Tepid Results from Google's New Product Process 237
bart_scriv writes "BusinessWeek digs into Google's new products, first interviewing Marissa Mayer on the process behind the recent flurry of product launches; the essential process: 'try a bunch of new ideas, refine them and see what survives'. How successful is the process? Despite lots of fanfare, a close look at the products reveals that Google still hasn't produced a huge winner: 'An analysis of some two dozen new ventures launched over the past four years shows that Google has yet to establish a single market leader outside its core search business, where it continues to chew up Microsoft and Yahoo.'"
at least it seems more fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is an amazing search-engine success, spearheading some of the greatest technology, especially internet, innovation and competition in the last twenty years. That's as it should be. And Google has pulled off so far what noone else has, a head start, salvo across Microsoft's bow from which Microsoft still has not recovered.
Each additional degree of Microsoft's ship's list translates into that much more level of a playing field. Google more than any other single company has been the greatest contributor to that.
And, as it should be on a more level field, Google isn't going to get a free pass on their other work. That's great! Google has had some false starts with their other products. That's great! Google may even fail completely with some of their work. That's great!
At least Google (and now others) are all on point together, sweating out the competition, working on that next great internet killer app, and they're all having to compete publicly for a change.
I'll take three-year Betas any day over "announced" but yet un-priced future products from other large software companies. I'll try less-than-great first efforts any day over products tied to my architecture, leaving me no choices.
Google's going to fail with some of their efforts, but they've changed the landscape of the internet, and internet applications, software competition, and user choices. Hopefully, forever.
(A worrisome problem: the stockholders' pressure on these companies keeps pushing on these companies to produce and show profit now. I applaud Microsoft, in one example, in their snubbing of shareholders by announcing huge investments in R&D, rather than upping their dividends. In the long run, companies that stay focused will be the winners, for themselves, for the consumers, and for the shareholders (though, I still hold Microsoft in high suspicion for their motivation for pouring huge resources into R&D, aka... working on cutting off someone else's air supply.))
Mod parent up (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mod parent up (Score:2)
Of course, you can't spell "dude" or "sucks" correctly, so I would argue that it is in fact you who has terrible language skills.
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:2, Insightful)
Google is collapsing under their own weight. I went through their hiring process looking to take on a management role, it was slow and focused on the wrong things. By th etime they would have come to a conclusion my search would have been over. And most of the things that would have been a big draw there 4 years ago ar
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:5, Funny)
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:5, Interesting)
And my experience was the opposite. Though I can't really give any details, as I got the job and have now signed an pretty far-reaching NDA, the recruitment process for Google Engineering was extremely rapid despite consisting of over 7 hours of interviews!
The questions were very thorough, really that's the deepest and widest technical interview I've ever done, though I was slightly surprised at the lack of interest in asking traditional personal-type interview questions. Even so I was generally impressed at how slick the thing was. They hire constantly and it shows - the longest I had to wait for feedback before going onto the next stage was about a week. Very far from "collapsing under their own weight".
Maybe their executive/management and technical recruitment are wildly different in terms of quality, it's certainly possible. But anyway, consider your anecdote matched.
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:2)
For the record, the notice I had passed the screening and was selected for a phone interview included an appointment for that interview set 1 month in the future. It sounded absurd so I verified it and was told it was normal. The hiring rate you mention doesn't mean much, they could have a 9 month process from application to offer and still hire a thousand people in a day. Almost nobody
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:2)
One of the main rules of interview teams within startups I've been a part of... if their big draw to work with us is the option riches, reject.
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're looking for people too stupid to consider their total compensation? Or maybe you think you're so special that people should be paying you for the privledge of working with you
Startups are inherently unstable and prone to failure. Quite often they can't afford to pay what stable companies can pay, and might be missing things like 401k's, wil require lon
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:3, Insightful)
I think all that can really be concluded from your experience is that you and Google were not a good match for each other.
Google Search Success? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Google Search Success? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Google Search Success? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta love this:
No... except for the search engine, AdWords (thank you for that Google...) and Google maps, which is mashed up just about everywhere and basically launched the AJAX craze.
Besides, what's a huge winner?? Gmail has millions of users... but I guess due to their market cap, Gmail will only be a big winner if it has BILLIONS of users??
Besides - yeah, they're giving MS a run in certain areas, but let's not also forget that they're also forcing Yahoo! into this century as well.
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that this is good, but if they just keep producing killer apps in the same fashion - producing Google SQL to compete with MS Access, Google Present! to compete with PowerPoint, etc. - then they might see just the same tepid response that they're receiving now.
