3 ms·

The difference is they launch high-profile, promising-the-moon projects and put their full weight behind them, and then give up a couple short years later for i

by _bxg1 8y ago

The difference is they launch high-profile, promising-the-moon projects and put their full weight behind them, and then give up a couple short years later for inscrutable reasons ([cough] Google Fiber [cough])

gipp 8y ago
I don't see how their reasons are any more "inscrutable" than any other company who cans failed products (all of them).
- _bxg1 8y ago
  Google Fiber hadn't truly failed, it just turned out to require more work than they'd hoped, so they just said "never mind" to the cities they'd led along with big promises: https://gizmodo.com/when-google-fiber-abandons-your-city-as-a-failed-experi-1833244198 https://gizmodo.com/when-google-fiber-abandons-your-city-as-... They lack the ability to commit to a space and cultivate it, casually changing course on a whim and leaving masses of people spinning in their wake. Just look at how they've managed YouTube and its guidelines, bans, etc. Or the Play Store and all of its debacles. Were I a game developer, I would never want to be beholden to a Google gaming platform. Case in point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19432702 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19432702
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    > They lack the ability to commit to a space and cultivate it That's because states, entrenched providers and in some cases local governments made every inch of work cost a mile of time. The cost was making Fiber a non-starter... ISP's benefited from nationwide networks largely funded by governments, then used their monopoly influence to prevent any competition, and "hired" state governments to enforce their monopolies. But we can hand-wave all of that away and claim it was Google's lack of commitment.
    - _bxg1 8y ago
      I don't deny that ISP's make it far harder than it needs to be. They make it impossible for small upstarts. But Google, of all companies, had plenty of resources to make it happen if they really wanted to.
      - jhall1468 8y ago
        Blowing millions of dollars on an investment that will take decades to pay off isn't good business. Google decided, rightfully, that the answer was webpass. It's a better revenue generator, and has considerably lower barrier to entry.
        _bxg1 8y ago
        The point is they overcommit and then back out instead of doing more careful due-diligence. Google Glass is an example of the right way to explore a new product; most of their ventures aren't so conservative.
killerdhmo 8y ago
Google Fiber wasn't really that inscrutable. It's clearly outside of their core competency, it required collaboration and agreement with local governments, as well as construction projects, and to AT&T's snarkily made point, it's way harder than a typical software project. This is closer to their existing product portfolio, it doesn't have nearly as a difficult upstart cost relative to Fiber, and the business models are pretty clear. I think a closer analog would be the rumored reductions in their hardware division, but given that they're still making successful hardware + software, it could be more about reorganizing around priorities than it is an indication of their reduced investment

by _bxg1 8y ago

gipp 8y ago

I don't see how their reasons are any more "inscrutable" than any other company who cans failed products (all of them).

_bxg1 8y ago
Google Fiber hadn't truly failed, it just turned out to require more work than they'd hoped, so they just said "never mind" to the cities they'd led along with big promises: https://gizmodo.com/when-google-fiber-abandons-your-city-as-a-failed-experi-1833244198 https://gizmodo.com/when-google-fiber-abandons-your-city-as-... They lack the ability to commit to a space and cultivate it, casually changing course on a whim and leaving masses of people spinning in their wake. Just look at how they've managed YouTube and its guidelines, bans, etc. Or the Play Store and all of its debacles. Were I a game developer, I would never want to be beholden to a Google gaming platform. Case in point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19432702 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19432702
- jhall1468 8y ago
  > They lack the ability to commit to a space and cultivate it That's because states, entrenched providers and in some cases local governments made every inch of work cost a mile of time. The cost was making Fiber a non-starter... ISP's benefited from nationwide networks largely funded by governments, then used their monopoly influence to prevent any competition, and "hired" state governments to enforce their monopolies. But we can hand-wave all of that away and claim it was Google's lack of commitment.
  - _bxg1 8y ago
    I don't deny that ISP's make it far harder than it needs to be. They make it impossible for small upstarts. But Google, of all companies, had plenty of resources to make it happen if they really wanted to.
    - jhall1468 8y ago
      Blowing millions of dollars on an investment that will take decades to pay off isn't good business. Google decided, rightfully, that the answer was webpass. It's a better revenue generator, and has considerably lower barrier to entry.
      - _bxg1 8y ago
        The point is they overcommit and then back out instead of doing more careful due-diligence. Google Glass is an example of the right way to explore a new product; most of their ventures aren't so conservative.

killerdhmo 8y ago

Google Fiber wasn't really that inscrutable. It's clearly outside of their core competency, it required collaboration and agreement with local governments, as well as construction projects, and to AT&T's snarkily made point, it's way harder than a typical software project. This is closer to their existing product portfolio, it doesn't have nearly as a difficult upstart cost relative to Fiber, and the business models are pretty clear. I think a closer analog would be the rumored reductions in their hardware division, but given that they're still making successful hardware + software, it could be more about reorganizing around priorities than it is an indication of their reduced investment