5 ms·

That's the trap with MBA and accountant ways of seeing costs and profit centers: They know the price of everything and the value of nothing. They are the people

That's the trap with MBA and accountant ways of seeing costs and profit centers: They know the price of everything and the value of nothing. They are the people who laud executives that spin-off businesses like HP getting rid of Agilent, or IBM getting rid of the PC business, or companies cost cutting by closing research centers because they don't really understand how REAL economic value is built in the long run versus financial and accounting shenanigans devised to fool a market composed of short-term obsessed idiot-savants. Gmail may not be very profitable by itself or even a net negative, but it is definitely a centerpiece of google's business. For a sizable portion of humanity, Google is the default provider of their digital identity, something they leveraged even more with Android.

Alex3917 4y ago
> it is definitely a centerpiece of google's business. THE centerpiece. The average Google user spends ~5min a day on search, and ~6 hours a day on Gmail.
- tommek4077 4y ago
  "Of course those numbers are true. I just made them up myself!" .... 6hours is a bit much.
- jffry 4y ago
  Can you please provide a source for those numbers? Because at first glance they seem pretty fantastical.
  - Alex3917 4y ago
    According to a research report by Adobe, the average office worker spends 5.9 hours per day checking email: https://business.adobe.com/blog/perspectives/if-you-think-email-is-dead-think-again https://business.adobe.com/blog/perspectives/if-you-think-em... Whereas the average Google search supposedly takes 14.6 seconds: https://fitsmallbusiness.com/google-search-statistics/ https://fitsmallbusiness.com/google-search-statistics/
    - cableshaft 4y ago
      I'm sure the report is legit considering it's by Adobe, but I'm having a hard time believing it. Doesn't leave much room for anything else in the day there if people are spending that much time on it. Especially since that doesn't seem to account for any social media or online chat (Slack, Teams) or other internet time either. Even when my job had a good chunk of responding to emails I don't think I spent more than an two hours a day on it. As for personal emails I think I spend maybe 20 minutes a day on that, mostly just quickly glancing at notifications that show up there and clicking through if necessary. And work emails I'm probably at about 10 minutes at my current job, I don't get that many and the ones I do get don't require much time or a response. Although my situation is likely atypical. Still the average seems like the polar opposite to me, and should be the high, not the average.
- ikurei 4y ago
  May be they have Gmail open on a tab for 6h a day? I don't know that I would say that's "being on Gmail". Google can send them notifications, but they're not generating useful data during all that time.
  - webmobdev 4y ago
    If you are signed into Gmail, Google can know every website you visit if the site uses Google Analytics or Google Ads (which the majority of website do today).
- Fatnino 4y ago
  I have one Gmail tab open 24/7 and many many search tabs open for days or even weeks. Your numbers are worthless.
- otikik 4y ago
  My objective every time I access Gmail is Getting Out As Fast As Possible. If it didn’t allow me to do that I would switch to something else
quags 4y ago
I see a lot of the same thought process when things go away. But , take meta for example , spending billions on the metaverse - most lean towards that being a fools errand and a waste of money. Research and investment doesn’t always lead to where the final destination was expected. Personally I’m glad some companies like meta still push money to research and development because it can lead to cool things in the future that were not intended.
- bombcar 4y ago
  I feel people would be more “forgiving” of zucc’s spending in the meta verse if he had just done it instead of renaming the company and trumpeting it as the second coming of God himself.
  - BitwiseFool 4y ago
    This is a tough one. Based on what we've seen so far the Metaverse seems unlikely to succeed and will likely end up as a massive boondoggle. Yet, it is so ambitious that anything less than a full fledged pivot would indicate it was just a niche thing to be abandoned. Not going all-in could be seen as a self-fulfilling prophecy that it was doomed to fail. I can definitely see how it was an all or nothing decision.
    - sklargh 4y ago
      Concur on probability of failure here. Want to add that Meta does need to bet the farm on a personal device that they're able to track and monetize in the way that iOS and Android offer their corporate parents. Without a device in every hand/household Meta simply pays rent to Tim and Sundar and, as ATT demonstrated, is up for eviction at any time. Meta needs a hit device to survive.
    - chaostheory 4y ago
      It depends on what your definition of the Metaverse is. The metaverse is not a Facebook / Meta exclusive platform. It's simply AR / VR with a connection to the internet. Most people, who have fallen for Meta's marketing and haven't used modern VR within the last 2 years, don't seem to realize this. No one company can singlehandedly control the entire internet, even if just the VR / AR side of it. That only happens in fantasy novels like Ready Player One. Meta, the company, might not seem to have great prospects for now; but the metaverse is still the future despite its current clunky form factor and high cost (with the exception of the Quest 2). In defense of Zuck, I agree with sklargh. Solely relying on ad revenue is a future dead end. Facebook needs its own hardware platform to survive.
ghaff 4y ago
And sometimes that unprofitable part of the business really is just pissing billions of dollars a year away with very little to show for it. In Gmail's case, it would seem to be pretty tied into the parts of Goggle's business that actually do make money. Conversational assistants? I don't know. They don't seem to have really panned out for the most part and I'm not sure they're much changed from at least five years ago in spite of vast armies of expensive developers being paid to work on them. At some point you just admit that a bet isn't going to pay off in an interesting time horizon.
- darepublic 4y ago
  > Conversational assistants? I don't know. They don't seem to have really panned out for the most part and I'm not sure they're much changed from at least five years ago in spite of vast armies of expensive developers being paid to work on them. A small company working on the same problem with passionate skilled devs would do better imo, albeit lacking the brand recognition of Google or apple. I feel like Google _could_ do much better in this space if they really wanted to; but do they want to
  - ghaff 4y ago
    "Passionate skilled developers"? Please. Voice recognition is actually quite good. The problem is that the assistants aren't "smart" enough to actually do much that's useful with that voice recognition. And I suspect that, for a lot of things, voice alone just isn't that great either for input or output. It's essentially another AI problem where surprisingly good isn't necessarily all that useful.
    - erosenbe0 4y ago
      Voice recognition is great. Doctors can dictate notes while on the potty or getting a glass of water or walking the hallway between patients. Let's also not forget the benefits for disabled or elderly.
    - darepublic 4y ago
      The speech recognition itself is pretty amazing right now but the command system, with one statement one action and capability via third party integrations puts some constraints on usefulness I feel. I have seen at least one example of Google neutering the capability of its assistant in order to pursue other ends. Which was playing albums on YouTube via voice which they now hide behind YouTube prime.

