4 ms·

It amazes me that a company with all the resources that Google has repeatedly coming up with ideas and doing absolutely nothing effective with them. They've had

It amazes me that a company with all the resources that Google has repeatedly coming up with ideas and doing absolutely nothing effective with them. They've had some winners, like Chrome, and their acquisition of Youtube eventually paid off, but something as simple as a social media site and the best they can come up with from scratch is Google+.

keerthiko 8y ago
> as simple as a social media site um "simple"? walks off cackling maniacally into the sunset
SllX 8y ago
As I understand it, Google is not well optimized for putting out new mass market customer-facing services and keeping them going. Their entire organizational hierarchy actually runs counter to this very idea, and you know, people at Google are just like people everywhere else. That is to say, they are just people. The fact that every now and then they have a success speaks better of the specific team driving it than it does of Google as a whole organization. That is usually the case with any corporation though. So basically, you can have all the resources in the world, but if you’re not organized well, then you will not accomplish your goals more efficiently than your smaller competitors. The fact that your competitors are comparatively resource starved probably helps them optimize better than you can, because what is just a side project to you is their entire existence to them.
- O1111OOO 8y ago
  > As I understand it, Google is not well optimized for putting out new mass market customer-facing services and keeping them going. I've been reading the threads about Google killing off products - to the point where it's become a meme. Lost in this are the number of products killed off by other large tech firms. A shame because sometimes objectivity is lost in the analysis. Your phrasing got me thinking about some of Google's successes (off the top of my head): They have old successes in search and gmail. In these cases, they climbed their way to the top. The have google.docs, youtube (oldish) but entering TV/Movies now, android (not that old), Chrome Browser, ChromeOS & their entry into schools, translate, google.storage, maps, that dohickey used to stream video to TV sets (can't remember the name:)... Google Plus probably deserves a quick death. I just wouldn't underestimate Google by downplaying their successes.
  - cobookman 8y ago
    Youtube - Aquisition Android - Aquisition Maps - Aquisition Docs - Aquisition Google is great at scaling up aquisitions and optimizing them for the audience.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - skybrian 8y ago
      Survivorship bias here. There are lots of other Google acquisitions that sank without a trace. It seems the hit rate is low whether inside or outside Google.
      - MR4D 8y ago
        The hit rate isn't as important as how well the hits perform. The list above has done quite well, and I highly doubt that Google has spent as much on the losers as the winners have made for them. If so, Google would be out of business (or close to it).
    - O1111OOO 8y ago
      > Google is great at scaling up aquisitions and optimizing them for the audience. I'm not sure if I buy this line of thinking related to Google only. It just sounds like another dig. Most big tech companies are fairly good at either scaling acquisitions or buying them for their IP/Talent. Some big tech companies can't even get this right. I'm still forced to ask myself: what was Android or Maps before the acquisition? If we compare, for example, the hacked version of CP/M (that later become DOS) with Windows 10... can we not say the same for Android - pre-acquisition? Google has certainly done much more than simply optimizing it. If it's basically an idea that Google's buying: the idea of a hut. Optimizing that hut might be akin to building a skyscrapper. At what point does Google get credit for actually building something useful vs "optimizing and scaling" (which I think has become another meme)? This also still leaves us with Chrome, ChromeOS, Entry into schools, some hardware, and a host of other stuff someone more in tune with Google could address. If the response is that Chrome is based on Linux, then the counter is that macOS is based on BSD. The question remains, what is Google doing differently from other tech firms. Might they actually be building a better mousetrap (re: their successes)? Not a fan of Google. Just think that too often people box companies in and disparage the actual work they do while, in the meantime... they take over the world.
skybrian 8y ago
I don't know what you mean? The G+ UI is pretty good, certainly a lot better than Facebook was at the time when G+ launched. For a while, a lot of people were happy there, particularly in certain niches like photography. It's a shame the implementation was so complex (apparently) that now it can't be easily maintained. This does seem to happen to Google a lot. It probably has more to do with too many resources, rather than not enough. But maybe it's not simple to compete with Facebook. Maybe this has little to do with technology.
- Daniel_sk 8y ago
  I don't know, but the whole Circles things was overcomplicated and average users didn't bother to put their followers into different circles, I am not sure how they thought this would work.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    Well, that's true. But being able to follow people (like on Twitter, not like friending on Facebook) is nice. As is not having character limits.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Circles was fantastic, and continues to be what I wish for in a lot of other networks. Mainly because there are people I follow loosely (don't mind seeing the occasional update from), and people I follow religiously (because I know them personally or care about every single thing they say). I used to maintain really primarily two feeds. One I cared to always read all the time, and one I'd browse when I was bored. G+ mostly mitigated the frustration of it for people who didn't care years ago: You can just click follow and it puts them in a default following circle.
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      Circles is great for geeks who like to have such fine-grained control over their lives, both online and offline. For the rest of the world it doesn't really matter, and even if it does it is too difficult to set up and maintain. A company called Hyves in the Netherlands did much the same thing (but with a fairly crappy UI) long before Google+ came along. That fell to FB as well.
jcranmer 8y ago
I've never worked at Google, but some of the commentary I've seen from people who have worked there suggests that performance reviews and promotions (at the senior levels) are heavily gated on your roles in releasing new products to users, with maintenance of existing products factoring in very little, if at all.
- coffeedrinker 8y ago
  They should modify it so after launch it is based on active users. That will keep good things growing.
reaperducer 8y ago
Well, Apple failed with Ping, so I sometimes think that social media is a lot harder than any of us think.
qwerty456127 8y ago
According to my taste and requirements Google+ is (or was before they started adding unnecessary complexity to its model) by far the best social network I've ever seen. In fact "It amazes me that a company with all the resources that Google has repeatedly…" behaved like "the president of Madagascar" shutting down everything...[1] [1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/shut-down-everything https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/shut-down-everything
chubot 8y ago
something as simple as a social media site Ironically, this is exactly the attitude that led Google to fail in social media! Why do you think it's simple? Because you think it's technologically simple?
wmeredith 8y ago
Old Chinese proverb: He who chases two rabbits catches none.
toyg 8y ago
G+ wasn't that bad, technically speaking. They just failed at managing the political aspects of it, focusing too brutally on their own requirements, to the detriment of users' own: "we want your real names, so we can be the authority of record for everything! And we won't let you hack anything of importance on top of the platform, because we want our content clean!"... Compare with the free-for-all hacking bonanza that early twitter was, or the spam machine that Facebook is - social networks are powered by oversharing, an activity that G+ actively resisted in many different ways. But technically speaking, they had the best support for high-quality photos, good features for private groups, and a few other wins on features like Hangouts.
- wyclif 8y ago
  RealNameGate was the tipping point from OK to bad IMHO. When they forced the issue, they lost a lot of goodwill. They should have done something similar to the optimal implementation of Twitter verified, merely to authenticate identity if the user desires (without bungling it as badly as Twitter has done).
  - jiveturkey 8y ago
    doesn’t facebook require real name? that was g+ competition, and everything was referenced to that.
    - toyg 8y ago
      Not really. I think it was policy back when it was for colleges, when they exploded they basically renounced it because it was a hassle to check. Most people simply kept doing it, because if your friends use their name why should you hide?

