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.))
Mail (Score:2, Insightful)
I haven't heard anyone use a Yahoo, MSN or Hotmail address in months.
Not a leader?! Please.
Mod parent up (Score:2, Insightful)
So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Mail (Score:1, Insightful)
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 are gone, they have IPO'd and their stock is massively overpriced, whatever options I might get awarded will likely be high and dry by the time I can exercise them, and their internal management does not seem to have handled the growth well, which is hardly surprising given the tech focus of their backgrounds.
Yeah, I've seen the raves about their hiring process, spent a few hours on the in B-school. It reminded me of all the other ground breaking cases we used that when we asked follow up questions, "Great, what happened 3 years later" you discover it all collapsed 6 months later. [Which is actually the beauty of an EMBA program, you are amongst all the other business leaders with the experience to see through the fluff and ask the important questions, they don't worry about the teacher not giving them an A because they already have an impressive resume and are actually looking to learn something]
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".
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.
Re:Success for Gmail rated on use of others??? (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.
Good enough is good enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Google Search Success? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Google Search Success? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Gmail, anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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: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 longer hours, can't afford to pay for training, etc. There's always the chance you come in tomorrow and find the doors loked and this months paycheck made of rubber. Folks take that chance becasue of the risk/reward, or because they can't get work elsewhere. Hiring in a startup, I look for the former, the folks who know they'll have a chance to drive the companies success and make those options riches. When I interview for a startup, I want to know what the odds are of getting to that point, because it also means I'm less likely to be surprised with that locked door. So I'll ask questions about company profitability, product plans, IPO's, management experience, company goals, etc. There's other rewards for working at a startup sometimes, sometimes you get to innovate new stuff, there could be rapid promotion opportunities, but I also have to put food on the table and a roof over my head
Of course, Google isn't a startup anymore. If I had signed up 4 years ago, I would have expected a modest return on my options, since I wasn't employee #10 in a high risk environment. If I signed up for Verizon I'd also expect a modest return on my options. But if I sign up today for Google, I expect the market will have come to its senses by the time I can exercise them, rendering them "worthless". So its a factor I would weigh when deciding what comapny to sign with. Options. Insurance. 401k. Training programs. Vacation Policies.
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: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.
Re:at least it seems more fair (Score:3, Insightful)
google creates app space, MS ends them (Score:2, Insightful)
Before gmail, webmail existed, but was klunky, slow and not too useful. gmail starts and everyone is paying attention to their webmail service in terms of performance, disk space, and UI.
Before gmail, ajax existed, but no one cared. after gmail, it's the hottest thing since baked bread.
Before gmaps, mapping was starting to fall off charts of desktop app and only for gps. with gmaps and the various mash-ups, the application is limitless
Before gEarth, satellite imagery was a classified thing given only to the rich and priviliged. with gEarth, satellite integration into mapping became almost required and more people have access to it
Before gSpreadsheet. MS was pretty much the only game in town. OOo was there, but just offers nothing that MS doesn't. There was just no incentive to use it. but since gSpreadsheet allowed for on-line spreadsheet edit on reliable/fast servers. I've started using it to keep lists (DVD collection, anime, game high scores, etc)
Similar things can be said of just about any app space they entered. As opposed to MS, when they enter an app space, they crush the competition, and let it fester and interest in the app dies because (such as what happened to spreadsheet, document editors, browsers) there is no more innovation because MS is not willing to invest and no one else dares invest because there is no way to compete against MS, and the users lose out because functions they may want is never created. Google changes that and breathes life or new life into the app space