Hypothetical: What if Google produces an analog for every single application that you use today, only it's free and on the web? Prediction: You still wouldn't use them, or would only use them occasionally.
Well, what's the problem, then? The problem is that web apps - Google's as much as anyone else's - don't offer the unified experience of a locally-installed software base.
Google Earth is a silo: you visit that site, and you do your satellite-spy thing, and then you leave.
Google Picasa is a silo: you visit the site, and you edit your photos, and then you leave.
Gmail is a silo: you visit the site, and you check and write email, and then you leave.
The model here is that every time you want to do something, you have to load up a browser, visit the site, and begin fresh work on some data. Data exchange between applications is limited at best: you might be able to extract some data (hoping it's in the right format) and upload it to another silo - but if not, you're strictly limited to copying and pasting some raw text.
Contrast this with your experiences working on a local software base. Everything is immediately available within a few clicks away from the Start Button, or the Mighty Apple, or your *n?x right-click menu - even if you don't have an internet connection. You have file associations; you have drag-and-drop; you have object linking; you have interoperability of office applications. And you have filesystem organization - if a project involves some email, some Word files, and a few spreadsheets, you can keep them all in the same folder.
You get none of this with the current generation of web apps.
Now if Google's gaggle of research efforts are some of the elements of a future GoogleOS, that's very promising. But they consistently (publicly) deny that that's their goal. And regardless of where Google might go tomorrow, it doesn't much impact what it is today: a company with many fledgling projects... but too little cohesion. Meanwhile, Microsoft is going more in this direction, with WinFS and Avalon and such. Its efforts are kind of sucky because it's not really motivated by competition, but at least its aim is correct.
I hope Google succeeds - if nothing else, Bob knows that the desktop software market has been stagnant since, oh, 1995 or so. We need some competition and fresh blood. But that's not a trend that one can extrapolate from its current model.
- David Stein
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right about the current generation, but the writing is on the wall...
Imagine a browser that ships with database (these days modern processors can run MySQL or SQL Server Desktop Edition pretty easily) and has top-notch WebDAV support.
Now imagine that unlike Firefox's relatively sucky file manager capabilities (well, it does give you a list of files if you type file:///), this browser's file manager look more like Nautilus and can do local files + WebDAV seamlessly.
Now imagine you have a rich control toolkit, like the WHAT-WG is cooking up, and that applications using these rich controls can be cached locally and take advantage of the local relational data store (the built-in database) to store data when the user is offline.
Just for kicks, add in a scheduler that can reliably move large files across localstoragewebstore.
By now, you have enough 'richness' in this 'browser' that it can with some justification call itself a GUI shell. Throw in an IM and email client and a large percentage of PC (including Mac) users wouldn't need much else.
As for 'silos', well-- implementing a clipboard on the web is simple using XML, as Ray Ozzie demonstrated recently. And if a rich browser environment ever caught on, I'd expect websites will soon start plugging into each other's UI seamlessly using a 'parts' approach.
Prediction: Google will do this (probably by working with the Mozilla Foundation). Because (a) it makes sense for them to do it (their advertising model works wonderfully here) and (b) if they don't, Microsoft will. Why would Microsoft do this? Because it'll improve the PC experience and make apps more web-like (install-on-demand, auto-upgradeable, etc) and because there's a real chance they can get annuity from customers (which improves stock price) instead of one-time sales. Of course, Microsoft does online ad sales now, so they'll probably offer a free ad-supported version as well.
Silo? (Score:3, Informative)
>leave.
Huh? Like when there's an address in the email, and Google offers to map it for me? Like when there's a time in the email, and Google offers to put it on my calendar?
I have a GMail tab open at all times.
Re:Silo? (Score:2)
I've been using Gmail for about two years, and I've never seen this feature. In fact, I'm looking at an email right now that clearly contains an address, and I see no link of any kind.
Like when there's a time in the email, and Google offers to put it on my calendar?
- David Stein
Re:Silo? (Score:3, Informative)
>fact, I'm looking at an email right now that clearly contains an address, and I see
>no link of any kind.
And I'm looking an email right now that has two addresses in it, and GMail is offering to map them both (under "Would you like to
<td class="cx"><img src="images/cob_map.gif"></td><td><div><a target="_blank" class="re" href="http:/
Re:Silo? (Score:2)
Here's Google's doc on these non-silo features.
https://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?ctx
Maybe you have that column ad-blocked out? The map links are pretty cool; you might want to adjust your ad-blocking.
