6 ms·

At some point Google needs to realize that releasing products then killing them like this makes people worry about using them for other projects. Simply going

At some point Google needs to realize that releasing products then killing them like this makes people worry about using them for other projects. Simply going on number of users / revenue per user doesn't seem to be a a great long term strategy.

izacus 7y ago
It seems to have worked for many years now with Google reporting record revenue pretty much every year until now. Why do you think switching to a model where Google bleeds money on unprofitable products will help anything?
- arcticbull 7y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. Just because a system is profitable doesn't mean it will be moving forward or that there aren't more effective operating models out there. Long-term success of a company relies on its ability to adapt. IMO this kind of development cycle has worked up till now, but moving forward, I'd hope they're much more thoughtful and methodical about what they choose to launch and how as it is in fact hurting their brand.
  - izacus 7y ago
    And yet your post (and downvotes) still don't really answer the question: What kind of basis/proof/data is the idea that Google should change it's massively profitable strategy based on? Which metrics besides "gut feeling" or "I don't like it"?
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      It’s a good question, but one I could think of is something relating to success of new products. Ideally you never launch an outright flop, Apple’s had maybe 2 or 3. You can take their strategy and “be right most of the time” or you can reinforce the importance of product market fit and understanding instead of spaghetti model. There’s always an opportunity for research and understanding prior to development, and hiring people who have launched similar successful products. That doesn’t require a pivot just a bit more investment early on and the return can be tracked as a function of success of new products.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        The only major flop that I can think that Apple has had in the last decade is the trash can Mac Pro and that market is so small for Apple it didn’t really affect revenue that much. I think the HomePod may be a flop. But the difference is that the products that flopped aren’t platforms that people came to depend on.
        arcticbull 7y ago
        The iPod Hi-Fi was another, and lest we forget Ping, RIP.
        scarface74 7y ago
        I did say in the last decade. The iPod Hifi was discontinued September 2007. I can list many failures before then - the MacTV, the 20th anniversary Mac, the entire Performa line, the Pippin, the Mac clone program, the Apple III, eWorld, Newton, Cube, System 7 Pro, OpenDoc (and CyberDog),....
        arcticbull 7y ago
        You’re definitely right that the Hi-Fi was earlier, I considered it in the iPod era but you are nonetheless correct. Ping expired September 2012 ^_^
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Based on last quarter’s results where profits on advertising were down year over year as acquisition cost rose faster than revenue on ad sales.
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        How does that have anything to do with Google's product strategy in a bunch of products that don't show ads?
        scarface74 7y ago
        It needs to find some method of diversification and it will never do that if it kills off products that aren’t immediately profitable instead of finding a business model. Google’s ad business can easily be disrupted by ad blockers.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        Of course I've heard of it. Unfortunately, you're doing this thing where you state a bunch of at a glance, unrelated facts and leave me to fill in the details. It's the same way people talk about conspiracy theories, and it's an infuriating rhetorical tactic to deal with. So some questions: Do you think that high speed internet is going to be so wildly profitable to cause a clear diversification in Google's profit? My understanding is that it already doesn't have great margins, and google moving in would increase competition, reducing those margins. Do you really believe that google plans to diversify by moving into a complelety non software business like internet utilities? If Google's ad business can be so easily disrupted, why haven't ad blockers noticably done so in the past two decades? Or if they have, why hasn't that impacted Google's profit? If your argument is that it did, but only recently (the TAC stuff), what changed recently to cause that? Do you think that enterprise offerings like cloud aren't diversification?
        scarface74 7y ago
        Do you really believe that google plans to diversify by moving into a complelety non software business like internet utilities? People said it was crazy for Apple to move into the music business (Slashdot: “No Wireless, Less Space than a Nomad, Lame”)and try to open a digital music store (who will buy music when they can get it for free?). That seem to have worked out pretty well. The CEO of Palm said on rumors of the iPhone in 2006 when people thought it was crazy for Apple to get into the phone business “PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.”. Google’s ad business is being disrupted - their profit was down on ad sales. Facebook knows a lot more about people because people tell Facebook a lot more about themselves and can do better targeting. Also, since most Facebook usage is done through apps, ads are almost impossible to block. Amazon is also getting more into the ad space and they know a lot more about consumer behavior than Google. Their first party ads are also harder to block. iOS fairly recently added native content blockers - where the most valuable consumers are and more traffic is moving to mobile. “Do you think that enterprise offerings like cloud aren't diversification?” It’s a distance third to AWS and Azure. GCP doesn’t have the first mover advantage of Amazon or the advantage of having the advantage of Microsoft’s entrenched base in the enterprise or its sales team.
    - mike_ivanov 7y ago
      > What kind of basis/proof/data Here - https://jamesstuber.com/second-order-effects/ https://jamesstuber.com/second-order-effects/ > is the idea that Google should change No, by all means Google shouldn't. It's too large to be taken down by external forces, but it can (and I hope it will) inflict itself by maintaining its arrogant attitude.
- JaimeThompson 7y ago
  The cost of keeping this product going would be in the low millions which is far from bleeding money.
- scarface74 7y ago
  They are already bleeding money on unprofitable products. After years of trying to diversify, they are still mostly an ad company. On a side note: RIM was most profitable three years after the iPhone came out. Profits are a lagging indicator.
wilde 7y ago
I mean, Ads pays the bills. Everything else is a hobby.

