5 ms·

I think Google's worry about Facebook (partly justified, partly not) is starting to cause them to make pointless (and time wasting) decisions. If I had 5mins w

by Jun8 16y ago

I think Google's worry about Facebook (partly justified, partly not) is starting to cause them to make pointless (and time wasting) decisions. If I had 5mins with Sergei and Larry, I would say (after taking a long sip from the free organic drink I just got from the snack bar we're standing next to) "Look, the real enemy is not FB but Apple (and sometimes your own engineering hubris, e.g. Buzz), so focus all your troops on this front. Don't dilute your strengths with topsy-turvy fads like Farmville. Remember the last time you tried that route when you tried to copy Second Life's act, does anyone even remember them now? Concentrate on (i) getting an Android tablet out, and (ii) get a $99 Google TV box running on Atom with cool software (not the sorry thing you showed at the I/O) to beat Apple to the punch. It's that simple."

joubert 16y ago
They have a pretty disappointing track record when it comes to consumer hardware. I bet it is not in their DNA.
- donw 16y ago
  I think that their hiring and internal quality-control process excludes it, actually. For building Google's search engine, you need people who know search and sorting algorithms backwards, forwards, inside-out, and upside down. You need hardcore A/B testing based on statistical significance, and rigorous respect of the data you collect. To make the iPhone and the iPad, you need neither of those. You need one guy who will walk around like an idiot for months pretending that a deck of cards is his telephone, and writing down every observation and thought that he has on usability. You need a master craftsman who can direct the entire experience, without losing his head in the tech specs. Google doesn't hire people like that. Decisions are made by committee, backed by data and research, which gives them their edge in technical excellence, but also cripples them in hardware and marketing. It kills me. I really want Google to succeed here; Apple has effectively zero competition in the smartphone and tablet market other than Google. Ok, what follows is a bit of a rant. :) Personally, the first thing I'd do with Android is revamp the market and distribution model to standardize the OS across platforms and vendors, so that an Android works the same no matter where you got it. Vendors can add in custom content (wallpapers, extra apps, ringtones, etc), but the interface (icons, look-and-feel) needs to be the same. The vendors will go with this. They're getting their asses handed to them by Apple, and Google is their lifeline, because they're saving a ton on development costs. Second, I'd market the hell out of the areas that Apple cant match, but that matter to the consumer, namely voice search, and maybe being able to hold the phone in the human hand without losing reception. And whatever you do, don't play the celebrity card. Apple's iPhone and iPad ads make it look like you're using the device. Google could steal a page from that, but with Android devices being used in the real world, not in the Apple cleanroom.
  - Jun8 16y ago
    Excellent points. As to your first action point, Google is actually going the opposite way! By Gingerbread (Android 3.0) they intend to squeeze out all vendor-specific add ons, like Motorola Blur or HTC Sense. This is a big mistake that will end in a lose-lose situation. Another area that AFAIK Apple can't currently match is turn by turn navigation, I no longer use my GPS device in my car but rely completely on my Droid.
    - borisk 16y ago
      How is "By Gingerbread (Android 3.0) they intend to squeeze out all vendor-specific add ons, like Motorola Blur or HTC Sense. This is a big mistake that will end in a lose-lose situation." the opposite of "Personally, the first thing I'd do with Android is revamp the market and distribution model to standardize the OS across platforms and vendors, so that an Android works the same no matter where you got it. Vendors can add in custom content (wallpapers, extra apps, ringtones, etc), but the interface (icons, look-and-feel) needs to be the same." ?
  - colinplamondon 16y ago