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:2, Interesting)
I've never been more excited about a computer program. 3D CAD with a state-of-the-art user interface? For FREE? Yeah, there are things it can't do, and the learning curve is non-trivial, but the capabilities it's going to give me (personally, this carbon unit) are astounding.
Suffice it to say, I'm pretty amped about this program.
I can't afford SolidWorks or CATIA, but I can afford this.
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:2)
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Any good businesman will tell you that failure is 95% of business. Most new buisinesses fail, most new products are not a roaring success. All Google needs is for one or two of its two dozen ventures to establish even a niche market (*cough* gmail *cough*) and it will make money hand over fist. Remember, Google is still the underdog in all of these new ventures, so almost any gains are a positive thing.
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a fundamental flaw in market economies, not in shareholders. Shareholders have a limited lifespa
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:2)
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the problem with that (Score:2)
There is no _money_ in being t
Re:Here's the problem with that (Score:3, Interesting)
You're just making a petty semantic argument. When people say market, they just mean an area of competition. Just because the money comes in through ads (in common with other markets) is absolutely meaningless. Focusing on the mechanics of compensation over the facets of competition makes no sense. The bottom line is people need a search en
Well, here's what I'm saying (Score:2)
1. Focusing on where the money is actually makes one hell of a sense for a company.
2. All those attempts at getting into other "markets" are a bit more related than it looks, because they're tied 1-to-1 to the same source of revenue. One ad served on Gmail or Orkut or whatever brings in exactly as much money as one ad served on their search engine. And they use the same keyword
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:2)
Dude, you can't have it both ways. Every technology company intended to be successful in the long term must spend money on research, if for no other reason than to develop patents for cross-licensing :P
Mail (Score:2, Insightful)
I haven't heard anyone use a Yahoo, MSN or Hotmail address in months.
Not a leader?! Please.
re: email addresses (Score:5, Insightful)
EG. I've been a Southwestern Bell DSL Internet customer for years. At one point, SBC partnered up with Yahoo, and migrated email over to Yahoo's servers. I still got to keep my "@swbell.net" address, however. It just runs through Yahoo POP and SMTP servers instead of SBC's own mail server.
Many other users of SBC/AT&T DSL services are doing similar things with addresses ending in "@sbcglobal.net".
Re:Mail (Score:2)
Peop
AOL and gmail: a match made in heaven? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Invitation only (Score:2)
Re:Invitation only (Score:2)
Re:Invitation only (Score:2)
Re:Invitation only (Score:2)
First, you're complaining about how they haven't asked if you want to get an account. So, what are these guys supposed to do? E-mail every single e-mail address to invite people? I mean, what do you do if you want a Hotmail account, or a Yahoo account? Oh, that's right, you go and sign up. So, in your terms, you say "please, pretty please, let me use Yahoo e-mail!!!"
Secondly, even when you supposedly needed to find someone to send you an invitation, a quick Google
Re:Mail (Score:2)
(Just kidding of course....maybe)
Product release overload (Score:5, Interesting)
USB Drive disabler - works remotely [digg.com]
Re:Product release overload (Score:2)
They don't have to make money, they just have to make sure that Microsoft isn't making money. This was the no. 1 reason behind StarOffice from Sun; kill the biggest MS cash-cow of them all - Office. With less profits from that direction, MS have to spend less to compete with Sun in Sun's core market. Same with Google, it's
Gmail, anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would argue that gmail is pretty successful. It's forced Yahoo, Hotmail to offer much larger mailboxes to keep their clients.
Heck, even my local ISP, after 15 years of a 10MB mailbox (with a float to 15MB) suddenly offer 200MB on all 5 email addresses their service lets you use.
In addition, every user of Hotmail or Yahoo that I've brought over to gmail hasn't looked back. They all love it.
I call that a winner.
Re:Gmail, anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
From a Wall Street point-of-view, this is troubling. You have a large business in a fast moving market hanging its entire hat on a single technology.
Re:Gmail, anyone? (Score:2)
Sure, this is not easy... but I still think this is the best way for them to make money from GMail, and I think they can do it...
Re:Gmail, anyone? (Score:2)
-matthew
Re:Gmail, anyone? (Score:2)
I don't consider this an option. Personal email, okay, whatever. I'm not talking about anything important in it 99% of the time anyway. Work email? Hell no. That's your company's secrets. You want that onsite. Also, having the email server be local means that local email still works when the internet connection is down, and it's a whole hell of a lot faster to boot.
