7 ms·

As an xoogler, this tells me that the voice team is now staffed again. It also tells me that the executive team is thinking about reducing headcount and focus o

As an xoogler, this tells me that the voice team is now staffed again. It also tells me that the executive team is thinking about reducing headcount and focus on hangouts, but still are uncertain. Finally, it tells me that google still has no idea how to crack the messaging space, and has so no team internally that is taking charge but a bunch of teams with different approaches, all jockeying for executive support. Google will lose this space because it lacks focus while Facebook is owning it through focus on the messenger platform and the acquisition of whatsapp.

johansch 10y ago
Why did google mess up messaging in the first place? It seemed like this space was ripe for their taking. (Basically, just replicate the gmail concept for messaging. Keep it sorta-open-enough and free enough. Seems like a no-brainer.) I mean, what was the specific root cause?
- fdsfsaa 10y ago
  The specific root cause is Google's practice of promoting based on product launches; it literally doesn't matter whether that product goes on to be successful. This practice creates a strong and perverse incentive to continually launch new products while discouraging iterative development of existing products.
  - johansch 10y ago
    I've never worked at Google, but... didn't Larry Page announce a full-blown program to fight that like 3-4 years ago? Work on features/depth rather than new products?
    - Uhhrrr 10y ago
      Perhaps it was launched but it literally didn't matter whether that product went on to be successful.
      - ww520 10y ago
        That is ironically insightful.
      - rconti 10y ago
        At least he got that promotion, though.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      He can launch programs all he wants, but unless that trickles down to management, and the incentives are aligned to at least reward iterative development as much as launching new products, it's not going to change anything.
      - johansch 10y ago
        Seems like he should be in the power of defining the reward structure at Google though.
        st3v3r 10y ago
        He should have a bit of say in that, yeah. But if he didn't use any of that influence, then it wouldn't happen.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    Do you have knowledge or experience from within Google? or is this your own conjecture from the outside. My perspective as an outsider is that you are right, but I'm just curious if you have any special insight.
    - fdsfsaa 10y ago
      I am well qualified to comment.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  I think the specific root cause is that messaging is actually a number of different spaces with different ideal solutions, which I think Google is starting to get even though I don't think they've yet actually nailed any of the subspaces (or even necessarily correctly not identified exactly what they are.)
  - threeseed 10y ago
    Except that Apple and Facebook managed to largely nail all of the spaces with a single app.
    - skybrian 10y ago
      Facebook has at least two (Facebook messenger and Whatsapp.)
    - tedmiston 10y ago
      Facebook also nailed cross-platform native and web. I really like the messenger.com [1] version of the client. [1]: https://www.messenger.com/ https://www.messenger.com/
djsumdog 10y ago
The Hangouts app fixed the missing MMS/threading issues. So if we've switch from Voice to Hangouts ... do we have to switch back now? It's pretty confusing and there are so many services that won't take either of my Google Voice numbers.
- jansenv 10y ago
  Hangouts API is discontinuing, and the app is buggy as heck. We've already moved away from it and are experimenting with in-house solutions or looking for alternatives. Slack is too pricey, everything else seems shite.
  - djsumdog 10y ago
    You mean Google is discontinuing the API? (They had an API? They removed XMPP federation and eventually support, if that's what you mean). The libpurple/Hangups projects for chat clients is the work of reverse engineering the existing Hangouts protocol (which apparently heavily relies on protocol buffers).
    - detaro 10y ago
      Yes, they had an API which could control and customize Hangouts https://developers.google.com/+/hangouts/ https://developers.google.com/+/hangouts/
tw04 10y ago
The answer to this is easy: copy imessage. If Apple had even a little bit of common sense they'd support imessage on windows and android and just charge a small fee of some sort to make money off of it. They're blackberry right now, they could own the market if they were willing to eat their own market share. As for google: I have no idea what is up with the stupidity. What people want is simple: an app that works on the PC and the phone, that can do messaging that falls back to SMS if the other-end isn't capable of "data" based communications, and ideally has encryption as an option and video chat as an option. Hangouts was like 90% of the way there, and then for some reason they went insert offensive analogy here and decided to release allo and duo with half the functionality. And oh by the way, after the release of those two apps, Hangouts started acting goofy for a month (which I struggle to believe is coincidence as much as I hate conspiracy BS).
- pokemongoaway 10y ago
  At least some of the stupidity must be due to how many good ex-Google engineers I've met - and how many lame duck engineers who have positioned their resumes and lives just to be hired there for status purposes.
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  In Apple's case, I don't think a lack of common sense is the problem. With the iPhone making the bulk to Apple's revenue, this is a textbook example of a "strategy tax" [0], and the thing about strategy taxes is they're really hard to overcome even when you can see the issue staring you dead in the face. It takes very uncommon leadership to hobble your cash cow. [0] http://scripting.com/davenet/2001/04/30/strategyTax.html http://scripting.com/davenet/2001/04/30/strategyTax.html
  - saurik 10y ago
    After reading that article, it honestly sounds like the author is arguing against the entire concept of strategy, and would probably love Google's "I realize we already have two of those we put no effort into maintaining, but let's compete with ourselves by launching a third and telling everyone it's the future" anti-strategy strategy. Hell: what I want from Google is to see a strategy, as all I am seeing is complete and total chaos. What this article calls "strategy tax" would be better called "bad strategy", and I don't really see the alternative suggestions as better, as there are assuradely solutions (such as making your web browser a component and sharing a layout engine with the word processor, allowing the browser to edit and save simple documents in the format of the word processor, which is then essentially a paid upgrade to the basic editor) that make more sense than "let's sacrifice our high ground on what sounds like a bet".
njovin 10y ago
Facebook has done a pretty poor job of unifying their messaging offering with WhatsApp. Long-time WhatsApp users may see this as a blessing but it's odd that you have seemingly competing teams owned by the same company putting out competing products, one of which has an outstanding API and the other which is basically a walled garden. Google was in a unique position to deliver a best-in-class messaging client and own the space: they have more users than Facebook or Apple and more good will than either of those companies (based on my own personal opinion and interactions). Despite that, they've had numerous messaging platforms: Google Talk, Waze (kind of), Hangouts, and Google Voice. I wouldn't call any of them great products - they've all done barely good enough to stay useful, falling short in the areas of cross-platform reliability, group messaging, and multimedia messaging. Meanwhile companies like Slack are eating their lunch. I love Slack (and have in fact moved to using a private Slack team for personal messaging among friends) but it still saddens me a bit that a Google has failed to deliver a solid offering here.

