4 ms·

I wonder if the root of the issue is profit expectations. Their main business, Google search, makes mad cash. Why would Google keep something around that makes

I wonder if the root of the issue is profit expectations. Their main business, Google search, makes mad cash. Why would Google keep something around that makes only a tiny fraction of what their main business does? Why try new things at all? Because they realize that they need to diversify and try to find something that can bring in money to rival their main business in case their main business goes away. I don't agree with this cycle, by the way. How can something make the same amount of money as google search if they don't put the same sort of resources into promotion and give it time to grow? But, I don't have an MBA.

solardev 4y ago
I dunno about that. Once upon time, after search but before the modern era, they built (or bought and then integrated) very useful things like Android or Maps or Docs or Gmail. But they still took risks back then.
- Traubenfuchs 4y ago
  > very useful things like Android or Maps or Docs or Gmail Which have become an overengineered mess with stagnating core features and a trickle of fresh, ad related nuisances.
  - solardev 4y ago
    True :( Especially Maps
etempleton 4y ago
I agree. Part of the conversation around Stadia before launch was, “how long until they kill it.” That is their reputation as a company.
hgs3 4y ago
> I wonder if the root of the issue is profit expectations. When I was a youngster I was taught that capitalism promoted hard work and innovation, but it seems like that's only true during a growth phase. Once you've got a cash cow there is no reason to innovate, once you've sold or licensed a patent you can cruise on royalties, and if some upstart threatens you then sue, slander, or buy them. Beyond a certain tipping point the need for profit hampers if not outright suppresses innovation.
pie420 4y ago
because there is only so much you can grow the main cash cow. would you rather have a company that makes 1 billion a year on 90% profit margin, or a company that makes 2 billion a year on 60% profit margin but is diversified?

solardev 4y ago

I dunno about that. Once upon time, after search but before the modern era, they built (or bought and then integrated) very useful things like Android or Maps or Docs or Gmail. But they still took risks back then.

Traubenfuchs 4y ago
> very useful things like Android or Maps or Docs or Gmail Which have become an overengineered mess with stagnating core features and a trickle of fresh, ad related nuisances.
- solardev 4y ago
  True :( Especially Maps

etempleton 4y ago

I agree. Part of the conversation around Stadia before launch was, “how long until they kill it.” That is their reputation as a company.

hgs3 4y ago

> I wonder if the root of the issue is profit expectations. When I was a youngster I was taught that capitalism promoted hard work and innovation, but it seems like that's only true during a growth phase. Once you've got a cash cow there is no reason to innovate, once you've sold or licensed a patent you can cruise on royalties, and if some upstart threatens you then sue, slander, or buy them. Beyond a certain tipping point the need for profit hampers if not outright suppresses innovation.

pie420 4y ago

because there is only so much you can grow the main cash cow. would you rather have a company that makes 1 billion a year on 90% profit margin, or a company that makes 2 billion a year on 60% profit margin but is diversified?