    Even then they're still screwed- you're talking about two features, Apple is marketing an experience. "We let you root your phone" is not a marketing strategy, and that's the base of Android so far. They let you customize, Apple gives you something kick ass that just works.
    - donw 16y ago
      That's exactly my point. Google isn't making any effort to make Android an 'experience', but if they do, they can't just copy Apple. Note that I said nothing about being able to install Linux on your phone, or about the open development platform. If Google grows a marketing brain and decides to create an experience, they need to do one based around their core strength -- finding stuff. Which is where leveraging their voice-search technology would be a good start. Especially because vocal interfaces are socially inclusive. If I want to find a Thai restaurant on an iPhone, I usually sit there in silence and poke at it a bit. If I want to do it on a Droid, I can just ask it. Which one of these fits more naturally into a social setting without breaking the flow? That's not all, obviously, but it's a good start towards framing Google/Android as the 'personal robot butler' to Apple's 'computer for the rest of us'.
Perceval 16y ago
>Look, the real enemy is not FB but Apple The first thing I thought of when I read this news was precisely that it was targeted at matching Apple. All of a sudden Apple has come out of nowhere as a gaming force, threatening even Nintendo's portable gaming systems. Google investing in gaming looks like a move to reinforce their offerings in this department.
- angrycoder 16y ago
  And the funny thing is, Apple doesn't give a shit about gaming.
  - grinich 16y ago
    iPod touch?
marcusbooster 16y ago
And I like to think they'd respond, "Look Jun8, in 12 years we've built a company worth upwards of 150 billion dollars, and you've amassed roughly 844 karma points."
- code_duck 16y ago
  Well, how much karma has Larry Page racked up on HN??
- waterlesscloud 16y ago
  It's good to know that companies worth billions never make mistakes that drive that value down. Certainly never down to nothing.
- Jun8 16y ago
  LOL, I've collected that much karma in less than a year. Given 12 years, God knows where I'll go! Seriously, I'd like to think that your comment was a joke. Because if a company cannot learn from foot soldiers in the domain and gets cocky, stagnation and eventually death is close at hand. I hope Google is not at that point (like Microsoft)
ErrantX 16y ago
Apple would be a hard battle, I think. On the other hand facebook has the potential to actually enroach onto googles main revenue stream. I see what you are trying to say but zynga are much more than a fad - at least for now. They have big profits and, more importantly for google, an instant social graph. Google desperately wants to be your login provider and social graph. Really desperately.
wslh 16y ago
Well, I don't know you but many people around me are living their lifes deep into Facebook.Facebook is an Internet inside Internet and that's very dangerous.
matwood 16y ago
Google needs to be concerned about Apple, but FB threatens their main revenue stream. As more and more people get on FB and put all their information on FB, those same people have less incentive to go to Google to do any searching and instead will just search FB. It's interesting how the internet exploded and had content popping up all over the place and now the content has ended up self aggregating to a few sites like FB and youtube.
124816 16y ago
I know it seems retarded, but things like copying second life cost the company pretty little. Ten or twenty people's work for two years, thrown out and discarded. We're looking at a couple million down the drain. A lot for you or me, but not worth worrying about for them. Sure, those things might be somewhat embarrassing, but I doubt they have a significant effect in the long term. (Except, that is, when they turn out to be a good idea and succeed.) Also, for Apple to be a real competitor to Google, they would have to threaten Google's core money-maker, online ads, especially search ads. It's possible iAds will end up being such a competitor, and were I Google, I'd be concerned. But I'd be much more worried that for many people, "the internet" would become "facebook," and thus I wouldn't be able to show them ads.

