3 ms·

> Google jumped on this opportunity by releasing Android Automotive. Unlike Android Auto, Google's equivalent to Apple CarPlay, Android Automotive runs natively

> Google jumped on this opportunity by releasing Android Automotive. Unlike Android Auto, Google's equivalent to Apple CarPlay, Android Automotive runs natively inside the car and any carmaker is free to use it. Tangential I know, but I giggled at yet another example of Google's incompetent branding and product naming. How a company filled with so many brilliant people can be so bad at brand strategy is baffling to me.

makeitdouble 3y ago
The actual name is Google Automotive Service [0], which shortens as GAS. That's not bad I think, at least it's easy to remember. The fact that it's still confusing with android auto being another thing is I think partly on purpose, to make it look like Android is doing more than what it's actually responsible for. [0] https://developers.google.com/cars https://developers.google.com/cars
- MBCook 3y ago
  Isn’t that a recent renaming though?
- Nevermark 3y ago
  Few things are as big a win as ensuring your customers are never quite sure they really understand your product line up. Because they actually never really understand your product line up. I can understand this kind of thinking in a here-and-gone used car lot.
fragmede 3y ago
that the really good computer thinking people aren't really really good at people thinking is surprising to you?
- 10u152 3y ago
  156500 employees. I'm sure there's a few PR/Marketing people in there. It's not all "Good computer thinking people" Google isn't a plucky startup with just a few dedicated engineers.
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    > Google isn't a plucky startup with just a few dedicated engineers. They made great long term corporate value and customer relationship decisions then, for their context. When big corporations full of talent get sloppy, it is usually either a very competent emphasis on short term financial growth or value multiple growth. Or the result of multiple competent actors infighting or working at cross purposes, due to a lack of strong internal alignment. The latter jungle case saves a CEO from having to deep dive, they can just see what happens and select winners. Either way, by competent I mean someone is accomplishing exactly what they intend. Optimizing their net worth given the company's incentive and power structures, in the absence of a CEO who cares more about the long than the short term. It only takes that one difference at the very top to trickle down. The greater the talent, the greater the effect.

makeitdouble 3y ago

The actual name is Google Automotive Service [0], which shortens as GAS. That's not bad I think, at least it's easy to remember. The fact that it's still confusing with android auto being another thing is I think partly on purpose, to make it look like Android is doing more than what it's actually responsible for. [0] https://developers.google.com/cars https://developers.google.com/cars

MBCook 3y ago
Isn’t that a recent renaming though?
Nevermark 3y ago
Few things are as big a win as ensuring your customers are never quite sure they really understand your product line up. Because they actually never really understand your product line up. I can understand this kind of thinking in a here-and-gone used car lot.

fragmede 3y ago

that the really good computer thinking people aren't really really good at people thinking is surprising to you?

10u152 3y ago
156500 employees. I'm sure there's a few PR/Marketing people in there. It's not all "Good computer thinking people" Google isn't a plucky startup with just a few dedicated engineers.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  > Google isn't a plucky startup with just a few dedicated engineers. They made great long term corporate value and customer relationship decisions then, for their context. When big corporations full of talent get sloppy, it is usually either a very competent emphasis on short term financial growth or value multiple growth. Or the result of multiple competent actors infighting or working at cross purposes, due to a lack of strong internal alignment. The latter jungle case saves a CEO from having to deep dive, they can just see what happens and select winners. Either way, by competent I mean someone is accomplishing exactly what they intend. Optimizing their net worth given the company's incentive and power structures, in the absence of a CEO who cares more about the long than the short term. It only takes that one difference at the very top to trickle down. The greater the talent, the greater the effect.