5 ms·

Since the failure of Wave, does it seem to anyone else the Google has been copying rather than innovating nowadays? Buzz was a copy of Twitter, this is a copy

Since the failure of Wave, does it seem to anyone else the Google has been copying rather than innovating nowadays? Buzz was a copy of Twitter, this is a copy of Groupon, +1 is a copy of Facebook's like button etc... I'd like to see more innovation and less parroting coming out of them. I don't want my search results to be social - I want them to be relevant and spam free. If they really feel like going "social" is the way to deliver those results, then cool - go with it - but don't just copy what another company is doing. Personally I feel like they're good at algorithmic and engineering solutions to problems and not good at social - why not stick with what you excel at?

thankuz 15y ago
I think Instant Search was pretty innovative, but one could probably say that it came about due to Twitter and real-time.
- bakhlawa 15y ago
  I hope this is a joke. Instant Search is a UX nightmare with the screen changing / morphing with every keystroke. Now if you meant Google Suggest, I'd have no argument, but on any new browser install, one of the first items is to switch Instant Search off.
  - thankuz 15y ago
    Agreed. Meant the concept, not necessarily the execution. Definitely see the potential, given they continue to improve it.
    - TruthElixirX 15y ago
      The most frustrating thing about instant search, to me, is that even in Firefox 4 and Opera (Haven't tried it on Chrome) the instant part freezes up sometimes if I type really quickly or backspace too fast.
  - patrickaljord 15y ago
    I love instant search UX, whenever I use a browser that is not supported it just seems like I'm getting a super slow experience. Maybe you should give it a longer try.
    - 182446 15y ago
      I have given it a long try and I hate it. It's so annoying.
mtogo 15y ago
Google has always copied and almost never innovated. They've done so well because they can build better technical applications than their competitors (e.g. Gmail). That strategy doesn't work with social, though. They can rip off an idea and build a more technically sound product, but social needs more than just a good product, and google can't deliver.
- killedbydeath 15y ago
  Gmail as a product was innovative in many ways (large storage, convenient search). It was much better than competitors, I switched immediately. Not sure if the same can be said about Google Offers.
  - jonknee 15y ago
    Have you used Google Offers yet? With the big map they have as the background of the teaser it seems like it could be quite different from Groupon. They have mapping software built into a couple hundred million smartphones... Could be a nice differentiating factor. Not to mention an established relationship with millions of businesses through AdWords.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - paganel 15y ago
      > Not to mention an established relationship with millions of businesses through AdWords. I still think you need to have people on the ground. And lots of them. As a small aside, I work for a Groupon-clone website in a non-US market. I've built a very nice Internet-based redemption interface for the business owners to check the clients' coupons. Guess what? ~75% of them don't even have Internet at the POS, they print their coupon lists at a home computer and somehow manage all the clients we send them manually. We also manually create accounts for about half of them, because, apparently, creating an user account on our Drupal-based website is too damn difficult. Maybe this time is different, and all the tech-savy small-business owners from out-there will go directly into Google's arms. I personally doubt it.
ignifero 15y ago
Agreed, but this one seems to be the perfect fit with google places and checkout. It's not great to see a Goliath taking on smaller competitors, but the truth is that Groupon hasn't innovated much since it launched.
- thankuz 15y ago
  Don't forget Google Merchant Center / Shopping, formerly Product Search, formerly Froogle. Also Google Commerce Search.
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  Remember that Google first attempted to acquire the "smaller competitor" and its offer was declined. Should Google just restrict itself not to compete in any space where there is a "smaller competitor"?
- r00fus 15y ago
  As long as the customer benefits (i.e., the behemoth actually innovates and doesn't kneecap the opposition), then the competitive marketplace is doing it's job.
TillE 15y ago
I miss Wave. It was a wonderful idea, it just never really got off the ground. It could've been the next-generation federated communication platform, usable for just about any purpose imaginable. And they just pulled the plug while the official Wave client was floundering a bit. Hopefully the leadership shakeup at Google will turn things around.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
shin_lao 15y ago
Innovating is not inventing. Innovating, implies copying.
yanw 15y ago
Copying is allowed! it's a big part of innovating. And to quote Eric Schmidt: "The last new idea in computer science was public key encryption in 1975" It's the implementation of an idea that sets it apart.
- davidreiss666 15y ago
  Yes, go back to Doug Engelbart's Mother of all Demos. There isn't much truly new out here.
- ellyagg 15y ago
  There's copying and then there's copying. At one point Google had a reputation for being innovative. Insofar as "innovative" continues to be a word that means something then--given that there is indeed very little truly new under the sun, technology or otherwise--the question is two-fold: Is this reputation changing and is this reputation becoming less deserved? Some amount of copy-catting is certainly necessary and healthy to push horizons and to help competition keep things fresh. But that doesn't mean all copying is benign and healthful. Copying can certainly be tacky. Most people seem to agree that some large companies copy not because they have something genuinely worthy of merit to bring to the table, but simply because they are very large, and can leverage some of the advantages of that largeness to horn in on the market. You can be certain that in these cases, said large companies will make the case that their differentiations are worthy, but that doesn't automatically make it so. Schmidt's quotation is roughly true, obviously. But it's also something that you'd say to a group of people you wanted to motivate to continue to perform well even though some of the crew is growing restless. Many high performers would rather attempt visionary and trailblazing products rather than work on another boring me-too project.
zaidf 15y ago
why not stick with what you excel at? Because most companies don't believe that trying to expand into another area will significantly hurt them in areas they already excel at.
- Andrew_Quentin 15y ago
  Well, they say Rome fell because of over-expansion. Companies can so fall too.
  - lsb 15y ago
    No. The reason Rome's expansion plans fell short of expectations were because the perimeter to area ratio was too high. Defending lots of land with an enormous Mediterranean sea in the middle is far harder that a tight peninsula of farmland. Similarly, Cisco buying Groupon increases perimeter to surface area far more than Google buying Admob.

