3 ms·
DISCLAIMER: I'm a contractor who works at Google. My musings are my own and in no way represent the thoughts of any other entity. I've dwelt on this quite a bi
by seangrogg 10y ago
DISCLAIMER: I'm a contractor who works at Google. My musings are my own and in no way represent the thoughts of any other entity.
I've dwelt on this quite a bit and have come to the conclusion that while Google is amazing at a lot of things it is not necessarily great for leveraging network effects - a domain handled much better by Facebook.
Google's core product is search, an awesome web utility. The next product often named is gmail - again, a utility. Then you have their Drive-oriented applications - Docs, Sheets, etc. which are all amazing... as standalone products that don't need other people to enhance its value.
The problem with G+, Hangouts (and other chat apps), and a variety of other products they have tried to develop is that they're trying to break into the social space - but the company isn't about social at it's core. While I appreciate that the company is trying to bring competition to the social space I think it should focus harder on areas where it has traditionally excelled - utilities that are convenient for individuals and made better by collaboration. If it wants to get into the social space it should break out a new company under Alphabet that can focus on that objective - but there's no reason to tie it directly to Google.
EDIT: I think Fiber can and will still play out strong, mind you.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- rak00n 10y agoGoogle's social projects were clones of models that were already successful. Buzz was a Twitter clone. G+ was a Facebook clone. A clone can get traction only if it's better than the original. That they were not apart from other factors. I don't think it has anything to do with "core competency". Google was just the last (copycat) dog in the social game trying too hard to figure out what the cool kids want.