6 ms·

They are playing catchup to competitors, and they are diluting their own profits / sharing them with others - which is fine, though I hope they realize this. An

by loceng 14y ago

They are playing catchup to competitors, and they are diluting their own profits / sharing them with others - which is fine, though I hope they realize this. And I hope they have a very solid agreement with Dropbox. Google so far will still win in the overall big ecosystem. You just can't compete with the synergy and safety of one organization fully controlling / having full management capabilities over all of the pieces.

Spooky23 14y ago
... If they execute well. Google is a tough company to evaluate in the long haul, because the value of some of the services Google offers to Google is difficult to assess. Plus, they make mercurial and random decisions.
mindcrime 14y ago
You just can't compete with the synergy and safety of one organization fully controlling / having full management capabilities over all of the pieces. You mean the single-point-of-failure of having all of your eggs in one basket, and one company completely in control of every piece of your life. You're right, how could anybody compete against that? :-)
- psbp 14y ago
  You don't have to be locked into the ecosystem though. It's just more convenient to have everything in one place.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    Yeah, that's the rub, isn't it? We (humans) are always so quick to make trade-offs that might not be in our best long-term interest, in order to gain some near-term convenience. I'm certainly guilty of this myself: I use most of Google's services, for both personal use and I use a paid Google Apps account for my startup's email / etc. And I use an Android phone. Maybe it's time to start re-evaluating some of this stuff... Hmm...
    - psbp 14y ago
      How is it a trade-off? Is Google giving me cancer?
      - mindcrime 14y ago
        How is it a trade-off? Because it's a single-point-of-failure, and because you're giving one company a disproportionate degree of control over your data.
        psbp 14y ago
        Is the implication that allowing them to collect my data will adversely affect me? Why would I continue to use their services if that were to happen?
        mindcrime 14y ago
        There are a lot of ways that it could be bad/dangerous, but the most obvious is: What if Google's (in)famous automated algorithms some-day flag your account as spam or malicious in some regard, and they lock you out of everything? This has happened to people before, and some of them only got the situation corrected because they thought to post here on HN, where their story caught the eye of a helpful GOOG employee who happens to post here. But what about the non-HN crowd? After all, Google are notorious for having essentially zero customer service if you aren't a paying user of one of their various paid offerings. And even then I'm not sure how good their service is (I pay for Google Apps, but have never had to engage with their support in any way).
- loceng 14y ago
  Indeed, they will have to find balance, though fluidity of services and a cheaper price - potentially even 50% of what others offer - will offset whatever other concerns you have, and Google might be able to eventually have things structured so everyone is structured, and safe.
taligent 14y ago
which is fine, though I hope they realize this Quick ! You better let those crazy executives know what they are doing. Especially that former senior executive from a company (Google) who you seem to like so much. You just can't compete with the synergy and safety of one organization An organisation that makes money from selling advertising. And who is more than willing to cut popular products that don't make enough money. "Safe" is one term I wouldn't associate with Google's online services.
vidarh 14y ago
Diluting their profits, _how_? Yahoo's premium services for mail have been peanuts for Yahoo since before 2003. The launch of Gmail pretty much killed what was already a tiny business (I was in charge of handling payments for Y! mail and other yahoo services in Europe around the time Gmail launched; the numbers were not pretty). On the contrary, this is a fast way for them to add more revenue from users that upgrade, to a service which has never made much money. Yahoo! Mail has always been about getting users into the Yahoo! network rather than the direct revenue. E.g. a substantial percentage of users going to Yahoo's homepages go there to check their e-mail. When I was there (I left early 2007, so things might have changed), Mail drove a very substantial percentage of Yahoo's pageviews, but most of the revenue from those users came when they interacted with Yahoo outside of the mail property - when they were checking their mail they'd rarely click on ads because they were busy with their e-mail. Better monetizing the Mail property while cutting storage costs would be fantastic news for Yahoo. > You just can't compete with the synergy and safety of one organization fully controlling / having full management capabilities over all of the pieces. Sounds like an ad for Big Brother....
- loceng 14y ago
  Diluting their future profits. And yes, they do need a way to compete with Google and try to gain revenues - understandably. The model you mention is the same as Google, though Search came first, and Gmail was secondary - though just as valuable. Re: Ad for Big Brother - I LOL'd. Unfortunately, Big Brother is controlled / manipulated by for profit businesses, who all have individual goals, and that don't care about the greater ecosystem.

