9 ms·

Yeah? Name a product to come out of FB or Google in the past 5 years that has been a major financial success - and acquisitions (like IG, Oculus) don't count. N

Yeah? Name a product to come out of FB or Google in the past 5 years that has been a major financial success - and acquisitions (like IG, Oculus) don't count. Name anything that has fundamentally changed about those companies in that time.

tehlike 7y ago
Plenty of $ positive launches happen that way.
samtheprogram 7y ago
For Google, the Pixel phones?
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  The requirement was financial success, not money pit.
- adrianmonk 7y ago
  That doesn't entirely get by the acquisition test. Google acquired the HTC smartphone design team for $1.1 billion. See https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/30/16949366/google-htc-smartphone-pixel-design-team-deal-closed https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/30/16949366/google-htc-smart...
  - Guidii 7y ago
    The first Pixel phone was released in 2016. Your linked article is dated 2018.
    - adrianmonk 7y ago
      It does also say: "Google worked with a subset of its new HTC hires on a contract basis for the Pixel and Pixel 2". This suggests they at least partially outsourced the work initially and then acqui-hired their way into in-housing it. Though, yes, it is possible that some of it was done in-house from the beginning. Just because they leaned on external resources to some extent doesn't mean they developed no internal capability on their own.
formercoder 7y ago
Video ads
yibg 7y ago
That's a weird bar to set. Why does productivity depend on net new products? Why can't companies with cash cows spend effort on figuring out how to grow that cash cow and boost their revenue that way instead?
- ericmay 7y ago
  Is it? I can name other companies that have released successful new products. If you're just aqui-hiring or buying successful products what does that say about your internal culture? Are you super focused on only your primary product, or are the people you've hired kind of not "new product" innovative? I guess a lot of people think Google/FB == innovation, and they are without a doubt highly innovative, but when it comes to products I'm not really sure that they are. I think most of their innovation comes from improving what they currently do, not really expanding into new markets or with new products. Maybe I'm wrong? What do you think?
  - yibg 7y ago
    Well, maybe? I guess a couple of things: 1) Innovation doesn't have to be in creating new products, and can very well be in incremental improvements to existing products. 2) "new products" also doesn't need to be externally visible. There could be lots of innovation but just for things that aren't visible to customers. Netflix hasn't come out with a new product since streaming started. But there are definitely a lot of new things that are built that are at least arguably innovative.
CydeWeys 7y ago
What does it matter when advertising revenue has more than doubled in that short time period? If you're good at one insanely profitable thing and you're making money out the wazoo with it, who cares?
davidwihl 7y ago
Google Cloud has $10b / year of revenue and hardly existed five years ago.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Is it profitable? Revenue means nothing without profitability.
saghm 7y ago
Why five years? I'm pretty sure both of those companies had offices before then
- grumple 7y ago
  You're welcome to go back further, but it's mostly commentary on the current state of those companies. Google / FB / others have become significantly less innovative as time has proceeded. They are almost entirely driven by their core product (with little changes, despite comments suggesting incremental innovation - not enough to justify thousands of devs) and acquisitions. Others, like Apple and Microsoft, seem to be more willing to innovate internally.
joshuamorton 7y ago
Name a billion dollar company that was income positive 5 years after it was founded.
- scarface74 7y ago
  If I remember correctly, FB was profitable within 5 or 6 years of its founding.

tehlike 7y ago

Plenty of $ positive launches happen that way.

samtheprogram 7y ago

For Google, the Pixel phones?

lern_too_spel 7y ago
The requirement was financial success, not money pit.
adrianmonk 7y ago
That doesn't entirely get by the acquisition test. Google acquired the HTC smartphone design team for $1.1 billion. See https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/30/16949366/google-htc-smartphone-pixel-design-team-deal-closed https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/30/16949366/google-htc-smart...
- Guidii 7y ago
  The first Pixel phone was released in 2016. Your linked article is dated 2018.
  - adrianmonk 7y ago
    It does also say: "Google worked with a subset of its new HTC hires on a contract basis for the Pixel and Pixel 2". This suggests they at least partially outsourced the work initially and then acqui-hired their way into in-housing it. Though, yes, it is possible that some of it was done in-house from the beginning. Just because they leaned on external resources to some extent doesn't mean they developed no internal capability on their own.

formercoder 7y ago

Video ads

yibg 7y ago

That's a weird bar to set. Why does productivity depend on net new products? Why can't companies with cash cows spend effort on figuring out how to grow that cash cow and boost their revenue that way instead?

ericmay 7y ago
Is it? I can name other companies that have released successful new products. If you're just aqui-hiring or buying successful products what does that say about your internal culture? Are you super focused on only your primary product, or are the people you've hired kind of not "new product" innovative? I guess a lot of people think Google/FB == innovation, and they are without a doubt highly innovative, but when it comes to products I'm not really sure that they are. I think most of their innovation comes from improving what they currently do, not really expanding into new markets or with new products. Maybe I'm wrong? What do you think?
- yibg 7y ago
  Well, maybe? I guess a couple of things: 1) Innovation doesn't have to be in creating new products, and can very well be in incremental improvements to existing products. 2) "new products" also doesn't need to be externally visible. There could be lots of innovation but just for things that aren't visible to customers. Netflix hasn't come out with a new product since streaming started. But there are definitely a lot of new things that are built that are at least arguably innovative.

CydeWeys 7y ago

What does it matter when advertising revenue has more than doubled in that short time period? If you're good at one insanely profitable thing and you're making money out the wazoo with it, who cares?

davidwihl 7y ago

Google Cloud has $10b / year of revenue and hardly existed five years ago.

scarface74 7y ago
Is it profitable? Revenue means nothing without profitability.

saghm 7y ago

Why five years? I'm pretty sure both of those companies had offices before then

grumple 7y ago
You're welcome to go back further, but it's mostly commentary on the current state of those companies. Google / FB / others have become significantly less innovative as time has proceeded. They are almost entirely driven by their core product (with little changes, despite comments suggesting incremental innovation - not enough to justify thousands of devs) and acquisitions. Others, like Apple and Microsoft, seem to be more willing to innovate internally.

joshuamorton 7y ago

Name a billion dollar company that was income positive 5 years after it was founded.

scarface74 7y ago
If I remember correctly, FB was profitable within 5 or 6 years of its founding.