6 ms·
I think Google's self-competition is something they are doing strategically. If you look at the industry as a whole products wax and wane based on market trend
by kettlecorn 8y ago
I think Google's self-competition is something they are doing strategically.
If you look at the industry as a whole products wax and wane based on market trends. Market leading products often struggle to innovate under the weight of their own success and are eventually replaced by a new innovator that's doing something right.
Google, by virtue of creating many different types of products in one category somewhat insulates themselves from this effect. They have effectively infinite money, so from their perspective they can somewhat emulate the greater market internally. They can let "startup" style teams form internally so if someone supplants one of Google's products, it's likely to be a Google team.
There are significant downsides to this (eroding consumer trust) which may take their toll on Google with time.
- dunpeal 8y agoHaving multiple competing projects is not unheard of in the business world in general, and in high-achieving technology businesses in particular. Often, those outside the organization are only aware of the winning project, and the others are quietly discontinued, with many / most / all members moving to the winning team. I know of several other prominent examples, but can't mention by name because I'd be breaking an NDA. Also, Fuchsia is a successor, not a competing project, strictly speaking. It would be the "gauntlet" scenario if Google was running multiple ongoing projects all competing to "inherit" Android (which quite possible it does...)
- tootie 8y agoI've heard that Intel used to do this. They would have separate teams working on next gen chips. Eventually they'd have a bake off and pick a winner and the rest would get written off as R&D. I'm guessing they at least pick up some learnings from the dead projects.
- mchahn 8y agoThis is often called the NASA approach since they've hired multiple companies to provide the same component many times. Then they use the best one.
- sjm-lbm 8y agoIf we still look at the messaging example, I honestly think this theory (if that really is what Google is doing) is backfiring spectacularly - the fragmented messaging standards mean that most Android users communicate using SMS, which is a laughably bad protocol in 2018. iMessage - boring old non-developed by a "startup" style-team iMessage - is so much better that I've often contemplated switching to iOS for that reason only. The funny part is that they might be actually emulating an entire marketplace entirely within one company, but it often seems like it's a marketplace where a large entrenched lowest common denominator is the option that everyone uses and dislikes.
- jedieaston 8y agoI wonder if you look at the stats whether or not SMS is actually the most popular form of communication on Android. I live in the US, where I use iMessage and SMS is the most popular, but I hear all the time on Reddit that no one uses SMS outside stupid America and everyone uses WhatsApp/Signal/(Chinese one I'm forgetting). Google needs to pick one, no doubt, but I wonder how relevant it is that they do (Android has much of its market share outside the US).
- sjm-lbm 8y agoThis is a fair point, and I wouldn't be surprised if what you are saying is correct. That said, saying "Google's startups-within-a-big-company strategy has driven most users outside of Google's chat ecosystem entirely" isn't a whole lot better.
- user5994461 8y agoIt depends on the country. Some places you have to pay per SMS, some places it's free. SMS cannot be sent across borders, a big problem when traveling or living abroad. WhatsApp is free SMS, from and to anywhere. It's an attractive offer for most of the world.
- nradov 8y agoSMS can be sent across borders in most of the world.