Re:Gmail, anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gmail, anyone? (Score:2)
I would argue that gmail is pretty successful. It's forced Yahoo, Hotmail to offer much larger mailboxes to keep their clients.
From a business point of view it is a failure to introduce an innovation so simple to copy that your competitors catch up quickly. It would be a success if Yahoo and Hotmail were now in free-fall because they couldn't match it.
Re:Gmail, anyone? (Score:2)
Google Calendar, anyone? (Score:2)
The one thing they make that I can't live without now though is Google Calendar. The ability to access it anywhere, and have alerts sent to my cellphone is just something I've come to rely upon
Re:Google Calendar, anyone? (Score:2)
I tried gmail for a while... (Score:3, Insightful)
I started using gmail in the early days, and the UI was too sparse. They wanted to force me to search. I didn't want to search. Additionally, they made the compose button look different from the rest, making it difficult for me to find (call me retarded, I don't care).
I went back to yahoo. I use my gmail account for almost nothing. I go there about once a month.
I just wish I could get onto the Yahoo beta. Will they ever finish that?
Re:Gmail, anyone? (Score:2)
I would rather have a good, well thought out conservative product (Gmail) as opposed to a buggy, ad-cramped bleeding edge product (Yahoo! Mail Beta and Window
Process ? (Score:2, Funny)
"Is this it ?"
"No!"
"Is this it ?"
"No!"
So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the seventies, there was a huge study in how to create a successful business. One of those areas they found as being important was "Market Leader". The reason, it was easier for the "Market Leader" to achieve "Economies of Scale"( ie. It is cheaper to produce 10,000 units instead of 5,000 units).
Being a market leader was not the only variable in this study, just one of several. However, it appears "a little knowledge is dangerous" applies here. I doubt "Economies of Scale" (and thereforce "Market Leader") is as important to IT compared with manufacturing cars. They took one potential variable and applied it to Google without looking at the big picture of how it all works.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
I'm not sure that's the case when it comes to google. It costs the same amount to produce software whether 1 user or 10,000 users are using it. It should cost approximately linearly more (in the case of googl
Google (Score:2, Insightful)
Success for Gmail rated on use of others??? (Score:2, Interesting)
So in an article about the success of Google products, the only way they gauge the success of Gmail is if someone also maintains an account with a competing service? What about Gmail users who use it exclusively (like me)?
Re:Success for Gmail rated on use of others??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Success for Gmail rated on use of others??? (Score:3, Interesting)
But even assuming the stats were correct, it's silly to assume the measurement of success only includes Gmail users already using other competitors' products. There's plenty of people who use it and don't fall into that c
Re:Success for Gmail rated on use of others??? (Score:2)
It was a clever viral marketing gimmick. All those 'invites in sigs' things you mentioned got people asking "What is GMail?" At least, that's how I ended up using it. Otherwise I would have said "pftbptbptbpt another web mail."
Re:Success for Gmail rated on use of others??? (Score:2)
Let me start be saying that I know that the plural of anecdote is not "data".
But, pretty much everyone I know on gmail has accounts on other services that they no longer use. Goes for me too; I have yahoo and hotmail. I don't use 'em, except when I need to deal with microsoft
Re:Success for Gmail rated on use of others??? (Score:2)
Other thing to consider is that for a long time you needed to get a Hotmail account to use MSN Messenger. They lifted that restriction a few years ago but to this day I have a Hotmail account I never use, simply to sign into MSN Messenger with.
That said a metric ton of non-geeks, especially teenagers, use Hotmail because it's what they know. So I can quite believe that Hotmail still beats the snot out of their competitors through inertia alone. This is especially true as you still need invites for GMail a
Re:Success for Gmail rated on use of others??? (Score:2)
If you want to look at it that way, people have abandoned gmail accounts (including 2 people I myself have invited), yet those accounts remain active on Google's servers for NINE months, as opposed to four and one for Yahoo and MSN respectively. I also have 2 gmail accounts (one
Re:Success for Gmail rated on use of others??? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Success for Gmail rated on use of others??? (Score:3, Informative)
So in an article about the success of Google products, the only way they gauge the success of Gmail is if someone also maintains an account with a competing service? What about Gmail users who use it exclusively (like me)?
I can see how you could read it that way, but I don't think thats the way it is meant. They are trying to say Google only has about 1/4 the total users of MSN or Yahoo. If you have
Out of many, one (Score:5, Interesting)
Google does not need that one killer app that will destroy the status quo. I find myself using Google products for quite a few things. They have a knack for taking something that everyone already uses and improving it enough to make the transition worthwhile. The author might deride GMail for not being a new invention, but at the time of its release (and I would argue even now) it offered the most features and free storage. Instead of e-mail papers back and forth, I have been using Writely [writely.com] for months. Again, nothing too groundbreaking, but it just plan works and saves me some aggravation.