keerthiko 8y ago

> as simple as a social media site um "simple"? walks off cackling maniacally into the sunset

SllX 8y ago

As I understand it, Google is not well optimized for putting out new mass market customer-facing services and keeping them going. Their entire organizational hierarchy actually runs counter to this very idea, and you know, people at Google are just like people everywhere else. That is to say, they are just people. The fact that every now and then they have a success speaks better of the specific team driving it than it does of Google as a whole organization. That is usually the case with any corporation though. So basically, you can have all the resources in the world, but if you’re not organized well, then you will not accomplish your goals more efficiently than your smaller competitors. The fact that your competitors are comparatively resource starved probably helps them optimize better than you can, because what is just a side project to you is their entire existence to them.

O1111OOO 8y ago
> As I understand it, Google is not well optimized for putting out new mass market customer-facing services and keeping them going. I've been reading the threads about Google killing off products - to the point where it's become a meme. Lost in this are the number of products killed off by other large tech firms. A shame because sometimes objectivity is lost in the analysis. Your phrasing got me thinking about some of Google's successes (off the top of my head): They have old successes in search and gmail. In these cases, they climbed their way to the top. The have google.docs, youtube (oldish) but entering TV/Movies now, android (not that old), Chrome Browser, ChromeOS & their entry into schools, translate, google.storage, maps, that dohickey used to stream video to TV sets (can't remember the name:)... Google Plus probably deserves a quick death. I just wouldn't underestimate Google by downplaying their successes.
- cobookman 8y ago
  Youtube - Aquisition Android - Aquisition Maps - Aquisition Docs - Aquisition Google is great at scaling up aquisitions and optimizing them for the audience.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - skybrian 8y ago
    Survivorship bias here. There are lots of other Google acquisitions that sank without a trace. It seems the hit rate is low whether inside or outside Google.
    - MR4D 8y ago
      The hit rate isn't as important as how well the hits perform. The list above has done quite well, and I highly doubt that Google has spent as much on the losers as the winners have made for them. If so, Google would be out of business (or close to it).
  - O1111OOO 8y ago
    > Google is great at scaling up aquisitions and optimizing them for the audience. I'm not sure if I buy this line of thinking related to Google only. It just sounds like another dig. Most big tech companies are fairly good at either scaling acquisitions or buying them for their IP/Talent. Some big tech companies can't even get this right. I'm still forced to ask myself: what was Android or Maps before the acquisition? If we compare, for example, the hacked version of CP/M (that later become DOS) with Windows 10... can we not say the same for Android - pre-acquisition? Google has certainly done much more than simply optimizing it. If it's basically an idea that Google's buying: the idea of a hut. Optimizing that hut might be akin to building a skyscrapper. At what point does Google get credit for actually building something useful vs "optimizing and scaling" (which I think has become another meme)? This also still leaves us with Chrome, ChromeOS, Entry into schools, some hardware, and a host of other stuff someone more in tune with Google could address. If the response is that Chrome is based on Linux, then the counter is that macOS is based on BSD. The question remains, what is Google doing differently from other tech firms. Might they actually be building a better mousetrap (re: their successes)? Not a fan of Google. Just think that too often people box companies in and disparage the actual work they do while, in the meantime... they take over the world.

