4 ms·

Youtube - Aquisition Android - Aquisition Maps - Aquisition Docs - Aquisition Google is great at scaling up aquisitions and optimizing them for the audience

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.
izacus 8y ago
To make it clearer: Maps - Acquired 14 years ago Android - Acquired 13 years ago Docs - Acquired 12 years ago YouTube - Acquired 12 years ago Are we assuming Google didn't change or innovate with those at all in last 10 years?
- Izkata 8y ago
  Maps - mainly cosmetic changes, though most of that was significant improvements Android - significantly improved all over Docs - never a big user, don't really know YouTube - significantly better video quality, significantly worse user experience with everything else
- pessimizer 8y ago
  Maps and Youtube got worse.
- wyclif 8y ago
  Well, he did add that they were scaled up and optimized. That's where most of Google's innovation and engineering hours are spent on those products.

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.

izacus 8y ago

To make it clearer: Maps - Acquired 14 years ago Android - Acquired 13 years ago Docs - Acquired 12 years ago YouTube - Acquired 12 years ago Are we assuming Google didn't change or innovate with those at all in last 10 years?

Izkata 8y ago
Maps - mainly cosmetic changes, though most of that was significant improvements Android - significantly improved all over Docs - never a big user, don't really know YouTube - significantly better video quality, significantly worse user experience with everything else
pessimizer 8y ago
Maps and Youtube got worse.
wyclif 8y ago
Well, he did add that they were scaled up and optimized. That's where most of Google's innovation and engineering hours are spent on those products.