3 ms·
Google's never been able to bully an inferior product into the market. Their major successes (Search, Gmail, Chrome, Maps, Android) the product was clearly bet
by treis 6y ago
Google's never been able to bully an inferior product into the market. Their major successes (Search, Gmail, Chrome, Maps, Android) the product was clearly better than their competitors. Others where it wasn't (Plus, ChromeOS, GCloud, Wave, Hangouts, Duo, Shopping) they don't dominate the market.
- pyrale 6y agoFirefox took half a decade to reach 20% market share against IE. In the same time, Chrome became the dominant browser. I'm pretty sure that the FF-IE gap warrants to use FF as an example of organic growth, while Chrome is a clear example of aggressive marketing. You can acknowledge that Chrome was a good product _and_ that it got insane marketing, at zero cost. As for examples of pushing inferior products into market, some google search cards are good examples of it.
- shadowgovt 6y agoChrome was also technologically better. People seem to forget that it was the first browser to offer sandboxed processes. That was a game changer, especially in an era where we still used browser plugins Bel ize that weren't as well tested as the browser core and would periodically crash the entire process.
- pyrale 6y agoI'm not arguing that Chrome was not an upgrade from FF. I'm arguing that FF was arguably an even bigger upgrade from IE, and despite that, it had a slow progression. To me, it seems hard to deny that advertising wasn't a key factor in Chrome's faster adoption.
- treis 6y agoNobody says being Google doesn't help in launching products. It's just not a decisive factor. They get exposure but if the value proposition isn't there then they don't win in the market.