by loceng 14y ago

Spooky23 14y ago

... If they execute well. Google is a tough company to evaluate in the long haul, because the value of some of the services Google offers to Google is difficult to assess. Plus, they make mercurial and random decisions.

mindcrime 14y ago

You just can't compete with the synergy and safety of one organization fully controlling / having full management capabilities over all of the pieces. You mean the single-point-of-failure of having all of your eggs in one basket, and one company completely in control of every piece of your life. You're right, how could anybody compete against that? :-)

psbp 14y ago
You don't have to be locked into the ecosystem though. It's just more convenient to have everything in one place.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  Yeah, that's the rub, isn't it? We (humans) are always so quick to make trade-offs that might not be in our best long-term interest, in order to gain some near-term convenience. I'm certainly guilty of this myself: I use most of Google's services, for both personal use and I use a paid Google Apps account for my startup's email / etc. And I use an Android phone. Maybe it's time to start re-evaluating some of this stuff... Hmm...
  - psbp 14y ago
    How is it a trade-off? Is Google giving me cancer?
    - mindcrime 14y ago
      How is it a trade-off? Because it's a single-point-of-failure, and because you're giving one company a disproportionate degree of control over your data.
      - psbp 14y ago
        Is the implication that allowing them to collect my data will adversely affect me? Why would I continue to use their services if that were to happen?
        mindcrime 14y ago
        There are a lot of ways that it could be bad/dangerous, but the most obvious is: What if Google's (in)famous automated algorithms some-day flag your account as spam or malicious in some regard, and they lock you out of everything? This has happened to people before, and some of them only got the situation corrected because they thought to post here on HN, where their story caught the eye of a helpful GOOG employee who happens to post here. But what about the non-HN crowd? After all, Google are notorious for having essentially zero customer service if you aren't a paying user of one of their various paid offerings. And even then I'm not sure how good their service is (I pay for Google Apps, but have never had to engage with their support in any way).
loceng 14y ago
Indeed, they will have to find balance, though fluidity of services and a cheaper price - potentially even 50% of what others offer - will offset whatever other concerns you have, and Google might be able to eventually have things structured so everyone is structured, and safe.

taligent 14y ago

which is fine, though I hope they realize this Quick ! You better let those crazy executives know what they are doing. Especially that former senior executive from a company (Google) who you seem to like so much. You just can't compete with the synergy and safety of one organization An organisation that makes money from selling advertising. And who is more than willing to cut popular products that don't make enough money. "Safe" is one term I wouldn't associate with Google's online services.

vidarh 14y ago

Diluting their profits, _how_? Yahoo's premium services for mail have been peanuts for Yahoo since before 2003. The launch of Gmail pretty much killed what was already a tiny business (I was in charge of handling payments for Y! mail and other yahoo services in Europe around the time Gmail launched; the numbers were not pretty). On the contrary, this is a fast way for them to add more revenue from users that upgrade, to a service which has never made much money. Yahoo! Mail has always been about getting users into the Yahoo! network rather than the direct revenue. E.g. a substantial percentage of users going to Yahoo's homepages go there to check their e-mail. When I was there (I left early 2007, so things might have changed), Mail drove a very substantial percentage of Yahoo's pageviews, but most of the revenue from those users came when they interacted with Yahoo outside of the mail property - when they were checking their mail they'd rarely click on ads because they were busy with their e-mail. Better monetizing the Mail property while cutting storage costs would be fantastic news for Yahoo. > You just can't compete with the synergy and safety of one organization fully controlling / having full management capabilities over all of the pieces. Sounds like an ad for Big Brother....

loceng 14y ago
Diluting their future profits. And yes, they do need a way to compete with Google and try to gain revenues - understandably. The model you mention is the same as Google, though Search came first, and Gmail was secondary - though just as valuable. Re: Ad for Big Brother - I LOL'd. Unfortunately, Big Brother is controlled / manipulated by for profit businesses, who all have individual goals, and that don't care about the greater ecosystem.