Alex3917 4y ago

> it is definitely a centerpiece of google's business. THE centerpiece. The average Google user spends ~5min a day on search, and ~6 hours a day on Gmail.

tommek4077 4y ago
"Of course those numbers are true. I just made them up myself!" .... 6hours is a bit much.
jffry 4y ago
Can you please provide a source for those numbers? Because at first glance they seem pretty fantastical.
- Alex3917 4y ago
  According to a research report by Adobe, the average office worker spends 5.9 hours per day checking email: https://business.adobe.com/blog/perspectives/if-you-think-email-is-dead-think-again https://business.adobe.com/blog/perspectives/if-you-think-em... Whereas the average Google search supposedly takes 14.6 seconds: https://fitsmallbusiness.com/google-search-statistics/ https://fitsmallbusiness.com/google-search-statistics/
  - cableshaft 4y ago
    I'm sure the report is legit considering it's by Adobe, but I'm having a hard time believing it. Doesn't leave much room for anything else in the day there if people are spending that much time on it. Especially since that doesn't seem to account for any social media or online chat (Slack, Teams) or other internet time either. Even when my job had a good chunk of responding to emails I don't think I spent more than an two hours a day on it. As for personal emails I think I spend maybe 20 minutes a day on that, mostly just quickly glancing at notifications that show up there and clicking through if necessary. And work emails I'm probably at about 10 minutes at my current job, I don't get that many and the ones I do get don't require much time or a response. Although my situation is likely atypical. Still the average seems like the polar opposite to me, and should be the high, not the average.
ikurei 4y ago
May be they have Gmail open on a tab for 6h a day? I don't know that I would say that's "being on Gmail". Google can send them notifications, but they're not generating useful data during all that time.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  If you are signed into Gmail, Google can know every website you visit if the site uses Google Analytics or Google Ads (which the majority of website do today).
Fatnino 4y ago
I have one Gmail tab open 24/7 and many many search tabs open for days or even weeks. Your numbers are worthless.
otikik 4y ago
My objective every time I access Gmail is Getting Out As Fast As Possible. If it didn’t allow me to do that I would switch to something else