izacus 7y ago

It seems to have worked for many years now with Google reporting record revenue pretty much every year until now. Why do you think switching to a model where Google bleeds money on unprofitable products will help anything?

arcticbull 7y ago
That's a false dichotomy. Just because a system is profitable doesn't mean it will be moving forward or that there aren't more effective operating models out there. Long-term success of a company relies on its ability to adapt. IMO this kind of development cycle has worked up till now, but moving forward, I'd hope they're much more thoughtful and methodical about what they choose to launch and how as it is in fact hurting their brand.
- izacus 7y ago
  And yet your post (and downvotes) still don't really answer the question: What kind of basis/proof/data is the idea that Google should change it's massively profitable strategy based on? Which metrics besides "gut feeling" or "I don't like it"?
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    It’s a good question, but one I could think of is something relating to success of new products. Ideally you never launch an outright flop, Apple’s had maybe 2 or 3. You can take their strategy and “be right most of the time” or you can reinforce the importance of product market fit and understanding instead of spaghetti model. There’s always an opportunity for research and understanding prior to development, and hiring people who have launched similar successful products. That doesn’t require a pivot just a bit more investment early on and the return can be tracked as a function of success of new products.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      The only major flop that I can think that Apple has had in the last decade is the trash can Mac Pro and that market is so small for Apple it didn’t really affect revenue that much. I think the HomePod may be a flop. But the difference is that the products that flopped aren’t platforms that people came to depend on.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        The iPod Hi-Fi was another, and lest we forget Ping, RIP.
        scarface74 7y ago
        I did say in the last decade. The iPod Hifi was discontinued September 2007. I can list many failures before then - the MacTV, the 20th anniversary Mac, the entire Performa line, the Pippin, the Mac clone program, the Apple III, eWorld, Newton, Cube, System 7 Pro, OpenDoc (and CyberDog),....
        arcticbull 7y ago
        You’re definitely right that the Hi-Fi was earlier, I considered it in the iPod era but you are nonetheless correct. Ping expired September 2012 ^_^
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Based on last quarter’s results where profits on advertising were down year over year as acquisition cost rose faster than revenue on ad sales.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      How does that have anything to do with Google's product strategy in a bunch of products that don't show ads?
      - scarface74 7y ago
        It needs to find some method of diversification and it will never do that if it kills off products that aren’t immediately profitable instead of finding a business model. Google’s ad business can easily be disrupted by ad blockers.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        Of course I've heard of it. Unfortunately, you're doing this thing where you state a bunch of at a glance, unrelated facts and leave me to fill in the details. It's the same way people talk about conspiracy theories, and it's an infuriating rhetorical tactic to deal with. So some questions: Do you think that high speed internet is going to be so wildly profitable to cause a clear diversification in Google's profit? My understanding is that it already doesn't have great margins, and google moving in would increase competition, reducing those margins. Do you really believe that google plans to diversify by moving into a complelety non software business like internet utilities? If Google's ad business can be so easily disrupted, why haven't ad blockers noticably done so in the past two decades? Or if they have, why hasn't that impacted Google's profit? If your argument is that it did, but only recently (the TAC stuff), what changed recently to cause that? Do you think that enterprise offerings like cloud aren't diversification?
        scarface74 7y ago
        Do you really believe that google plans to diversify by moving into a complelety non software business like internet utilities? People said it was crazy for Apple to move into the music business (Slashdot: “No Wireless, Less Space than a Nomad, Lame”)and try to open a digital music store (who will buy music when they can get it for free?). That seem to have worked out pretty well. The CEO of Palm said on rumors of the iPhone in 2006 when people thought it was crazy for Apple to get into the phone business “PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.”. Google’s ad business is being disrupted - their profit was down on ad sales. Facebook knows a lot more about people because people tell Facebook a lot more about themselves and can do better targeting. Also, since most Facebook usage is done through apps, ads are almost impossible to block. Amazon is also getting more into the ad space and they know a lot more about consumer behavior than Google. Their first party ads are also harder to block. iOS fairly recently added native content blockers - where the most valuable consumers are and more traffic is moving to mobile. “Do you think that enterprise offerings like cloud aren't diversification?” It’s a distance third to AWS and Azure. GCP doesn’t have the first mover advantage of Amazon or the advantage of having the advantage of Microsoft’s entrenched base in the enterprise or its sales team.
  - mike_ivanov 7y ago
    > What kind of basis/proof/data Here - https://jamesstuber.com/second-order-effects/ https://jamesstuber.com/second-order-effects/ > is the idea that Google should change No, by all means Google shouldn't. It's too large to be taken down by external forces, but it can (and I hope it will) inflict itself by maintaining its arrogant attitude.
JaimeThompson 7y ago
The cost of keeping this product going would be in the low millions which is far from bleeding money.
scarface74 7y ago
They are already bleeding money on unprofitable products. After years of trying to diversify, they are still mostly an ad company. On a side note: RIM was most profitable three years after the iPhone came out. Profits are a lagging indicator.

wilde 7y ago

I mean, Ads pays the bills. Everything else is a hobby.