skybrian 8y ago

I don't know what you mean? The G+ UI is pretty good, certainly a lot better than Facebook was at the time when G+ launched. For a while, a lot of people were happy there, particularly in certain niches like photography. It's a shame the implementation was so complex (apparently) that now it can't be easily maintained. This does seem to happen to Google a lot. It probably has more to do with too many resources, rather than not enough. But maybe it's not simple to compete with Facebook. Maybe this has little to do with technology.

Daniel_sk 8y ago
I don't know, but the whole Circles things was overcomplicated and average users didn't bother to put their followers into different circles, I am not sure how they thought this would work.
- skybrian 8y ago
  Well, that's true. But being able to follow people (like on Twitter, not like friending on Facebook) is nice. As is not having character limits.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Circles was fantastic, and continues to be what I wish for in a lot of other networks. Mainly because there are people I follow loosely (don't mind seeing the occasional update from), and people I follow religiously (because I know them personally or care about every single thing they say). I used to maintain really primarily two feeds. One I cared to always read all the time, and one I'd browse when I was bored. G+ mostly mitigated the frustration of it for people who didn't care years ago: You can just click follow and it puts them in a default following circle.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    Circles is great for geeks who like to have such fine-grained control over their lives, both online and offline. For the rest of the world it doesn't really matter, and even if it does it is too difficult to set up and maintain. A company called Hyves in the Netherlands did much the same thing (but with a fairly crappy UI) long before Google+ came along. That fell to FB as well.

jcranmer 8y ago

I've never worked at Google, but some of the commentary I've seen from people who have worked there suggests that performance reviews and promotions (at the senior levels) are heavily gated on your roles in releasing new products to users, with maintenance of existing products factoring in very little, if at all.

coffeedrinker 8y ago
They should modify it so after launch it is based on active users. That will keep good things growing.

reaperducer 8y ago

Well, Apple failed with Ping, so I sometimes think that social media is a lot harder than any of us think.

qwerty456127 8y ago

According to my taste and requirements Google+ is (or was before they started adding unnecessary complexity to its model) by far the best social network I've ever seen. In fact "It amazes me that a company with all the resources that Google has repeatedly…" behaved like "the president of Madagascar" shutting down everything...[1] [1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/shut-down-everything https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/shut-down-everything

chubot 8y ago

something as simple as a social media site Ironically, this is exactly the attitude that led Google to fail in social media! Why do you think it's simple? Because you think it's technologically simple?

wmeredith 8y ago

Old Chinese proverb: He who chases two rabbits catches none.

toyg 8y ago

G+ wasn't that bad, technically speaking. They just failed at managing the political aspects of it, focusing too brutally on their own requirements, to the detriment of users' own: "we want your real names, so we can be the authority of record for everything! And we won't let you hack anything of importance on top of the platform, because we want our content clean!"... Compare with the free-for-all hacking bonanza that early twitter was, or the spam machine that Facebook is - social networks are powered by oversharing, an activity that G+ actively resisted in many different ways. But technically speaking, they had the best support for high-quality photos, good features for private groups, and a few other wins on features like Hangouts.

wyclif 8y ago
RealNameGate was the tipping point from OK to bad IMHO. When they forced the issue, they lost a lot of goodwill. They should have done something similar to the optimal implementation of Twitter verified, merely to authenticate identity if the user desires (without bungling it as badly as Twitter has done).
- jiveturkey 8y ago
  doesn’t facebook require real name? that was g+ competition, and everything was referenced to that.
  - toyg 8y ago
    Not really. I think it was policy back when it was for colleges, when they exploded they basically renounced it because it was a hassle to check. Most people simply kept doing it, because if your friends use their name why should you hide?