3 ms·

Interesting take on it - I think he sums up my own views far more elegantly than I have been able to so far. I think the notion of the bouquet is quite apt; th

by kposehn 15y ago

Interesting take on it - I think he sums up my own views far more elegantly than I have been able to so far. I think the notion of the bouquet is quite apt; the huge number of disparate google products are not something that can be made social with a simple update. In order to be so, they have to be completely re-imagined. Google+ as a social network was a good start (with circles and hangouts) but still was trying to shoehorn the social experience into the same google experience context.

ajross 15y ago
Really? I was actually coming here to post how I thought this was just a well-written take on what is now a tired and pervasively rehashed "Google is dying" meme. The point is apparently that having lots of little products is bad, which stated in isolation sounds kinda dumb to me. What is the damage to Google if, say, Reader or Blogger is never merged into Google+? They're useful standalone products and successful in their own niche, and they won't stop being so. Facebook doesn't have them, so clearly they're not "required to compete with facebook", which seems to be the core assumption. Obvoiusly Google (like most tech companies) faces constant pressure from industry change, and IMHO they've stumbled over the past two years or so (which amounts basically to having to settle for "credible second place" with Android and G+ instead of the huge success they achieved with search, ads or gmail). But really: this article is just more piling on.
- kposehn 15y ago
  I don't think the point is that Google is dying - that is far from the truth. The main point is simply that to "be social" Google has to add more than a layer on top. There is nothing wrong with a bunch of separate products; the problem is that unifying them under a social umbrella involves more than doing + social.
  - ajross 15y ago
    Right, but the premise of your last sentence is that "unifying them under a social umbrella" is a requirement. Is it? I mean, Google's talked about that, but not in the sense of unifying literally every tiny product. Yet the linked article seems to be arguing that if you can't do that, you can't succeed at "being social". Basically it's circular: Google can't be social because unifying to be social is too hard because social requires complicated unification. Where's the demonstration that "being social" requires "complicated unification". What if they cherry picked the 8-10 things that make sense for social (e.g. Docs/Drive are obvious candidates, Reader/Blogger not so much). Like I said, it just seems like a weak argument that happens to look strong only because it aligns well with the current "Google is dying" zeitgeist.
    - kposehn 15y ago
      Ehhh, let's leave the google is dying bit out - neither of us, nor the OP, is saying that. As for the unifying, that is indeed google's goal at this time. Do they have to unify them all? No. Are they trying to unify many with social features of dubious utility? Yes. My issue is simply that they should go back to the drawing board instead of adding features to existing products. They can break free of the current paradigm and really make some wild new stuff. Plenty will fail, but some key ones will succeed. This is google after all, one of the largest concentrations of brilliant people in the world - I do believe they can do it.

by kposehn 15y ago

ajross 15y ago

Really? I was actually coming here to post how I thought this was just a well-written take on what is now a tired and pervasively rehashed "Google is dying" meme. The point is apparently that having lots of little products is bad, which stated in isolation sounds kinda dumb to me. What is the damage to Google if, say, Reader or Blogger is never merged into Google+? They're useful standalone products and successful in their own niche, and they won't stop being so. Facebook doesn't have them, so clearly they're not "required to compete with facebook", which seems to be the core assumption. Obvoiusly Google (like most tech companies) faces constant pressure from industry change, and IMHO they've stumbled over the past two years or so (which amounts basically to having to settle for "credible second place" with Android and G+ instead of the huge success they achieved with search, ads or gmail). But really: this article is just more piling on.

kposehn 15y ago
I don't think the point is that Google is dying - that is far from the truth. The main point is simply that to "be social" Google has to add more than a layer on top. There is nothing wrong with a bunch of separate products; the problem is that unifying them under a social umbrella involves more than doing + social.
- ajross 15y ago
  Right, but the premise of your last sentence is that "unifying them under a social umbrella" is a requirement. Is it? I mean, Google's talked about that, but not in the sense of unifying literally every tiny product. Yet the linked article seems to be arguing that if you can't do that, you can't succeed at "being social". Basically it's circular: Google can't be social because unifying to be social is too hard because social requires complicated unification. Where's the demonstration that "being social" requires "complicated unification". What if they cherry picked the 8-10 things that make sense for social (e.g. Docs/Drive are obvious candidates, Reader/Blogger not so much). Like I said, it just seems like a weak argument that happens to look strong only because it aligns well with the current "Google is dying" zeitgeist.
  - kposehn 15y ago
    Ehhh, let's leave the google is dying bit out - neither of us, nor the OP, is saying that. As for the unifying, that is indeed google's goal at this time. Do they have to unify them all? No. Are they trying to unify many with social features of dubious utility? Yes. My issue is simply that they should go back to the drawing board instead of adding features to existing products. They can break free of the current paradigm and really make some wild new stuff. Plenty will fail, but some key ones will succeed. This is google after all, one of the largest concentrations of brilliant people in the world - I do believe they can do it.