest is about long term fixes that need money to get off the ground, but are not likely to turn much of a profit, if any. Things like mosquito nets for malaria, not the next Viagra.

Alternatively, if you really just want to help people, you could turn in a profitable idea that would be self supporting and probably help even more people. A lot of people have no problem doing that, and nobody is forcing you to do that against your will.

But, don't trust me, RTFFAQ. Seen in light of that, the TOS makes sense, even if it not business, profit or fame friendly[2].

[1] You could call it shortsighted or risk averse, but to be fair charities don't have the luxury of taking risks in many instances; a failure will be quite public and negatively affect future funding of kill the charity entirely.

[2] One thing I think *should* be changed: Google should commit to returning any of its profit gained from this program back into the program itself, to fund other ideas. You would still need to allow subcontracted entities to make a profit (anything else it just too unrealistic an expectation), but Google could choose contractors based on their efficiency at production, or even choose multiple ones to stimulate competition and thus low prices.

from http://www.project10tothe100.com/faq.html

Q: Why is Google doing this?
A: The short answer is that we think helping people is a good thing, and empowering people to help others is an even better thing.

No. You are doing this as PR. Seriously stop with the BS. You have long ago left behind being a search-engine company, you are CLEARLY an advertising company. I cannot go anywhere on the web these days without being bothered by you (google ads, double click ads..., embedded google analytics on vast portion of the web, google apps embedded in others pages through google API or youtube videos..., references/links to content hosted on google maps or earth or orkut or blogger or knol...,) The web and our information does not belong to you. Now you are taking over advertising on cell phones, games, print, radio media; yesterday I read that you now do ads for Bloomberg TV http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092502313.html. Now you need to directly control the browser (chrome), OS (android starting with my cell phone) and finance all this with my information. I read a previous statement from google (I do not have link currently) that if we do not like your services use something else, problem is I cannot use much of the web without being forced to use you in one fashion or another.

Really, slashdot once cared about personal privacy and calling things as they are. google mission first line from their mission statement is: "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/ As we have seen that includes EVERYTHING and is rapidly expanding. A few years ago no one would have said it would be ok for some advertising company to data mine their email, contact folder...

Slashdot you the community have let me down and I think I will need to find another place to waste time. I once loved this community as geeks, but I guess those days are gone. I truly miss you.

Replying to self, this is bad but I also just found this http://www.project10tothe100.com/faq.html...

"Q: What do I get if my idea is chosen? A: You get good karma and the satisfaction of knowing that your idea might truly help a lot of people."

Doesn't sound like profit is the name of the game here.

From http://www.project10tothe100.com/tos.html

"As between you and Google, you retain ownership of any intellectual and industrial property rights (including moral rights) you have in and to your submission."

It would seem that the creator of the idea *may* profit.