quags 4y ago

I see a lot of the same thought process when things go away. But , take meta for example , spending billions on the metaverse - most lean towards that being a fools errand and a waste of money. Research and investment doesn’t always lead to where the final destination was expected. Personally I’m glad some companies like meta still push money to research and development because it can lead to cool things in the future that were not intended.

bombcar 4y ago
I feel people would be more “forgiving” of zucc’s spending in the meta verse if he had just done it instead of renaming the company and trumpeting it as the second coming of God himself.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  This is a tough one. Based on what we've seen so far the Metaverse seems unlikely to succeed and will likely end up as a massive boondoggle. Yet, it is so ambitious that anything less than a full fledged pivot would indicate it was just a niche thing to be abandoned. Not going all-in could be seen as a self-fulfilling prophecy that it was doomed to fail. I can definitely see how it was an all or nothing decision.
  - sklargh 4y ago
    Concur on probability of failure here. Want to add that Meta does need to bet the farm on a personal device that they're able to track and monetize in the way that iOS and Android offer their corporate parents. Without a device in every hand/household Meta simply pays rent to Tim and Sundar and, as ATT demonstrated, is up for eviction at any time. Meta needs a hit device to survive.
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    It depends on what your definition of the Metaverse is. The metaverse is not a Facebook / Meta exclusive platform. It's simply AR / VR with a connection to the internet. Most people, who have fallen for Meta's marketing and haven't used modern VR within the last 2 years, don't seem to realize this. No one company can singlehandedly control the entire internet, even if just the VR / AR side of it. That only happens in fantasy novels like Ready Player One. Meta, the company, might not seem to have great prospects for now; but the metaverse is still the future despite its current clunky form factor and high cost (with the exception of the Quest 2). In defense of Zuck, I agree with sklargh. Solely relying on ad revenue is a future dead end. Facebook needs its own hardware platform to survive.

ghaff 4y ago

And sometimes that unprofitable part of the business really is just pissing billions of dollars a year away with very little to show for it. In Gmail's case, it would seem to be pretty tied into the parts of Goggle's business that actually do make money. Conversational assistants? I don't know. They don't seem to have really panned out for the most part and I'm not sure they're much changed from at least five years ago in spite of vast armies of expensive developers being paid to work on them. At some point you just admit that a bet isn't going to pay off in an interesting time horizon.

darepublic 4y ago
> Conversational assistants? I don't know. They don't seem to have really panned out for the most part and I'm not sure they're much changed from at least five years ago in spite of vast armies of expensive developers being paid to work on them. A small company working on the same problem with passionate skilled devs would do better imo, albeit lacking the brand recognition of Google or apple. I feel like Google _could_ do much better in this space if they really wanted to; but do they want to
- ghaff 4y ago
  "Passionate skilled developers"? Please. Voice recognition is actually quite good. The problem is that the assistants aren't "smart" enough to actually do much that's useful with that voice recognition. And I suspect that, for a lot of things, voice alone just isn't that great either for input or output. It's essentially another AI problem where surprisingly good isn't necessarily all that useful.
  - erosenbe0 4y ago
    Voice recognition is great. Doctors can dictate notes while on the potty or getting a glass of water or walking the hallway between patients. Let's also not forget the benefits for disabled or elderly.
  - darepublic 4y ago
    The speech recognition itself is pretty amazing right now but the command system, with one statement one action and capability via third party integrations puts some constraints on usefulness I feel. I have seen at least one example of Google neutering the capability of its assistant in order to pursue other ends. Which was playing albums on YouTube via voice which they now hide behind YouTube prime.