4 ms·

The story summarised: they entered the market rapidly as a me too proposition after seeing apple’s HealthKit, did a crap job of it, decided to start again and p

by cjk2 2y ago

The story summarised: they entered the market rapidly as a me too proposition after seeing apple’s HealthKit, did a crap job of it, decided to start again and pissed off everyone in the process. Whereas Apple have managed to produce devices, a whole portfolio of tools and integrations and even down to training videos and fitness programmes…

lloydatkinson 2y ago
I think Google is ideologically incapable of anything new. This is proved by countless “killed by Google” incidents.
- MawKKe 2y ago
  Create value for shareholders vs. create value for customers
  - praxulus 2y ago
    How is this creating value for shareholders? They wasted a bunch of engineer and pm salaries building useless products that never made (and now never will make) any significant money.
    - jellicle 2y ago
      But that's not how shareholder value is created. Shareholder value is created by press releases and hype, encouraging new people to buy the stock and drive up the price, not by building anything useful to society or long-term profitable. So if Google Fit drove a hype cycle, it was successful.
      - hollerith 2y ago
        Yes, and that is why stock in pets.com is so valuable and why Segway, Inc, sold for so much money when it sold.
  - archerx 2y ago
    I wonder if the amazing idea thatcreating value for the customer creates value for the shareholders will ever catch on? I call it trickle up economics.
    - godzillabrennus 2y ago
      There is a line of thought that the more value you give a customer the less your company will keep for itself and the less a shareholder will make. A volunteer gives away all their value to the recipient. An entrepreneur wants to collect money in exchange for value created. Far more money than they spent creating the value for the customer.
      - trial3 2y ago
        man, this made me a little sad to read and think about. and not because of your comment specifically: i know that this must be, generally, how one has to think and talk about economics any sort of academic or abstract sense, but... i guess i just haven't really done that very much
        throwaway173738 2y ago
        It makes me sad too because as a worldview it leads to so many awful things.
        ffsm8 2y ago
        It's actually a Tragedy of the Commons situation. If very few people think that way, everyone is better off and the society is a better place. But in such a place, the people that have this mindset will absolutely be more successful then if they didn't have it. At this point we're decades into this flavor of capitalism and the profiteering has long since become the norm, sadly. And before someone says "it's always been like that"... No, it hasn't. Even in pop culture from a few decades ago you've got the characters taking great pride in providing good products for great prices. Nowadays our culture mostly makes fun of people like that and they're portrayed as targets to be exploited...
  - jfoster 2y ago
    Not that simple. Apple seems to be creating value for shareholders & customers.
    - elaus 2y ago
      That's the great part: creating value for customers can pay out for shareholders as well in the long run. But it's probably not a viable option if you want quick returns.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    This is the third case: creating value for employees. Google promotes people for making new things. Thereby guaranteeing product churn. (edit: the limit case is of course Elon Musk arguing that he should simply be given the entire company treasury as payroll at Tesla, one single employee taking all the value produced)
    - whamlastxmas 2y ago
      Glad we could make this about Elon, haven’t heard enough about him in the last 30 seconds
- redbell 2y ago
  > This is proved by countless “killed by Google” incidents. Oh, The Graveyard! (By Google): https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/
tootie 2y ago
They just don't do UX or product strategy or UAT or any of the things that aren't technical. They always have cool designs and sophisticated features but they just don't match how people live.

by cjk2 2y ago

lloydatkinson 2y ago

I think Google is ideologically incapable of anything new. This is proved by countless “killed by Google” incidents.

MawKKe 2y ago
Create value for shareholders vs. create value for customers
- praxulus 2y ago
  How is this creating value for shareholders? They wasted a bunch of engineer and pm salaries building useless products that never made (and now never will make) any significant money.
  - jellicle 2y ago
    But that's not how shareholder value is created. Shareholder value is created by press releases and hype, encouraging new people to buy the stock and drive up the price, not by building anything useful to society or long-term profitable. So if Google Fit drove a hype cycle, it was successful.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      Yes, and that is why stock in pets.com is so valuable and why Segway, Inc, sold for so much money when it sold.
- archerx 2y ago
  I wonder if the amazing idea thatcreating value for the customer creates value for the shareholders will ever catch on? I call it trickle up economics.
  - godzillabrennus 2y ago
    There is a line of thought that the more value you give a customer the less your company will keep for itself and the less a shareholder will make. A volunteer gives away all their value to the recipient. An entrepreneur wants to collect money in exchange for value created. Far more money than they spent creating the value for the customer.
    - trial3 2y ago
      man, this made me a little sad to read and think about. and not because of your comment specifically: i know that this must be, generally, how one has to think and talk about economics any sort of academic or abstract sense, but... i guess i just haven't really done that very much
      - throwaway173738 2y ago
        It makes me sad too because as a worldview it leads to so many awful things.
      - ffsm8 2y ago
        It's actually a Tragedy of the Commons situation. If very few people think that way, everyone is better off and the society is a better place. But in such a place, the people that have this mindset will absolutely be more successful then if they didn't have it. At this point we're decades into this flavor of capitalism and the profiteering has long since become the norm, sadly. And before someone says "it's always been like that"... No, it hasn't. Even in pop culture from a few decades ago you've got the characters taking great pride in providing good products for great prices. Nowadays our culture mostly makes fun of people like that and they're portrayed as targets to be exploited...
- jfoster 2y ago
  Not that simple. Apple seems to be creating value for shareholders & customers.
  - elaus 2y ago
    That's the great part: creating value for customers can pay out for shareholders as well in the long run. But it's probably not a viable option if you want quick returns.
- pjc50 2y ago
  This is the third case: creating value for employees. Google promotes people for making new things. Thereby guaranteeing product churn. (edit: the limit case is of course Elon Musk arguing that he should simply be given the entire company treasury as payroll at Tesla, one single employee taking all the value produced)
  - whamlastxmas 2y ago
    Glad we could make this about Elon, haven’t heard enough about him in the last 30 seconds
redbell 2y ago
> This is proved by countless “killed by Google” incidents. Oh, The Graveyard! (By Google): https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/

tootie 2y ago

They just don't do UX or product strategy or UAT or any of the things that aren't technical. They always have cool designs and sophisticated features but they just don't match how people live.