My point is that Google provides resources that we all actually use, not some next big thing that will change the paradigm for good.
Re:Out of many, one (Score:2)
I guess this proves the point that TFA makes about Google not advertising its products very well.
Re:Out of many, one (Score:2)
And that's exactly the point of TFA - 'we all' are not actually using Google's resources. In every category, except search and maps, it trails badly. (Maps merely trails.) The geek community is deeply in love with Google, but the geek community is only a small fraction of the total internet user community - and the numbers show it, regardless of the anecdotal evidence pre
Google Business Strategy (Score:4, Funny)
2. Rebrand their product.
3. Make free version and "professional" version.
4. Add web stuff, anything to tie it to Google servers, typically search or collaboration features.
5. Put it into "Beta".
6. ???
7. Profit!
Quantity Over Quality (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it me or has anyone else noticed the decline in quality search results from Google? Maybe this flurry of product launches continues to chew up its core search business. I'm not a big fan of the "throw-shit-on-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks" business model. Focusing on quality over quantity seems less evil.
Re:Quantity Over Quality (Score:2)
Letting a product stagnate could be called shoddy business practises, it could be called not caring about your customers, it could be called a lot of things. But really, when a company neglects their product, evil isn't the thing that pops into my head. When I think of evil, I think of pedophiles raping little children, different religions burning each other alive, people being tortured, etc.
Google is not evil, they're a freakin' business trying to diver
Setting the bar too high? (Score:5, Insightful)
A strong #2 doesn't sound like miserable failure to me.
--
Carnage Blender [carnageblender.com]: Meet interesting people. Kill them.
Losing Focus of Google's Core Business (Score:3, Insightful)
Managed Innovation? (3M model?) (Score:3, Insightful)
Is Google doing this as managed innovation or is Google throwing "it" against the wall to see what sticks?
Sometimes I wish I could buy something from Google (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, I use gmail all the time. But I have never, not once ever, clicked on an ad in gmail. So from my input, a bean-counter at gmail could conclude that I don't care about gmail.
Sure, I could click on ads from time to time even though I have no interest in the products in the ads, but there are times that I wish I could just give Google a few bucks a year to give them a direct incentive to keep gmail going.
Bean-counters at Google don't count beans. (Score:2)
If you want to give a direct incentive to Google, star
Re:Bean-counters at Google don't count beans. (Score:2)
Google Bean-counter: People aren't clicking on ads in gmail. So advertisers don't want to advertise there. So we're not making any money with gmail.
Google Visionary: But gmail is wildly popular and the halo effect to the company is worth millions!
BC: It's all very well to talk intangibles, but the bottom line for gmail is in the red. We're a public company and we can't pursue "feel-good" money-losing projects forever.
G
Re:Bean-counters at Google don't count beans. (Score:2)
Marissa Meyer (Score:2)
pic 1 [google.com]
pic 2 [mediajunk.com]
Good enough is good enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good enough is good enough (Score:2)
That's one of the points of TFA - their potential number of eyes [attracted to Google's secondary offerings] is less than that of their competitors. Failing to grow that number or failing to increase the share is not a sucess. Failing to capture a signific
Google is fine (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Google is fine (Score:2)
Driving directions rarely show ads on Google Maps, so they aren't making a dime. Hell, a lot of Google's services LOSE money, such as Google News, which doesn't show any advertising whatsoever.
Product Updates? (Score:3, Informative)
But they rarely seem to update their online products:
* Gmail, despite its strong launch and obvious success, has seen little development since. By now, we would expect to see much stronger import/export features, more filtering and junk mail controls...
* Google Video was pretty weak at launch, and amazingly, hasn't improved much since. Details on the videos shown is weak, and 3rd-party review links, imdb links, etc. are nonexistent. Methods for transferring and showing the video on portable devices and Tivo are... completely absent.
* Froogle, News, Maps, and more have stagnated since their beta launch (except that Google's purchase of new imagery for Earth has benefited Maps), despite much improvement from the competition (seen Yahoo Maps lately?).
In fact, pretty much the only products they regularly update are the native apps they purchased from startups, like Earth, Picasa, and Sketchup. These appear to have kept their development teams from pre-acquisition days, and continue to make small but regular improvements.
