5 ms·

What was the last Google product that was successful without heavy bundling? In this case, bundling couldn't overcome Facebook's network effects.

by IBM 12y ago

gress 12y ago
Google Maps
- x0x0 12y ago
  Feb 2005 [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps
adventured 12y ago
Gmail likely could have stood alone as a product (that is, I don't think it required promotion on google.com). It was a tremendous innovation at the time, on both interface, usability, and storage capacity. It leapfrogged hotmail by 100 fold on storage.
- x0x0 12y ago
  Apr 2004 [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmail
  - adventured 12y ago
    I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Or what it has to do with what I said. I've been a user of Gmail since it entered beta. What's your point exactly? If you have something to say, say it, don't be smug by linking to a wikipedia entry for Gmail, as though I don't already know what year it was created.
    - unreal37 12y ago
      His not so subtle point is that it's been 10 years since Gmail, and if that was the last successful non-bundled product, that was a long time ago.
    - Ensorceled 12y ago
      > I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Or what it has to do with what I said. Look at the comment you replied to: > When was the last time ... You brought up a VERY old product and he called you out.
  - tsunamifury 12y ago
    You know, if its a list of one item, its not really a list, so there is no need to pretend to footnote. This silly over-use of citation markup when it is completely unneeded adds to the smarmy faux-studiousness of comments on HN. Just say Apr 2004, according to Wikipedia, was a long time ago. Don't pretend to use extra markup, don't imply a list of citations where there isn't one, and don't make a sentence for a human look like its been formatted for a computer.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      If you're so concerned about the waste of space represented by two "[1]"s, why'd you waste so much space typing this? >if its a list of one item, its not really a list unless you're a programmer.
      - Turing_Machine 12y ago
        Yes. If you're a programmer, even lists with zero elements shouldn't bother you.
rodgerd 12y ago
Depends on whether you consider Android a Google product or not.
- x0x0 12y ago
  Do you believe android succeeded w/o juicing from other google businesses? I don't, I think. The forced bundling of gmail, calendar, and maps (w/ turn-by-turn) where critical to android's success imo. Though I'd be curious for an argument otherwise.
  - adventured 12y ago
    The claim would have to be that Google couldn't have used any other alternatives. I believe that to be obviously false. Of course the market would have happily supplied options for mapping, calendar, and email - all Google would need to do is ask, or leave it open for users to decide regardless. What was the alternative to iOS? There was nothing, only Android. That was true right up to the point where Microsoft rebuilt Windows mobile. iOS was not going to own 95% of the market no matter what Apple did, if only because people want to own different phones for fashion purposes. Android's strategy, plus an open market of app alternatives to the bundled software, you get the same result. Hardware manufacturers needed something as close to an iOS clone as reasonable without literally duplicating it, and that's what Android was.
  - eli 12y ago
    It's an opinion, of course, but I disagree. I think Android would have done just fine without google apps. Indeed plenty of android phones are sold without them. If the Amazon Fire fails, it will be because there are already cheaper phones with bigger app stores, not because it doesn't have gmail.
    - x0x0 12y ago
      Where are there any android phones sold w/o google apps besides an estimate of 35K Amazon Fire phones, and china?
antoko 12y ago
I guess that would depend on your definitions of "product", "successful" and "heavy". Realistically if they are in a position to leverage any bundling - why wouldn't they? But here goes, in no particular order... Google Public DNS - Dec 2009 Chromecast - July 2013 Chromebook - June 2011 Chrome Browser - Sept 2008 ChromeOS - May 2012 Nexus 4,5,7,10 - various starting Jan 2010 Golang - 2009 Dart - 2011 AngularJS - 2009 app engine - April 2008
- x0x0 12y ago
  Because leveraging bundling is illegal, if the bundled item is a monopoly, in both the US [1] and the EU. Further, leveraging their search monopoly in such a way as to juice other products is to the detriment of users: if the product deserves a given space in the search results (where deserves means would rise there without bundling), it should rise there on its own, or there is a better alternative that should have been there instead. Hence user harm. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
- lnanek2 12y ago
  Would anyone really consider AppEngine successful? I hear so many support horror stories, only one poorly supported open source project to try to move off to without recoding to different APIs, and the price is ridiculous compared to other cloud providers...
  - scott_karana 12y ago
    At the very least, it's successful for Google, since they appear to be making some money from it.