thankuz 15y ago

I think Instant Search was pretty innovative, but one could probably say that it came about due to Twitter and real-time.

bakhlawa 15y ago
I hope this is a joke. Instant Search is a UX nightmare with the screen changing / morphing with every keystroke. Now if you meant Google Suggest, I'd have no argument, but on any new browser install, one of the first items is to switch Instant Search off.
- thankuz 15y ago
  Agreed. Meant the concept, not necessarily the execution. Definitely see the potential, given they continue to improve it.
  - TruthElixirX 15y ago
    The most frustrating thing about instant search, to me, is that even in Firefox 4 and Opera (Haven't tried it on Chrome) the instant part freezes up sometimes if I type really quickly or backspace too fast.
- patrickaljord 15y ago
  I love instant search UX, whenever I use a browser that is not supported it just seems like I'm getting a super slow experience. Maybe you should give it a longer try.
  - 182446 15y ago
    I have given it a long try and I hate it. It's so annoying.

mtogo 15y ago

Google has always copied and almost never innovated. They've done so well because they can build better technical applications than their competitors (e.g. Gmail). That strategy doesn't work with social, though. They can rip off an idea and build a more technically sound product, but social needs more than just a good product, and google can't deliver.

killedbydeath 15y ago
Gmail as a product was innovative in many ways (large storage, convenient search). It was much better than competitors, I switched immediately. Not sure if the same can be said about Google Offers.
- jonknee 15y ago
  Have you used Google Offers yet? With the big map they have as the background of the teaser it seems like it could be quite different from Groupon. They have mapping software built into a couple hundred million smartphones... Could be a nice differentiating factor. Not to mention an established relationship with millions of businesses through AdWords.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - paganel 15y ago
    > Not to mention an established relationship with millions of businesses through AdWords. I still think you need to have people on the ground. And lots of them. As a small aside, I work for a Groupon-clone website in a non-US market. I've built a very nice Internet-based redemption interface for the business owners to check the clients' coupons. Guess what? ~75% of them don't even have Internet at the POS, they print their coupon lists at a home computer and somehow manage all the clients we send them manually. We also manually create accounts for about half of them, because, apparently, creating an user account on our Drupal-based website is too damn difficult. Maybe this time is different, and all the tech-savy small-business owners from out-there will go directly into Google's arms. I personally doubt it.

ignifero 15y ago

Agreed, but this one seems to be the perfect fit with google places and checkout. It's not great to see a Goliath taking on smaller competitors, but the truth is that Groupon hasn't innovated much since it launched.

thankuz 15y ago
Don't forget Google Merchant Center / Shopping, formerly Product Search, formerly Froogle. Also Google Commerce Search.
cookiecaper 15y ago
Remember that Google first attempted to acquire the "smaller competitor" and its offer was declined. Should Google just restrict itself not to compete in any space where there is a "smaller competitor"?
r00fus 15y ago
As long as the customer benefits (i.e., the behemoth actually innovates and doesn't kneecap the opposition), then the competitive marketplace is doing it's job.

TillE 15y ago

I miss Wave. It was a wonderful idea, it just never really got off the ground. It could've been the next-generation federated communication platform, usable for just about any purpose imaginable. And they just pulled the plug while the official Wave client was floundering a bit. Hopefully the leadership shakeup at Google will turn things around.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

shin_lao 15y ago

Innovating is not inventing. Innovating, implies copying.

yanw 15y ago

Copying is allowed! it's a big part of innovating. And to quote Eric Schmidt: "The last new idea in computer science was public key encryption in 1975" It's the implementation of an idea that sets it apart.

davidreiss666 15y ago
Yes, go back to Doug Engelbart's Mother of all Demos. There isn't much truly new out here.
ellyagg 15y ago
There's copying and then there's copying. At one point Google had a reputation for being innovative. Insofar as "innovative" continues to be a word that means something then--given that there is indeed very little truly new under the sun, technology or otherwise--the question is two-fold: Is this reputation changing and is this reputation becoming less deserved? Some amount of copy-catting is certainly necessary and healthy to push horizons and to help competition keep things fresh. But that doesn't mean all copying is benign and healthful. Copying can certainly be tacky. Most people seem to agree that some large companies copy not because they have something genuinely worthy of merit to bring to the table, but simply because they are very large, and can leverage some of the advantages of that largeness to horn in on the market. You can be certain that in these cases, said large companies will make the case that their differentiations are worthy, but that doesn't automatically make it so. Schmidt's quotation is roughly true, obviously. But it's also something that you'd say to a group of people you wanted to motivate to continue to perform well even though some of the crew is growing restless. Many high performers would rather attempt visionary and trailblazing products rather than work on another boring me-too project.

zaidf 15y ago

why not stick with what you excel at? Because most companies don't believe that trying to expand into another area will significantly hurt them in areas they already excel at.

Andrew_Quentin 15y ago
Well, they say Rome fell because of over-expansion. Companies can so fall too.
- lsb 15y ago
  No. The reason Rome's expansion plans fell short of expectations were because the perimeter to area ratio was too high. Defending lots of land with an enormous Mediterranean sea in the middle is far harder that a tight peninsula of farmland. Similarly, Cisco buying Groupon increases perimeter to surface area far more than Google buying Admob.