4 ms·

> That's the problem with the google boys, they're a one hit wonder. You don't consider GMail, their dominance in ads, Android's ubiquity, the YouTube acquisit

> That's the problem with the google boys, they're a one hit wonder. You don't consider GMail, their dominance in ads, Android's ubiquity, the YouTube acquisition, etc as successes? Because all of those seem to have improved vastly since Google took control of them.

APuschilov 15y ago
Given that Google is not about search anymore but about Google all those acquisitions make sense. Now Google totally controls the biggest assets online (not counting facebook). They could also know as much now as they would like to know about you to give them, data-wise, more than just a controlling position online. So the seperate entities don't even have to be profitable if they generate enough data exhaust for the mothership (what they clearly do).
- jrockway 15y ago
  Google is not just about data collection, though data collection does help improve products (think distributed spam filtering). Most Google products exist because someone at Google thought people would like them. Making money is good, but not a primary concern. It seems crazy from the outside, but really, developers at Google are not sitting around trying to figure out how to build a huge and scary profile about you. We just want to play with fun things. (Yes, that generates a lot of data, and we do use a lot of that data for things that might not thrill you, like targeting ads. But ultimately, a lot of companies know a lot about you, and few try to be as transparent about it as Google does. At least you can stop giving Google data. Try to opt out of the credit reporting system.)
marshallp 15y ago
Google has a competitive edge in search because of it's data. All their other so-called successes are based directly off that (either in user share or because they have the big bucks to bankroll it). Take a look at other tech companies, they've created fortunes based on almost nothing * apple, consumer electronics that anyone could do * amazon, selling stuff online that anyone could do * oracle, selling databases when their competition includes ibm and even free software Youtube should have been itunes, amazon instant, netflix, hulu all rolled in one. But they're not, because they don't actually know how to do business - one hit wonder. Another example, google, until recently, had no lobbyists - why on earth would you do that? (when you have enough piles of cash to buy ountries). Investors should be filing lawsuits for this reason alone. Another example of business cluelessness, they're not flexing their patent muscles. Android ubiquity - linux is ubiquitous too, far more so - hint, it's FREE. Not very hard to give away free stuff.
- jrockway 15y ago
  Another example of business cluelessness, they're not flexing their patent muscles. It's worth noting that Google's prospectus [1] as filed with the SEC says that Google will always pursue long-term opportunities even if they hurt Google in the short term. Patents are an example here; Google could sue all of its "competitors" out of existence today, but would that really benefit Google in the long term? Would you work at Google if they were the company that put every tech startup out of business with "method for computing the sum of two integer" patents? Probably not. So aggressive patent lawsuits are not what Google's shareholders want. And doing what the shareholders want is not exactly "business cluelessness" :) [1] http://www.buec.udel.edu/pollacks/Acct351/handouts/SEC%20Form%20S-1%20filed%20by%20Google.pdf http://www.buec.udel.edu/pollacks/Acct351/handouts/SEC%20For...
  - throwawaay 15y ago
    Remember Communicating with Care? You might want to go review that. Or just stop posting so much about Google altogether.
    - jrockway 15y ago
      So you're saying it's careless to respond to comments on the Internet?
      - throwawaay 15y ago
        I'm saying that speculating about what Google can and cannot do to competitors in public is definitely not Communicating with Care, and that your comment history is littered with borderline cases like this one. Just stop. Further, you don't actually need to respond to every stupid, incorrect statement on the Internet that's written about your new employer. Really.
        jrockway 15y ago
        I see where you're coming from. Why do you have to use a misspelled throwaway account to say this, though? (Ultimately, I see the risk in saying "I think XXX" if Google decides to someday do the opposite of XXX. But there is some limit; I'm still going to say that writing unit tests is good even if Google's official message to investors becomes "testing is a waste of time". That's because I'm me, and I have my own opinions. If Google wants to make an official statement, they have a blog for that. If someone wants to misconstrue a personal opinion of mine as an official statement, well... let's just say that their Pulitzer hopes may be dashed...)
base698 15y ago
Android was an acquisition....
- RobAtticus 15y ago
  Yes, 7 years ago, before they were well known. It seems a bit disingenuous to not give Google credit for Android as a success. They didn't initially create it, but they did shape it into a success.

