2 ms·

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 o

by 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

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.