I think Wired is using this "Google Sets New Internet Record" [1] as the source material. I think the far more interesting quote is "60% of all Internet end devices/users exchange traffic with Google servers during the course of an average day" [1].
"An amazing 60% of all Internet end devices/users exchange traffic with Google servers during the course of an average day. This analysis includes computers and mobile device as well as hundreds of varieties game consoles, home media appliances, and other embedded devices (Google’s device share is much larger if we look only at computers and mobile devices)."[1] (SIC, Emphasis Added)
FWIW, stories like this are one of the reasons Google maintains a high level of secrecy. While there I asked Urs Hoezle, "Why not brag about it? Isn't that good?" and his response was "It just makes us a target." And he is/was correct, if your enemies don't know the extent of your strength they can't adequately prepare and attack, if your friends don't know the extent of your strength they have no reason to be afraid of you.
That said, this article is based on observing peering traffic -- "It’s impossible to get a total picture of the internet, so Deepfield’s numbers are a best guess based on the traffic flowing through its internet service provider partners." -- and you know they have their own fiber in Kansas City (heck they even bought into some transoceanic cables). You need only look at their quarterly earning reports on their capital investment to get a sense of what we're talking about. And unlike the Government, when Google spends $4B/year on something they get a lot of bang for their bucks.
Would you use a Facebook ISP? How about a Facebook mobile operator? Facebook handset? Remember: Apple partnered with Motorola to make the Rokr device and Facebook partnered with HTC to make the 'First' device (both of which were flops), so it is so far-fetched?
Facebook makes no consumer hardware, but neither did Google until recently.
I never understood Google's desire to keep things like GGC tight to the chest. Another search engine isn't going to win or lose based upon their ability to run caching http proxies in ISP data centers.
True but I always felt that GGC telegraphed Google's move into richer data streams (like video, and potentially telephony) so having the information out there would cause people to understand they were a competitor not a partner. Looking at it from the outside, both the challenges in the Google TV project and the Apple TV project stem, in part, by vigorous roadblocking on the part of the content providers. So you partner with Xfinity for the last might, great, but you have the capability to pump better content over that pipe than they do? Not so great.
The bottom line seems to be the less you know the harder it is to guess what they can and cannot do.
Putting a GGC server at your ISP is one step closer to having you as a direct customer (like in Kansas and other Google Fiber test markets), and cutting out the middle-man entirely (in this case, your current ISP).
Hardly anything surprising that YouTube is the source of most traffic. Take out YouTube, I suspect they'd be closer to 5%. (Didn't really see a breakdown anywhere in the article)
I work at Deepfield.net, the company linked to in the article and we find YouTube takes up 78-80% of Google traffic. Google still has a several other larger services.
The fact that the title of the HN submission was changed to remove the word "now" shows that the word was also completely superfluous in the headline. Aren't headlines assumed to be contemporary, to be about "now?"
So just because a company uses an ambiguous term as a product name ("Now"), that's the final nail in the coffin of title case? Seems a bit silly to me...
> So just because a company uses an ambiguous term as a product name ("Now"), that's the final nail in the coffin of title case?
There's nothing ambiguous about the product name. Title case is the source of the ambiguity (and its not specific to particular product names, it happens anywhere where a title is an English sentence in which obliteration of the normal capitalization distinctions creates ambiguity.)
And that's the problem with title case -- it obstructs, rather than facilitates, clear communication.
I strongly agree with ScottWhigham in this matter. If anything, I have a problem with the fact that every word im the English Language gets assigned to multiple IT products, movies, books etc. which inevitably leads to confusion.
[1] http://www.deepfield.net/2013/07/google-sets-new-internet-re...