APuschilov 15y ago

Given that Google is not about search anymore but about Google all those acquisitions make sense. Now Google totally controls the biggest assets online (not counting facebook). They could also know as much now as they would like to know about you to give them, data-wise, more than just a controlling position online. So the seperate entities don't even have to be profitable if they generate enough data exhaust for the mothership (what they clearly do).

jrockway 15y ago
Google is not just about data collection, though data collection does help improve products (think distributed spam filtering). Most Google products exist because someone at Google thought people would like them. Making money is good, but not a primary concern. It seems crazy from the outside, but really, developers at Google are not sitting around trying to figure out how to build a huge and scary profile about you. We just want to play with fun things. (Yes, that generates a lot of data, and we do use a lot of that data for things that might not thrill you, like targeting ads. But ultimately, a lot of companies know a lot about you, and few try to be as transparent about it as Google does. At least you can stop giving Google data. Try to opt out of the credit reporting system.)

marshallp 15y ago

Google has a competitive edge in search because of it's data. All their other so-called successes are based directly off that (either in user share or because they have the big bucks to bankroll it). Take a look at other tech companies, they've created fortunes based on almost nothing * apple, consumer electronics that anyone could do * amazon, selling stuff online that anyone could do * oracle, selling databases when their competition includes ibm and even free software Youtube should have been itunes, amazon instant, netflix, hulu all rolled in one. But they're not, because they don't actually know how to do business - one hit wonder. Another example, google, until recently, had no lobbyists - why on earth would you do that? (when you have enough piles of cash to buy ountries). Investors should be filing lawsuits for this reason alone. Another example of business cluelessness, they're not flexing their patent muscles. Android ubiquity - linux is ubiquitous too, far more so - hint, it's FREE. Not very hard to give away free stuff.

jrockway 15y ago
Another example of business cluelessness, they're not flexing their patent muscles. It's worth noting that Google's prospectus [1] as filed with the SEC says that Google will always pursue long-term opportunities even if they hurt Google in the short term. Patents are an example here; Google could sue all of its "competitors" out of existence today, but would that really benefit Google in the long term? Would you work at Google if they were the company that put every tech startup out of business with "method for computing the sum of two integer" patents? Probably not. So aggressive patent lawsuits are not what Google's shareholders want. And doing what the shareholders want is not exactly "business cluelessness" :) [1] http://www.buec.udel.edu/pollacks/Acct351/handouts/SEC%20Form%20S-1%20filed%20by%20Google.pdf http://www.buec.udel.edu/pollacks/Acct351/handouts/SEC%20For...
- throwawaay 15y ago
  Remember Communicating with Care? You might want to go review that. Or just stop posting so much about Google altogether.
  - jrockway 15y ago
    So you're saying it's careless to respond to comments on the Internet?
    - throwawaay 15y ago
      I'm saying that speculating about what Google can and cannot do to competitors in public is definitely not Communicating with Care, and that your comment history is littered with borderline cases like this one. Just stop. Further, you don't actually need to respond to every stupid, incorrect statement on the Internet that's written about your new employer. Really.
      - jrockway 15y ago
        I see where you're coming from. Why do you have to use a misspelled throwaway account to say this, though? (Ultimately, I see the risk in saying "I think XXX" if Google decides to someday do the opposite of XXX. But there is some limit; I'm still going to say that writing unit tests is good even if Google's official message to investors becomes "testing is a waste of time". That's because I'm me, and I have my own opinions. If Google wants to make an official statement, they have a blog for that. If someone wants to misconstrue a personal opinion of mine as an official statement, well... let's just say that their Pulitzer hopes may be dashed...)

base698 15y ago

Android was an acquisition....

RobAtticus 15y ago
Yes, 7 years ago, before they were well known. It seems a bit disingenuous to not give Google credit for Android as a success. They didn't initially create it, but they did shape it into a success.