It's amazing to me that a company with as many employees as Google can make so many online services appear to be the work of one or two developers in their spare time -- strong on concept, but weak on follow-through.
--kirby
Re:Product Updates? (Score:2)
I'm not sure that's true, though I've only been using these services for a short while.
GMail has gained quite a few features, including web based chat and integration with the calendar service. They have a "new features" link that appears occasionally. And of course space available constantly increases, which you could count as a feature.
Google Video has gained a ton since its launch as a basic Flash frontend to crawled videos. They got video categories, labelling, ratings, pay-for videos, improved form
Re:Product Updates? (Score:2)
A list of things they have added since, off the top of my head:
Rich text editing
Calendar Integration
Gmail Photos
Google Talk integration into Gmail
POP3 Access
Multiple from: email addresses
Web clips
Almost tripled storage from original amount
Expanded the amount of data that can be inputted in the contact list
Their feature list has surpassed the features of Yahoo! Mail and Hotmail, while still being in beta and being on the market for a small fractio
Google == ad revenue (Score:2)
Is it possible that Google's goal with all of these products is merely to hold it's lead in the search business? Instead of paying a million dollars for a TV ad campaign, they spend a million dollars developing a nifty useful tool. It hits their target market better, and provides positive benefit to their users
Reminds me of Bean from Enders game... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bean's failure rate was so high because he was trying to find out what strategies worked and which ones did not, and he did so by examining strategies that no one in thier right mind would try, just to see why they failed, and what things about them potentially worked. He did this because he did not care about the win / loss record, and he was using the school environment to find out what worked and what didn't.
And when he got out of the battle school, he never failed once.
Getting back to Google, they are trying products that may or may not work. Not everything needs to be a screaming huge success, and if gmail turned into a huge disaster, its not like it would invalidate their business model for Google Search.
END COMMUNICATION
GMail? (Score:2)
It will just take time... (Score:2, Interesting)
killer app not the point (Score:2, Interesting)
It's cost effective in many ways, employees may tend to stay on target for their standard job and/or projects (that might otherwise be a bit dull) because they CAN flex their muscles and try new things. Google gets R&D on a b
Google Platform on Mozilla in the works (Score:3, Interesting)
Google has barely started. They're simply positioning their pieces right now. Their strategy is obviously a sneaky one: tiptoe up behind your opponents without drawing too much attention to yourself by openly beta-testing a variety of services, and then at the perfect moment, deliver the killing blow with the "kernel" of your plan that suddenly brings all these disparate services together into a nuke of integration. That kernel, for them, of course, is search.
What is search? It can be a lot of things, but in its finest form, it resembles what is popularly termed "AI". Can you imagine what Google could achieve by using search to suddenly unify all of its services? You get an email in Gmail about a picnic on the 23rd, and it's hyperlinked to a command that will put it in your Google Calendar. That's a simple scenario. Few seem to imagine search as an integration platform, like the GUI, but it is; it's not just for finding things.
I imagine the future of search to be a lot like how the ever-present computer voice in Star Trek could do almost anything for you. When computers are this sophisticated, what's the point of most GUIs? Just tell your computer what you want. GUIs can then be minimal and non-intrusive.
Now, the biggest complaint I hear about Google's services is that they have to be accessed online via a browser. Well, did you know that Firefox 3 is going to support the ability to run web applications offline [mozilla.org]?
-- random_blankspace attica ya-know-hoo dottius commius
Re:Google Platform on Mozilla in the works (Score:2)
Maybe Google decided they're rich enough! (Score:2)
I adore many of Google's new services - especially because I don't have to pay for them. I use Suggest, Gmail, Calendar, Video, Talk (with VOIP), and Maps all the time, and I occasionally find uses for Earth, Sets, and Froogle. Most of all, I love playing with al
More of the same (Score:2, Interesting)
The good news is that the farm for ideas internally rather than have ideas come from the top down. But you don't have to be smart to have
Releasing too early (Score:3, Interesting)
This hits the nail on the head. I checked out Google Finance pretty early and it wasn't as good as Yahoo so I stayed with Yahoo. (For instance, it had no stocks from the Toronto exchange.) I just checked it again today because of this article, and it has improved substantially. (The search box is especially impressive.)
I'm switching right now, but if this article hadn't appeared, I wouldn't.
Re:not so fast (Score:2)
Re:They really aren't doing anything unique ... (Score:2)
Please explain to me exactly which map provider "did it better" than Google? While I agree Yahoo! Maps Beta and Ask.com Maps have both surpassed