3 ms·

They didn't make a pixel perfect copy of Facebook. Instead they made their own thing, because vanity, ego, pride, etc. If they did that before 2007, we'd be ta

They didn't make a pixel perfect copy of Facebook. Instead they made their own thing, because vanity, ego, pride, etc. If they did that before 2007, we'd be talking about Facebook like it was MySpace right now.

sumedh 9y ago
> They didn't make a pixel perfect copy of Facebook. So you are saying they failed even with the huge warchest.
- grizzles 9y ago
  That characterization seems imprecise. I believe some parts of Google's social strategy are growing organically (eg. Gmail, Hangouts). My understanding is that a big part of G+ was rebuilding their entire product backend around global identity, and that has been pretty successful. If Google AI in the future makes a magical suggestion to you, it's because all their apps now have a single understanding of who you are, and before G+ that was not the case. If your point is that Google could fuck up a ride market the way they let Facebook slip past, that seems like a pretty broad overreach to me. Identity on the internet is complex thing, they had big brother issues to contend with, also Google was a much more idealistic company back then with their "Dont be Evil" ethos. Ride sharing is a commodity industry and basically consists of an app with a single "Come Here" button. It's a false equivalency in my view.
  - sumedh 9y ago
    Your argument was that Google cannot fail just because they have a huge warchest, I gave you an example where they failed. Just because they have money does not automatically mean then will win the ride sharing market.
    - grizzles 9y ago
      So do you think they'd get some market share like Lyft and Uber have? Do you think their driveless cars (that are way ahead of everyone else) might help them lower some of their biggest costs on the supply side on sunny days when passengers need to travel low risk routes? Your argument was that they failed with G+, so that equates with this situation. I'm saying it doesn't equate. Success & failure are more granular than the binary thing you are making it out to be. G+ brought Google other benefits.
      - sumedh 9y ago
        > Success & failure are more granular than the binary thing you are making it out to be. Exactly, now you get it. Just because a company has huge warchest does not automatically mean they will succeed at everything.

sumedh 9y ago

> They didn't make a pixel perfect copy of Facebook. So you are saying they failed even with the huge warchest.

grizzles 9y ago
That characterization seems imprecise. I believe some parts of Google's social strategy are growing organically (eg. Gmail, Hangouts). My understanding is that a big part of G+ was rebuilding their entire product backend around global identity, and that has been pretty successful. If Google AI in the future makes a magical suggestion to you, it's because all their apps now have a single understanding of who you are, and before G+ that was not the case. If your point is that Google could fuck up a ride market the way they let Facebook slip past, that seems like a pretty broad overreach to me. Identity on the internet is complex thing, they had big brother issues to contend with, also Google was a much more idealistic company back then with their "Dont be Evil" ethos. Ride sharing is a commodity industry and basically consists of an app with a single "Come Here" button. It's a false equivalency in my view.
- sumedh 9y ago
  Your argument was that Google cannot fail just because they have a huge warchest, I gave you an example where they failed. Just because they have money does not automatically mean then will win the ride sharing market.
  - grizzles 9y ago
    So do you think they'd get some market share like Lyft and Uber have? Do you think their driveless cars (that are way ahead of everyone else) might help them lower some of their biggest costs on the supply side on sunny days when passengers need to travel low risk routes? Your argument was that they failed with G+, so that equates with this situation. I'm saying it doesn't equate. Success & failure are more granular than the binary thing you are making it out to be. G+ brought Google other benefits.
    - sumedh 9y ago
      > Success & failure are more granular than the binary thing you are making it out to be. Exactly, now you get it. Just because a company has huge warchest does not automatically mean they will succeed at everything.