4 ms·

I don't think that Boutiques.com was a departure from what Google is already good at. Boutiques.com contributes to their core product (search). On the surface

by RBr 16y ago

I don't think that Boutiques.com was a departure from what Google is already good at. Boutiques.com contributes to their core product (search). On the surface, it looks like Google has defined a long list of fashion ecommerce sites to search. Then, they pepper in some Google Images functionality along with a base template designed to encourage engagement. This sounds a lot a specialized, properly linked version of Google Images more than innovation. I think that Google should be investing more in startups if they want to increase innovation. Creating products that contribute to their core product is exactly what I'd do if I was the CEO of Google.... which based on my bank balance, I'm not :)

primigenus 16y ago
The way you talk about "innovation" makes me wonder what your definition is. Is "a specialized, properly linked version of Google Images", especially one with as specific a market as this one, not innovative?
- RBr 16y ago
  Scoble wrote about Google vs. Instagr.am. I left a comment that answers your question: http://scobleizer.com/2010/11/12/why-google-cant-build-instagram/#comment-96505351 http://scobleizer.com/2010/11/12/why-google-cant-build-insta... When you consider Google, Instagr.am and now Boutiques.com, I think that each of these products serves a very different purpose. Google's scrappy startup, innovative days are (and should) be behind it. It's not that Google shouldn't make new products, it's that the products that they focus their core business on should contribute to what has made it successful. Boutiques.com does contribute to their core product. Instagr.am does not. In order for Google to keep pioneering, they need to increase their investment in startups. By extending the company through investment rather than core products, the company will allow startups to move quickly while improving their core product incrementally.

by RBr 16y ago

primigenus 16y ago

The way you talk about "innovation" makes me wonder what your definition is. Is "a specialized, properly linked version of Google Images", especially one with as specific a market as this one, not innovative?

RBr 16y ago
Scoble wrote about Google vs. Instagr.am. I left a comment that answers your question: http://scobleizer.com/2010/11/12/why-google-cant-build-instagram/#comment-96505351 http://scobleizer.com/2010/11/12/why-google-cant-build-insta... When you consider Google, Instagr.am and now Boutiques.com, I think that each of these products serves a very different purpose. Google's scrappy startup, innovative days are (and should) be behind it. It's not that Google shouldn't make new products, it's that the products that they focus their core business on should contribute to what has made it successful. Boutiques.com does contribute to their core product. Instagr.am does not. In order for Google to keep pioneering, they need to increase their investment in startups. By extending the company through investment rather than core products, the company will allow startups to move quickly while improving their core product incrementally.