5 ms·

> The best non-yahoo similarity I can find is what Google is doing with Blogger. That's a good point. But to be fair everything "social" that Google has touche

> The best non-yahoo similarity I can find is what Google is doing with Blogger. That's a good point. But to be fair everything "social" that Google has touched has died with the exception of YouTube. In fact Google really hasn't done a great job holding onto many other arenas than their main ones. Blogger has been blasted by Medium. Knol was outlasted by Quora. Google Code was beat by Github. Their "shopping" attempts have always been eclipsed by Amazon. They can't get an edge with Google Cloud compared to Azure and AWS. Gmail, YouTube, Maps, and Android are all success stories. But if you look at their "social" products YT is really the only success story. EDIT: I use and love Google Photos but I can't remember the last time I heard someone talking about it. Instagram did it with a social spin.

nolok 8y ago
Yeah Google doesn't get social (you forgot Buzz in your list) but at least they try, and keep trying in different ways, like it different fields, until one sticks (you forgot Chrome in your success list - it doesn't bring money, but it allows them to partly dictate where the web goes and how it works, something that is a lot of value for them). When they get something that looks cool, they try it. Yahoo didn't even try, when they got something cool, they went "ah, nice" and then closed it or forgot about it. > EDIT: I use and love Google Photos but I can't remember the last time I heard someone talking about it. Instagram did it with a social spin. Same, but as the same time, I would wager pretty much every android users uses it, and has more photos on it than on instagram. It seems the value of google photos for google is not to monetize it directly, but as a way to 1. have data to mine, 2. know more about each user to improve their other revenue source and 3. to keep the user tied to his google account and ecosystem. From that point of view, it's a massive success (and it explains why they went that route and pretty much killed picasa instead of the opposite).
- jacques_chester 8y ago
  Chrome is and was a fortress intended to defend the approach to their river of gold: advertising. A dominant browser controlled by another technology company is an existential risk to Google as it would provide a point at which their advertising could be entirely disintermediated. Android exists for the same reason.
  - mygo 8y ago
    We’ve already seen this with Safari blocking all auto-play videos and making attempts to disable cross-site tracking. I would agree
- yholio 8y ago
  In the end almost all of the tech successes and failures listed are reducible to a much simpler explanation: the effectiveness in using network effects to create moats, and defending those moats by adapting to technological change. Controlling an operating system is a massive such moat, see Microsoft, Google and Apple. As is the first effective search engine - once you have both the eyeballs and the advertising revenue, it's almost impossible for any competitor to displace you. On the other hand, an email service is not such a thing. Gmail is a good product but it's easy to duplicate or disrupt by other email providers and various messengers. A content hosting platform, be it for pictures, videos, or simple html websites, will not produce strong network effects by itself - this where the "social spin" you talk about becomes essential. Yahoo persistently failed to create and defend these network effects. Messenger was such a strong network effect-inducing product, but they failed to adapt it to the mobile era and destroyed it through heavy advertising and blatant disregard for the user experience. Facebook are currently in no such danger, they have a few massively addictive products built on strong network effects. Sure, some people might move to other forms of socialization - but billions more are going online, in countries with rapid economic growth. There is nothing on the horizon that significantly threatens Facebook's moat.
adventured 8y ago
> Knol was outlasted by Quora. Knol wasn't a competitor to Quora. It was meant to go after Wikipedia, Answers.com, and the various how to sites. Quora wasn't founded until June 2009. Knol's traffic had peaked in early 2009 and already fallen off a cliff by June 2009. By the time Quora got up to scale, knol had been long dead. By Google's own admission, they were shocked by the success of Wikipedia, which spurred their attempt with knol. https://techcrunch.com/2008/07/23/googles-knol-the-monetizable-wikipedia/ https://techcrunch.com/2008/07/23/googles-knol-the-monetizab... https://techcrunch.com/2009/08/11/poor-google-knol-has-gone-from-a-wikipedia-killer-to-a-craigslist-wannabe/ https://techcrunch.com/2009/08/11/poor-google-knol-has-gone-...
ksec 8y ago
The problem with Google is exactly the same as Microsoft in the 90s. They just have no taste. They have absolutely no taste. What that means is, I don't mean it in a small way but in a big way. - Steve Jobs.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dirkgently 8y ago
  Yeah. Who needs big screen? - Steve Jobs
  - r00fus 8y ago
    Are you paraphrasing? It doesn't have the same effect.
    - dirkgently 8y ago
      No. Was just pointing out the fact that Steve Jobs has said a lot of bullshit. I wouldn't want to quote him to make any kind of point.
- kbutler 8y ago
  Skeumorphism: "Steve pushed very hard to have everything–the felt-cloth table, the game chips–look like they would in real life,” says another former Apple designer. https://www.fastcompany.com/1670760/will-apples-tacky-software-design-philosophy-cause-a-revolt https://www.fastcompany.com/1670760/will-apples-tacky-softwa... (of a big phone) "you can't get your hand around it...no one's going to buy that." -- Steve Jobs http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/16/jobs-no-ones-going-to-buy-a-big-phone/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/16/jobs-no-ones-going-to-buy... Maybe it's better to have strong opinions, even if some are wrong, than to just throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. Or maybe Jobs got really lucky that some of his taste resonated really well. Hard to tease out the effects of survivorship bias.
  - 8y ago
abavuki 8y ago
YouTube was already market leader when they bought it, as far as I recall.

