15 ms·

If Photos is recent then Google search was recent when Photos was released! It’s a decade old and that’s only if we don’t count what it was before it was spun

If Photos is recent then Google search was recent when Photos was released! It’s a decade old and that’s only if we don’t count what it was before it was spun into its own product, google’s more recent integrations spun as “releases” non withstanding. YouTube INCREASING creator support? That’s news to me and every other YouTube creator. Creator support peaked around the time Photos released, nearly a decade ago and has only gotten worse since (although if we were to graph it, it would certainly have peaks and valleys).

SR2Z 2y ago
Photos was brand new in 2015. Search is from 1998. I'm not a mathematician but that means that search is about three times older than it... If the point you're trying to make is that Google needs to bring every service they offer up to a billion users within five years of launching it, I don't know if there's much of a point to me trying to convince you
- tharkun__ 2y ago
  That's not what they said. They said, if Photos is currently recent (aka 2025-2015 = 10 years = recent) then Search was recent when Photos came out (aka 2015-1998 = 12 years = recent). Which given the overall timeframes, I'd say that's close enough to say 10 years ~= 12 years. And they said they'd actually count the non-Photos time of Photos as Photos, so add some to the 10 years.
  - bdolgov 2y ago
    2015-1998 = 17, not 12.
    - SR2Z 2y ago
      Yeah this is what drove me a little crazy about his reply. That's almost a factor of 2.
    - tharkun__ 2y ago
      ROFL, HN needs Cap'n Picard face palm. You are of course correct. slowly walks out backwards while trying to turn less than lobster red
- tanjtanjtanj 2y ago
  > If the point you're trying to make is that Google needs to bring every service they offer up to a billion users within five years of launching it Well I didn’t say anything like this or anything that implied anything close to this so I suppose you’d have to engage with what I actually said. Photos existed and was available to the public before it was “released” in 2015. Even then, 10 years is certainly not recent for a company of Google’s age. I don’t think even IBM would consider a 10 year old product a recent release.
  - SR2Z 2y ago
    > Photos existed and was available to the public before it was “released” in 2015. Google has had several previous photos apps! The actually useful one is the most recent. > Even then, 10 years is certainly not recent for a company of Google’s age. So you swear you aren't demanding proof that services released in the past five years are successes, but you're complaining that pretty much anything older is too old. Dude, I am engaging with what you said. Almost no product is wildly successful in less than 10 years by Google's standards, because Google measures users in billions. If you still wanna ignore Photos, then talk about Gemini, Cloud, and Waymo. The Pixel phones are also doing pretty well, considering how dominant Apple has been. My point here is that you're ignoring numbers that would be INSANE for any startup because the product is from Google. It really seems to me like you're looking for reasons to discredit the company instead of the truth, which is that non-ad revenue is 25% of the total and growing. That's pretty significant and in absolute terms makes Google a giant even without search.
    - tanjtanjtanj 2y ago
      I am SO confused and have no idea what you’re talking about. Do you think you’re talking to someone else? My post was Thesis: Photos is not new Supporting evidence: everything else. I am not OP, I am not saying anything you’re responding to (and when I look at the OP you responded to they didn’t say what you’re responding to either). I’m not ignoring any numbers they just don’t have anything to do with my post. Additionally, Photos was a relaunched app that’s why I’m saying the 2015 is a little misleading, I am aware Google had other photo apps before Photos and I’m not talking about that. I can say “your examples are bad” without espousing “Google doesn’t do anything”

SR2Z 2y ago

Photos was brand new in 2015. Search is from 1998. I'm not a mathematician but that means that search is about three times older than it... If the point you're trying to make is that Google needs to bring every service they offer up to a billion users within five years of launching it, I don't know if there's much of a point to me trying to convince you

tharkun__ 2y ago
That's not what they said. They said, if Photos is currently recent (aka 2025-2015 = 10 years = recent) then Search was recent when Photos came out (aka 2015-1998 = 12 years = recent). Which given the overall timeframes, I'd say that's close enough to say 10 years ~= 12 years. And they said they'd actually count the non-Photos time of Photos as Photos, so add some to the 10 years.
- bdolgov 2y ago
  2015-1998 = 17, not 12.
  - SR2Z 2y ago
    Yeah this is what drove me a little crazy about his reply. That's almost a factor of 2.
  - tharkun__ 2y ago
    ROFL, HN needs Cap'n Picard face palm. You are of course correct. slowly walks out backwards while trying to turn less than lobster red
tanjtanjtanj 2y ago
> If the point you're trying to make is that Google needs to bring every service they offer up to a billion users within five years of launching it Well I didn’t say anything like this or anything that implied anything close to this so I suppose you’d have to engage with what I actually said. Photos existed and was available to the public before it was “released” in 2015. Even then, 10 years is certainly not recent for a company of Google’s age. I don’t think even IBM would consider a 10 year old product a recent release.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  > Photos existed and was available to the public before it was “released” in 2015. Google has had several previous photos apps! The actually useful one is the most recent. > Even then, 10 years is certainly not recent for a company of Google’s age. So you swear you aren't demanding proof that services released in the past five years are successes, but you're complaining that pretty much anything older is too old. Dude, I am engaging with what you said. Almost no product is wildly successful in less than 10 years by Google's standards, because Google measures users in billions. If you still wanna ignore Photos, then talk about Gemini, Cloud, and Waymo. The Pixel phones are also doing pretty well, considering how dominant Apple has been. My point here is that you're ignoring numbers that would be INSANE for any startup because the product is from Google. It really seems to me like you're looking for reasons to discredit the company instead of the truth, which is that non-ad revenue is 25% of the total and growing. That's pretty significant and in absolute terms makes Google a giant even without search.
  - tanjtanjtanj 2y ago
    I am SO confused and have no idea what you’re talking about. Do you think you’re talking to someone else? My post was Thesis: Photos is not new Supporting evidence: everything else. I am not OP, I am not saying anything you’re responding to (and when I look at the OP you responded to they didn’t say what you’re responding to either). I’m not ignoring any numbers they just don’t have anything to do with my post. Additionally, Photos was a relaunched app that’s why I’m saying the 2015 is a little misleading, I am aware Google had other photo apps before Photos and I’m not talking about that. I can say “your examples are bad” without espousing “Google doesn’t do anything”