9 ms·

During the Google Plus days? Not so much.

by cornstalks 5y ago

azinman2 5y ago
And indeed FB did eat their lunch in social.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  At the same time Facebook tried and failed to take on Gmail.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    I would not argue they failed. Young people don't email their friends.
    - jeffbee 5y ago
      They don't Facebook their friends either, and email is now integrated into schools. Every kid I know has Gmail and none of them have Facebook (although, many do use Instagram).
      - azinman2 5y ago
        Instagram and WhatsApp are Facebook.
- lostdog 5y ago
  Because they worked more hours, or because they chose to build something less stupid?
  - azinman2 5y ago
    Because FB took it extremely seriously and iterated like crazy, where as Google never really did. It was a mindset issue in addition to product taste.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  But not “not only in social mindshare, but in ad revenue”. Social is just (fom a business perspective) a tool for getting an audience. The thing both Google and Facebook are selling is advertisement placement. Winning in one area of free “services” to build an audience to deliver ads to but not winning in actually selling ads…isn’t winning.
- dekhn 5y ago
  and in doing so, set themselves up for much larger failure. Google instead pivoted that energy into cloud, which is now broken out in their earnings. I was one of those googlers who, when Plus was announced, wondered "why aren't we announcing an AWS competitor?"
  - azinman2 5y ago
    What makes you think it was the same people inside Google that did social instead of cloud computing, and that was the choice going through leadership? Google can walk and chew gum at the same time.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      Well, I worked there at the time and had significant insight into the cloud leadership (and some into the social leadership), it wasn't the same people at all. Basically, Eric Schmidt wanted Google to make an enterprise cloud product years before it did, and saw no point in social, while Larry somehow got conned by Vic Gundotra and a few good PM decks that social was Google's future. Larry never had any interest in cloud computing and even the cloud leadership was skeptical that it could ever present an opportunity worth the small profit margins.
    - sangnoir 5y ago
      > Google can walk and chew gum at the same time. As I recall from my outside/user perspective: Google Plus pretty much co-opted the entire organization in an supposed "all hands on deck, existential fight" against Facebook. Every product and feature had to have a "social" layer (including GMail!); YouTube even adopted a "Real Name" policy but still amazingly managed to worsen the comment system. Can you imagine what a similar level of effort on the cloud would have produced? Maybe they wouldn't be a distant #3 in that space today.

During the Google Plus days? Not so much.

azinman2 5y ago

And indeed FB did eat their lunch in social.

jeffbee 5y ago
At the same time Facebook tried and failed to take on Gmail.
- azinman2 5y ago
  I would not argue they failed. Young people don't email their friends.
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    They don't Facebook their friends either, and email is now integrated into schools. Every kid I know has Gmail and none of them have Facebook (although, many do use Instagram).
    - azinman2 5y ago
      Instagram and WhatsApp are Facebook.
lostdog 5y ago
Because they worked more hours, or because they chose to build something less stupid?
- azinman2 5y ago
  Because FB took it extremely seriously and iterated like crazy, where as Google never really did. It was a mindset issue in addition to product taste.
dragonwriter 5y ago
But not “not only in social mindshare, but in ad revenue”. Social is just (fom a business perspective) a tool for getting an audience. The thing both Google and Facebook are selling is advertisement placement. Winning in one area of free “services” to build an audience to deliver ads to but not winning in actually selling ads…isn’t winning.
dekhn 5y ago
and in doing so, set themselves up for much larger failure. Google instead pivoted that energy into cloud, which is now broken out in their earnings. I was one of those googlers who, when Plus was announced, wondered "why aren't we announcing an AWS competitor?"
- azinman2 5y ago
  What makes you think it was the same people inside Google that did social instead of cloud computing, and that was the choice going through leadership? Google can walk and chew gum at the same time.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    Well, I worked there at the time and had significant insight into the cloud leadership (and some into the social leadership), it wasn't the same people at all. Basically, Eric Schmidt wanted Google to make an enterprise cloud product years before it did, and saw no point in social, while Larry somehow got conned by Vic Gundotra and a few good PM decks that social was Google's future. Larry never had any interest in cloud computing and even the cloud leadership was skeptical that it could ever present an opportunity worth the small profit margins.
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    > Google can walk and chew gum at the same time. As I recall from my outside/user perspective: Google Plus pretty much co-opted the entire organization in an supposed "all hands on deck, existential fight" against Facebook. Every product and feature had to have a "social" layer (including GMail!); YouTube even adopted a "Real Name" policy but still amazingly managed to worsen the comment system. Can you imagine what a similar level of effort on the cloud would have produced? Maybe they wouldn't be a distant #3 in that space today.