by Jun8 16y ago

joubert 16y ago

They have a pretty disappointing track record when it comes to consumer hardware. I bet it is not in their DNA.

donw 16y ago
I think that their hiring and internal quality-control process excludes it, actually. For building Google's search engine, you need people who know search and sorting algorithms backwards, forwards, inside-out, and upside down. You need hardcore A/B testing based on statistical significance, and rigorous respect of the data you collect. To make the iPhone and the iPad, you need neither of those. You need one guy who will walk around like an idiot for months pretending that a deck of cards is his telephone, and writing down every observation and thought that he has on usability. You need a master craftsman who can direct the entire experience, without losing his head in the tech specs. Google doesn't hire people like that. Decisions are made by committee, backed by data and research, which gives them their edge in technical excellence, but also cripples them in hardware and marketing. It kills me. I really want Google to succeed here; Apple has effectively zero competition in the smartphone and tablet market other than Google. Ok, what follows is a bit of a rant. :) Personally, the first thing I'd do with Android is revamp the market and distribution model to standardize the OS across platforms and vendors, so that an Android works the same no matter where you got it. Vendors can add in custom content (wallpapers, extra apps, ringtones, etc), but the interface (icons, look-and-feel) needs to be the same. The vendors will go with this. They're getting their asses handed to them by Apple, and Google is their lifeline, because they're saving a ton on development costs. Second, I'd market the hell out of the areas that Apple cant match, but that matter to the consumer, namely voice search, and maybe being able to hold the phone in the human hand without losing reception. And whatever you do, don't play the celebrity card. Apple's iPhone and iPad ads make it look like you're using the device. Google could steal a page from that, but with Android devices being used in the real world, not in the Apple cleanroom.
- Jun8 16y ago
  Excellent points. As to your first action point, Google is actually going the opposite way! By Gingerbread (Android 3.0) they intend to squeeze out all vendor-specific add ons, like Motorola Blur or HTC Sense. This is a big mistake that will end in a lose-lose situation. Another area that AFAIK Apple can't currently match is turn by turn navigation, I no longer use my GPS device in my car but rely completely on my Droid.
  - borisk 16y ago
    How is "By Gingerbread (Android 3.0) they intend to squeeze out all vendor-specific add ons, like Motorola Blur or HTC Sense. This is a big mistake that will end in a lose-lose situation." the opposite of "Personally, the first thing I'd do with Android is revamp the market and distribution model to standardize the OS across platforms and vendors, so that an Android works the same no matter where you got it. Vendors can add in custom content (wallpapers, extra apps, ringtones, etc), but the interface (icons, look-and-feel) needs to be the same." ?
- colinplamondon 16y ago
  Even then they're still screwed- you're talking about two features, Apple is marketing an experience. "We let you root your phone" is not a marketing strategy, and that's the base of Android so far. They let you customize, Apple gives you something kick ass that just works.
  - donw 16y ago
    That's exactly my point. Google isn't making any effort to make Android an 'experience', but if they do, they can't just copy Apple. Note that I said nothing about being able to install Linux on your phone, or about the open development platform. If Google grows a marketing brain and decides to create an experience, they need to do one based around their core strength -- finding stuff. Which is where leveraging their voice-search technology would be a good start. Especially because vocal interfaces are socially inclusive. If I want to find a Thai restaurant on an iPhone, I usually sit there in silence and poke at it a bit. If I want to do it on a Droid, I can just ask it. Which one of these fits more naturally into a social setting without breaking the flow? That's not all, obviously, but it's a good start towards framing Google/Android as the 'personal robot butler' to Apple's 'computer for the rest of us'.

Perceval 16y ago

>Look, the real enemy is not FB but Apple The first thing I thought of when I read this news was precisely that it was targeted at matching Apple. All of a sudden Apple has come out of nowhere as a gaming force, threatening even Nintendo's portable gaming systems. Google investing in gaming looks like a move to reinforce their offerings in this department.

angrycoder 16y ago
And the funny thing is, Apple doesn't give a shit about gaming.
- grinich 16y ago
  iPod touch?

marcusbooster 16y ago

And I like to think they'd respond, "Look Jun8, in 12 years we've built a company worth upwards of 150 billion dollars, and you've amassed roughly 844 karma points."

code_duck 16y ago
Well, how much karma has Larry Page racked up on HN??
waterlesscloud 16y ago
It's good to know that companies worth billions never make mistakes that drive that value down. Certainly never down to nothing.
Jun8 16y ago
LOL, I've collected that much karma in less than a year. Given 12 years, God knows where I'll go! Seriously, I'd like to think that your comment was a joke. Because if a company cannot learn from foot soldiers in the domain and gets cocky, stagnation and eventually death is close at hand. I hope Google is not at that point (like Microsoft)

ErrantX 16y ago

Apple would be a hard battle, I think. On the other hand facebook has the potential to actually enroach onto googles main revenue stream. I see what you are trying to say but zynga are much more than a fad - at least for now. They have big profits and, more importantly for google, an instant social graph. Google desperately wants to be your login provider and social graph. Really desperately.

wslh 16y ago

Well, I don't know you but many people around me are living their lifes deep into Facebook.Facebook is an Internet inside Internet and that's very dangerous.

matwood 16y ago

Google needs to be concerned about Apple, but FB threatens their main revenue stream. As more and more people get on FB and put all their information on FB, those same people have less incentive to go to Google to do any searching and instead will just search FB. It's interesting how the internet exploded and had content popping up all over the place and now the content has ended up self aggregating to a few sites like FB and youtube.

124816 16y ago

I know it seems retarded, but things like copying second life cost the company pretty little. Ten or twenty people's work for two years, thrown out and discarded. We're looking at a couple million down the drain. A lot for you or me, but not worth worrying about for them. Sure, those things might be somewhat embarrassing, but I doubt they have a significant effect in the long term. (Except, that is, when they turn out to be a good idea and succeed.) Also, for Apple to be a real competitor to Google, they would have to threaten Google's core money-maker, online ads, especially search ads. It's possible iAds will end up being such a competitor, and were I Google, I'd be concerned. But I'd be much more worried that for many people, "the internet" would become "facebook," and thus I wouldn't be able to show them ads.