4 ms·

We don't need more Apples. There is one right now, doing very well at being Apple. Google could take some cues from Apple, sure, but there is more than one way

We don't need more Apples. There is one right now, doing very well at being Apple. Google could take some cues from Apple, sure, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. The fact that MG thinks Android sucking at first and slowly iterating to a solid product is a negative is mind boggling. That is great! We are talking about a search company that in the span of few years became the dominant player in mobile operating systems. And that never would have happened if Google took years and years to create one "perfect" phone. Coming out of the gate with a great product is overrated. It can work. But more likely, cause you aren't Apple, you will flop. By starting with the basics instead of a complete product, you also give yourself a much more interesting place to grow (the iPhone 4S could be mistaken for the original iPhone; no one could mistake the Galaxy Nexus for the G1).

biot 15y ago
It's not about being Apple, it's about solid execution. With consistently great execution, one develops faith that new products will hold up to the standards demonstrated in the past. When you release buggy, half-baked products people aren't going to get excited about what's coming out because they don't want to recommend a dud. They come to expect a low standard, rather than a consistently high standard.
ryanwaggoner 15y ago
There is a VAST difference between launching something simple and functional and then iterating to a solid, polished product, and launching something that sucks / is simply broken, and hoping people put up with it until you can get it right. Apple does the former; features for v1 of their products are almost always quite limited, but what is there is polished. Increasingly, Google seems to do the latter. It's not minimum product, it's minimum viable product. And if it doesn't even work, it's hardly viable.
- Kylekramer 15y ago
  You are honestly claiming Google products haven't been viable or working? That seems like quite the stretch.
  - ceejayoz 15y ago
    A modal error being the very first thing every new user sees is pretty hard to excuse even for a MVP.
  - Anti-Ratfish 15y ago
    Have you read the article or used the app? Broken is exactly what it is, and it's a Google product. So yes, I'd assume that's exactly what's being said.
    - Kylekramer 15y ago
      "The native Gmail app isn’t really shit... it’s just buggy as fuck and extremely underwhelming." I am not saying it is good app. It is weak and disappointing. I am saying that the philosophy MG is promoting where you must get everything right the first time is a distracting and unattainable goal.
  - jcitme 15y ago
    If it crashes when I click on the biggest button I can see, it's not working. I can make exceptions for edge cases (press a 6 key combo to trigger crash, etc) but if it can't even load, then no.
ookblah 15y ago
I feel like you can only get away with a less than subpar "MVP" if you're: 1)entering new territory and people forgive the mistakes until you fix them. 2) you are a small operation and people will forgive the mistakes until you fix them. Google is neither. We've come to expect a minimum level of polish from anything released from them.

biot 15y ago

It's not about being Apple, it's about solid execution. With consistently great execution, one develops faith that new products will hold up to the standards demonstrated in the past. When you release buggy, half-baked products people aren't going to get excited about what's coming out because they don't want to recommend a dud. They come to expect a low standard, rather than a consistently high standard.

ryanwaggoner 15y ago

There is a VAST difference between launching something simple and functional and then iterating to a solid, polished product, and launching something that sucks / is simply broken, and hoping people put up with it until you can get it right. Apple does the former; features for v1 of their products are almost always quite limited, but what is there is polished. Increasingly, Google seems to do the latter. It's not minimum product, it's minimum viable product. And if it doesn't even work, it's hardly viable.

Kylekramer 15y ago
You are honestly claiming Google products haven't been viable or working? That seems like quite the stretch.
- ceejayoz 15y ago
  A modal error being the very first thing every new user sees is pretty hard to excuse even for a MVP.
- Anti-Ratfish 15y ago
  Have you read the article or used the app? Broken is exactly what it is, and it's a Google product. So yes, I'd assume that's exactly what's being said.
  - Kylekramer 15y ago
    "The native Gmail app isn’t really shit... it’s just buggy as fuck and extremely underwhelming." I am not saying it is good app. It is weak and disappointing. I am saying that the philosophy MG is promoting where you must get everything right the first time is a distracting and unattainable goal.
- jcitme 15y ago
  If it crashes when I click on the biggest button I can see, it's not working. I can make exceptions for edge cases (press a 6 key combo to trigger crash, etc) but if it can't even load, then no.

ookblah 15y ago

I feel like you can only get away with a less than subpar "MVP" if you're: 1)entering new territory and people forgive the mistakes until you fix them. 2) you are a small operation and people will forgive the mistakes until you fix them. Google is neither. We've come to expect a minimum level of polish from anything released from them.