johansch 10y ago

Why did google mess up messaging in the first place? It seemed like this space was ripe for their taking. (Basically, just replicate the gmail concept for messaging. Keep it sorta-open-enough and free enough. Seems like a no-brainer.) I mean, what was the specific root cause?

fdsfsaa 10y ago
The specific root cause is Google's practice of promoting based on product launches; it literally doesn't matter whether that product goes on to be successful. This practice creates a strong and perverse incentive to continually launch new products while discouraging iterative development of existing products.
- johansch 10y ago
  I've never worked at Google, but... didn't Larry Page announce a full-blown program to fight that like 3-4 years ago? Work on features/depth rather than new products?
  - Uhhrrr 10y ago
    Perhaps it was launched but it literally didn't matter whether that product went on to be successful.
    - ww520 10y ago
      That is ironically insightful.
    - rconti 10y ago
      At least he got that promotion, though.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    He can launch programs all he wants, but unless that trickles down to management, and the incentives are aligned to at least reward iterative development as much as launching new products, it's not going to change anything.
    - johansch 10y ago
      Seems like he should be in the power of defining the reward structure at Google though.
      - st3v3r 10y ago
        He should have a bit of say in that, yeah. But if he didn't use any of that influence, then it wouldn't happen.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  Do you have knowledge or experience from within Google? or is this your own conjecture from the outside. My perspective as an outsider is that you are right, but I'm just curious if you have any special insight.
  - fdsfsaa 10y ago
    I am well qualified to comment.
dragonwriter 10y ago
I think the specific root cause is that messaging is actually a number of different spaces with different ideal solutions, which I think Google is starting to get even though I don't think they've yet actually nailed any of the subspaces (or even necessarily correctly not identified exactly what they are.)
- threeseed 10y ago
  Except that Apple and Facebook managed to largely nail all of the spaces with a single app.
  - skybrian 10y ago
    Facebook has at least two (Facebook messenger and Whatsapp.)
  - tedmiston 10y ago
    Facebook also nailed cross-platform native and web. I really like the messenger.com [1] version of the client. [1]: https://www.messenger.com/ https://www.messenger.com/

djsumdog 10y ago

The Hangouts app fixed the missing MMS/threading issues. So if we've switch from Voice to Hangouts ... do we have to switch back now? It's pretty confusing and there are so many services that won't take either of my Google Voice numbers.

