101–110 of 176 posts
If it was a Microsoft product, it would probably run right on the desktop in a sidebar. Then they would have a developers conference for it in Las Vegas with a free brunch too. [A different promotional stratagy than Google].
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was Google Maps a clone? Google Mail a clone? Wave a clone? AppEngine a clone? The Chrome browser a clone? Android a clone? GWT a clone? What are you talking about?
Yes to everything except for Wave and AppEngine. I'm pretty sure Google didn't invent web based maps, e-mail and the web browser. Wave and AppEngine were good but useless...
Perhaps you attach some other meaning to "clone" than an exact genetic duplicate, indistinguishable from the original except for gestational differences?
One thing that just struck me, is that google/gmail will not be banned from workplace computers as often as fb/twitter have been. This alone will be a significant advantage.
I've been fortunate enough to never have been employed at a company where the employer things its good practice to ban certain websites. How common is this? What field do you work in?
I find that the Buzz interface is highly similar to Brizzly which was similar to Gmail developed by ex-Googlers working on Gmail/Google Reader. Its like all deja vu. O God I'm so buzzed out!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not bizarre if you consider Google actually gives away source code of some of their best products for free. Microsoft just couldn't do this.
And what I'm supposed to do with the source code? Relaunch it as another product and try and compete with Google? Free source code is the oldest trick in Google's book, it amazes me people still fall for it. Just out of curiosity, does anyone know of an example of a successful startup whose products are based on source code from Google?
Is Google becoming the new Microsoft? Not in the evil sense, but in the lame me-too products that rely on brute force (their huge install base) and no innovation to hopelessly try to compete sense.
Google has always been this way as far as I can tell. They're basically using Microsoft's old strategy of "clone it and give it away so we can sell more of Windows" only with Google it's ads. The difference is everyone still loves them. Microsoft was seen as ruthlessly destroying their competition. Google is seen as innovative. Bizarre.
Similarly, Maps was fundamentally innovative. If you went to GMaps c. 2005 and then went to MapQuest, there was absolutely no comparison. I kept wanting to drag the map around to see what was just offscreen. And then Maps kept innovating with satellite imagery, and Street View, and local business labels on the satellite imagery, and double-click-to-find-the-best-vantage-point.
Then there are a bunch of me-too products that succeed only because its Google and everyone already uses them.
Unfortunately this includes everything I've done at Google, but I'm hoping they've set things up for future innovation. Real innovation takes time, usually 3-4 years. Google's strength has been that they're willing to devote that time, but you can't have every single product out the door be a hit.
Is Google becoming the new Microsoft? Not in the evil sense, but in the lame me-too products that rely on brute force (their huge install base) and no innovation to hopelessly try to compete sense.
Google has always been this way as far as I can tell. They're basically using Microsoft's old strategy of "clone it and give it away so we can sell more of Windows" only with Google it's ads. The difference is everyone still loves them. Microsoft was seen as ruthlessly destroying their competition. Google is seen as innovative. Bizarre.
There was also the fact that they blackmailed PC vendors into not installing Netscape.
Does anyone know if it works through Maps on Android 1.6? I just got the update on my G1 and posted an update through Maps, but it doesn't seem to show up on the Buzz layer.
I wonder if, when a company crosses a threshold we all think violates a Nash equilibrium, we start to oppose the company. With this move, Google is declaring war on a host of web companies that are heretofore thriving and collaborating and making tons of money. Every dollar of advertising that Facebook makes is a dollar or even more from Google. Every minute that facebookers facebook, google isn't showing them ads an…
Do you mean "we, the people" or "we, the people who think in terms of Nash equilibria"? ;)
More seriously: I don't think I care about how big the company is. Rather, I care about the quality of the product, and whether I am free to leave it for a competitor's product. Google is actually trying to make it easy for you to leave if you choose to, and take your data with you - they're even inviting you to report their failures in that regard at www.dataliberation.org - so that's quite good.
If they don't make it easy for me to interact with Facebookers/Twitterers/whateverers, I'll end up visiting Facebook/Twitter/whatever instead, and vice versa - what's wrong with that? I'm not an economist, but this sounds like a healthy competitive landscape to me?