nolok 8y ago

Yeah Google doesn't get social (you forgot Buzz in your list) but at least they try, and keep trying in different ways, like it different fields, until one sticks (you forgot Chrome in your success list - it doesn't bring money, but it allows them to partly dictate where the web goes and how it works, something that is a lot of value for them). When they get something that looks cool, they try it. Yahoo didn't even try, when they got something cool, they went "ah, nice" and then closed it or forgot about it. > EDIT: I use and love Google Photos but I can't remember the last time I heard someone talking about it. Instagram did it with a social spin. Same, but as the same time, I would wager pretty much every android users uses it, and has more photos on it than on instagram. It seems the value of google photos for google is not to monetize it directly, but as a way to 1. have data to mine, 2. know more about each user to improve their other revenue source and 3. to keep the user tied to his google account and ecosystem. From that point of view, it's a massive success (and it explains why they went that route and pretty much killed picasa instead of the opposite).

jacques_chester 8y ago
Chrome is and was a fortress intended to defend the approach to their river of gold: advertising. A dominant browser controlled by another technology company is an existential risk to Google as it would provide a point at which their advertising could be entirely disintermediated. Android exists for the same reason.
- mygo 8y ago
  We’ve already seen this with Safari blocking all auto-play videos and making attempts to disable cross-site tracking. I would agree
yholio 8y ago
In the end almost all of the tech successes and failures listed are reducible to a much simpler explanation: the effectiveness in using network effects to create moats, and defending those moats by adapting to technological change. Controlling an operating system is a massive such moat, see Microsoft, Google and Apple. As is the first effective search engine - once you have both the eyeballs and the advertising revenue, it's almost impossible for any competitor to displace you. On the other hand, an email service is not such a thing. Gmail is a good product but it's easy to duplicate or disrupt by other email providers and various messengers. A content hosting platform, be it for pictures, videos, or simple html websites, will not produce strong network effects by itself - this where the "social spin" you talk about becomes essential. Yahoo persistently failed to create and defend these network effects. Messenger was such a strong network effect-inducing product, but they failed to adapt it to the mobile era and destroyed it through heavy advertising and blatant disregard for the user experience. Facebook are currently in no such danger, they have a few massively addictive products built on strong network effects. Sure, some people might move to other forms of socialization - but billions more are going online, in countries with rapid economic growth. There is nothing on the horizon that significantly threatens Facebook's moat.

adventured 8y ago

> Knol was outlasted by Quora. Knol wasn't a competitor to Quora. It was meant to go after Wikipedia, Answers.com, and the various how to sites. Quora wasn't founded until June 2009. Knol's traffic had peaked in early 2009 and already fallen off a cliff by June 2009. By the time Quora got up to scale, knol had been long dead. By Google's own admission, they were shocked by the success of Wikipedia, which spurred their attempt with knol. https://techcrunch.com/2008/07/23/googles-knol-the-monetizable-wikipedia/ https://techcrunch.com/2008/07/23/googles-knol-the-monetizab... https://techcrunch.com/2009/08/11/poor-google-knol-has-gone-from-a-wikipedia-killer-to-a-craigslist-wannabe/ https://techcrunch.com/2009/08/11/poor-google-knol-has-gone-...

ksec 8y ago

The problem with Google is exactly the same as Microsoft in the 90s. They just have no taste. They have absolutely no taste. What that means is, I don't mean it in a small way but in a big way. - Steve Jobs.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dirkgently 8y ago
Yeah. Who needs big screen? - Steve Jobs
- r00fus 8y ago
  Are you paraphrasing? It doesn't have the same effect.
  - dirkgently 8y ago
    No. Was just pointing out the fact that Steve Jobs has said a lot of bullshit. I wouldn't want to quote him to make any kind of point.
kbutler 8y ago
Skeumorphism: "Steve pushed very hard to have everything–the felt-cloth table, the game chips–look like they would in real life,” says another former Apple designer. https://www.fastcompany.com/1670760/will-apples-tacky-software-design-philosophy-cause-a-revolt https://www.fastcompany.com/1670760/will-apples-tacky-softwa... (of a big phone) "you can't get your hand around it...no one's going to buy that." -- Steve Jobs http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/16/jobs-no-ones-going-to-buy-a-big-phone/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/16/jobs-no-ones-going-to-buy... Maybe it's better to have strong opinions, even if some are wrong, than to just throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. Or maybe Jobs got really lucky that some of his taste resonated really well. Hard to tease out the effects of survivorship bias.
- 8y ago

abavuki 8y ago

YouTube was already market leader when they bought it, as far as I recall.