6 ms·
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.
by whack 10y ago
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.
- danohu 10y agoThe 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.
- paulryanrogers 10y agoWithout brand it's hard to stand out in the crowded messaging space.
- dmd 10y agoThat's precisely the point. It should compete on its own merits.
- nkozyra 10y agoTwo easy ways to stand out: 1. Brand 2. Money If they took this approach it would require a much more concerted marketing strategy.
- rubber_duck 10y agoHonestly 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.
- jonstewart 10y agoThe flip-side of the coin of "brand confusion" is the user's perspective of cognitive overload, technical frustration from UX churn, and being left behind after adopting a dead-end "product".
- jvm 10y ago> 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 Yes, absolutely!! > and then doubles down on the winner …I'm not so sure about that step ;-)
- makecheck 10y agoOh, it’s much worse than that. Once you add in Google’s platform (Android), you get even more “visions” such as the “pre-Google open-source variant” of an Android app (before Google’s fork of it to add “improvements”), and usually at least one crappy version installed by the phone carrier. And typically none of these can be removed, all part of the ROM. I remember seeing at least THREE variants of several common apps when using Android. I couldn’t believe it was so unfocused.