jansenv 10y ago
Hangouts API is discontinuing, and the app is buggy as heck. We've already moved away from it and are experimenting with in-house solutions or looking for alternatives. Slack is too pricey, everything else seems shite.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  You mean Google is discontinuing the API? (They had an API? They removed XMPP federation and eventually support, if that's what you mean). The libpurple/Hangups projects for chat clients is the work of reverse engineering the existing Hangouts protocol (which apparently heavily relies on protocol buffers).
  - detaro 10y ago
    Yes, they had an API which could control and customize Hangouts https://developers.google.com/+/hangouts/ https://developers.google.com/+/hangouts/

tw04 10y ago

The answer to this is easy: copy imessage. If Apple had even a little bit of common sense they'd support imessage on windows and android and just charge a small fee of some sort to make money off of it. They're blackberry right now, they could own the market if they were willing to eat their own market share. As for google: I have no idea what is up with the stupidity. What people want is simple: an app that works on the PC and the phone, that can do messaging that falls back to SMS if the other-end isn't capable of "data" based communications, and ideally has encryption as an option and video chat as an option. Hangouts was like 90% of the way there, and then for some reason they went insert offensive analogy here and decided to release allo and duo with half the functionality. And oh by the way, after the release of those two apps, Hangouts started acting goofy for a month (which I struggle to believe is coincidence as much as I hate conspiracy BS).

pokemongoaway 10y ago
At least some of the stupidity must be due to how many good ex-Google engineers I've met - and how many lame duck engineers who have positioned their resumes and lives just to be hired there for status purposes.
Analemma_ 10y ago
In Apple's case, I don't think a lack of common sense is the problem. With the iPhone making the bulk to Apple's revenue, this is a textbook example of a "strategy tax" [0], and the thing about strategy taxes is they're really hard to overcome even when you can see the issue staring you dead in the face. It takes very uncommon leadership to hobble your cash cow. [0] http://scripting.com/davenet/2001/04/30/strategyTax.html http://scripting.com/davenet/2001/04/30/strategyTax.html
- saurik 10y ago
  After reading that article, it honestly sounds like the author is arguing against the entire concept of strategy, and would probably love Google's "I realize we already have two of those we put no effort into maintaining, but let's compete with ourselves by launching a third and telling everyone it's the future" anti-strategy strategy. Hell: what I want from Google is to see a strategy, as all I am seeing is complete and total chaos. What this article calls "strategy tax" would be better called "bad strategy", and I don't really see the alternative suggestions as better, as there are assuradely solutions (such as making your web browser a component and sharing a layout engine with the word processor, allowing the browser to edit and save simple documents in the format of the word processor, which is then essentially a paid upgrade to the basic editor) that make more sense than "let's sacrifice our high ground on what sounds like a bet".

njovin 10y ago

Facebook has done a pretty poor job of unifying their messaging offering with WhatsApp. Long-time WhatsApp users may see this as a blessing but it's odd that you have seemingly competing teams owned by the same company putting out competing products, one of which has an outstanding API and the other which is basically a walled garden. Google was in a unique position to deliver a best-in-class messaging client and own the space: they have more users than Facebook or Apple and more good will than either of those companies (based on my own personal opinion and interactions). Despite that, they've had numerous messaging platforms: Google Talk, Waze (kind of), Hangouts, and Google Voice. I wouldn't call any of them great products - they've all done barely good enough to stay useful, falling short in the areas of cross-platform reliability, group messaging, and multimedia messaging. Meanwhile companies like Slack are eating their lunch. I love Slack (and have in fact moved to using a private Slack team for personal messaging among friends) but it still saddens me a bit that a Google has failed to deliver a solid offering here.