What was the last Google product that was successful without heavy bundling? In this case, bundling couldn't overcome Facebook's network effects.

by IBM 12y ago

What was the last Google product that was successful without heavy bundling? In this case, bundling couldn't overcome Facebook's network effects.

gress 12y ago

Google Maps

x0x0 12y ago
Feb 2005 [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps

adventured 12y ago

Gmail likely could have stood alone as a product (that is, I don't think it required promotion on google.com). It was a tremendous innovation at the time, on both interface, usability, and storage capacity. It leapfrogged hotmail by 100 fold on storage.

x0x0 12y ago
Apr 2004 [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmail
- adventured 12y ago
  I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Or what it has to do with what I said. I've been a user of Gmail since it entered beta. What's your point exactly? If you have something to say, say it, don't be smug by linking to a wikipedia entry for Gmail, as though I don't already know what year it was created.
  - unreal37 12y ago
    His not so subtle point is that it's been 10 years since Gmail, and if that was the last successful non-bundled product, that was a long time ago.
  - Ensorceled 12y ago
    > I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Or what it has to do with what I said. Look at the comment you replied to: > When was the last time ... You brought up a VERY old product and he called you out.
- tsunamifury 12y ago
  You know, if its a list of one item, its not really a list, so there is no need to pretend to footnote. This silly over-use of citation markup when it is completely unneeded adds to the smarmy faux-studiousness of comments on HN. Just say Apr 2004, according to Wikipedia, was a long time ago. Don't pretend to use extra markup, don't imply a list of citations where there isn't one, and don't make a sentence for a human look like its been formatted for a computer.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    If you're so concerned about the waste of space represented by two "[1]"s, why'd you waste so much space typing this? >if its a list of one item, its not really a list unless you're a programmer.
    - Turing_Machine 12y ago
      Yes. If you're a programmer, even lists with zero elements shouldn't bother you.

rodgerd 12y ago

Depends on whether you consider Android a Google product or not.

x0x0 12y ago
Do you believe android succeeded w/o juicing from other google businesses? I don't, I think. The forced bundling of gmail, calendar, and maps (w/ turn-by-turn) where critical to android's success imo. Though I'd be curious for an argument otherwise.
- adventured 12y ago
  The claim would have to be that Google couldn't have used any other alternatives. I believe that to be obviously false. Of course the market would have happily supplied options for mapping, calendar, and email - all Google would need to do is ask, or leave it open for users to decide regardless. What was the alternative to iOS? There was nothing, only Android. That was true right up to the point where Microsoft rebuilt Windows mobile. iOS was not going to own 95% of the market no matter what Apple did, if only because people want to own different phones for fashion purposes. Android's strategy, plus an open market of app alternatives to the bundled software, you get the same result. Hardware manufacturers needed something as close to an iOS clone as reasonable without literally duplicating it, and that's what Android was.
- eli 12y ago
  It's an opinion, of course, but I disagree. I think Android would have done just fine without google apps. Indeed plenty of android phones are sold without them. If the Amazon Fire fails, it will be because there are already cheaper phones with bigger app stores, not because it doesn't have gmail.
  - x0x0 12y ago
    Where are there any android phones sold w/o google apps besides an estimate of 35K Amazon Fire phones, and china?

antoko 12y ago

I guess that would depend on your definitions of "product", "successful" and "heavy". Realistically if they are in a position to leverage any bundling - why wouldn't they? But here goes, in no particular order... Google Public DNS - Dec 2009 Chromecast - July 2013 Chromebook - June 2011 Chrome Browser - Sept 2008 ChromeOS - May 2012 Nexus 4,5,7,10 - various starting Jan 2010 Golang - 2009 Dart - 2011 AngularJS - 2009 app engine - April 2008

x0x0 12y ago
Because leveraging bundling is illegal, if the bundled item is a monopoly, in both the US [1] and the EU. Further, leveraging their search monopoly in such a way as to juice other products is to the detriment of users: if the product deserves a given space in the search results (where deserves means would rise there without bundling), it should rise there on its own, or there is a better alternative that should have been there instead. Hence user harm. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
lnanek2 12y ago
Would anyone really consider AppEngine successful? I hear so many support horror stories, only one poorly supported open source project to try to move off to without recoding to different APIs, and the price is ridiculous compared to other cloud providers...
- scott_karana 12y ago
  At the very least, it's successful for Google, since they appear to be making some money from it.