31–40 of 156 posts
I don't really know why Google, a company, is doing what should be done by the government with no clear benefit to the bottom line. This is not to say they shouldn’t do this, but if you look at it that way, it shouldn't be surprising at all. If they really wanted to help they probably should have teamed up with the government to ensure that there is government buy in to the program.
"ditches" definitely not the word that should describe this (this is towards the article and not the HN submitter since it's the article's title); it could lead those who don't click to think it's another project Google has shut down. > “We are transferring our Station operations in South Africa to Think WiFi who will now carry out the project independently,” a spokesperson told Business Insider SA. > “We'll work wit…
In all likelihood the “transfer” is just a way for Google to save face and avoid yet another “Google kills project” news cycle. Good on the editors for not falling for it.
also silicon valley: “google shuts down too many things”
What does recomplex mean?
I don't really know why Google, a company, is doing what should be done by the government with no clear benefit to the bottom line. This is not to say they shouldn’t do this, but if you look at it that way, it shouldn't be surprising at all. If they really wanted to help they probably should have teamed up with the government to ensure that there is government buy in to the program.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More people using web -> more ad revenue for Google
"Commoditize your complements." Covered by Joel Spolsky in an oldy but goody: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ (2002!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In all likelihood the “transfer” is just a way for Google to save face and avoid yet another “Google kills project” news cycle. Good on the editors for not falling for it.
silicon valley: “fail fast” also silicon valley: “google shuts down too many things”
I appreciate that Google tries new things, but I don't get why their success rate seems to fall far short of Amazon.
I think they way they see it is they are a company of scale. Scale is what they are good at (if anything). So they shutdown lots of small successes to try and focus on the huge wins.. things like youtube, gmail, google docs, etc. things millions of people use.
This is how it works: 1. Googler wants a promo. They know they need to "launch" to get promo. They can't get a promo if they just improve or maintain something that already exists. 2. Googler gets together with other googlers and puts together something they could launch. Nobody cares if it makes any sense. 3. The thing launches. Googler gets their promo. It is now pointless to spend any effort on maintaining somethi…
"You get the behavior you reward. This is what Google rewards." From what I have heard, I think you're right. Promotions and kudos flow from launching new products & services, but not in maintaining them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In all likelihood the “transfer” is just a way for Google to save face and avoid yet another “Google kills project” news cycle. Good on the editors for not falling for it.
Another possibility is that the legal landscape was more hostile than Google anticipated and they essentially got squeezed out.