11–20 of 59 posts
He mentions Microsoft and Yahoo as other companies who've failed him with bad releases, and the subtext seems to be that Apple hasn't done significant wrong.
To do so conveniently ignores how bad Windows versions of QuickTime, Safari, and iTunes have been at early stages.
Google is good at algorithms, not software used by humans. Search is better than anyone else because the algorithms are better, Bing is much prettier. Same thing with AdSense no one can touch the CTR of adsense. Would anyone ever WANT to use the AdSense interface? No. Gmail was great because they figured out how to do giant inboxes at scale for cheap (and had awesome spam filtering), again, the strength was algorithm…
Did I miss something? Sounds like he got burned on a scoop. Did Google do anything bad to him? "MG: show me on this doll where Google touched you." If the application is that bad at least they retracted it. I don't know how much financial loss or other damage it did to the people who downloaded it. It probably doesn't help the overall perception of Google but I view it differently. I really appreciate their test-and-…
I do to - but don't you feel that lately they are just releasing far too early? Take the Gmail redesign - opened up to beta, they took onboard the early feedback about too much whitespace and when the fully released the new design, we had a 'compact' option - to me, that is test and learn style done well.
But take the Gmail app - released into production and it's key feature doesn't work - how was this not picked up in basic testing? Plus it's getting near universal derision as being an underwhelming app. That doesn't seem like 'test and learn' style to me - that's more like sloppy work.
And Siegler lists a whole bunch of recent product launches that have fumbled not because they release new tech, but because Google made basic faults. One that affected me this week - the launch of Google+ for Google App users ... only to discover that it doesn't work with their for iOS/Android app - again, a basic fault.
I want Google to keep releasing in a 'test and learn' style, but I also want them to have some attention to detail and tighten up their work practices which appear to be slipping.
Did I miss something? Sounds like he got burned on a scoop. Did Google do anything bad to him? "MG: show me on this doll where Google touched you." If the application is that bad at least they retracted it. I don't know how much financial loss or other damage it did to the people who downloaded it. It probably doesn't help the overall perception of Google but I view it differently. I really appreciate their test-and-…
Funniest thing I've read in a while ==> "MG: show me on this doll where Google touched you."
It feels like the author is giving Apple an undue free pass. He mentions Microsoft and Yahoo as other companies who've failed him with bad releases, and the subtext seems to be that Apple hasn't done significant wrong. To do so conveniently ignores how bad Windows versions of QuickTime, Safari, and iTunes have been at early stages.
Google is good at algorithms, not software used by humans. Search is better than anyone else because the algorithms are better, Bing is much prettier. Same thing with AdSense no one can touch the CTR of adsense. Would anyone ever WANT to use the AdSense interface? No. Gmail was great because they figured out how to do giant inboxes at scale for cheap (and had awesome spam filtering), again, the strength was algorithm…
Android's notification system is widely considered superior to the one Apple came up with. (I only bring that up as a single counterexample, because that's all that is needed against "everywhere".)
Speaking as a techie with his first Android phone, I'm completely pleased. I have a device that doesn't seem to treat my engineer self as some kind of enemy intruder.
But I'd allow that to fit sensibly with your claim about "not being used by humans".
Coming out of the gate with a great product is overrated. It can work. But more likely, cause you aren't Apple, you will flop. By starting with the basics instead of a complete product, you also give yourself a much more interesting place to grow (the iPhone 4S could be mistaken for the original iPhone; no one could mistake the Galaxy Nexus for the G1).
It feels like the author is giving Apple an undue free pass. He mentions Microsoft and Yahoo as other companies who've failed him with bad releases, and the subtext seems to be that Apple hasn't done significant wrong. To do so conveniently ignores how bad Windows versions of QuickTime, Safari, and iTunes have been at early stages.
Early stages? All three are still crimes against product management today.
1) I'm not sure what made Apple feel that their video codec warranted a home in the control panel. I don't forgive DivX for this, either.
2) They put their personal aesthetic before usability in a big way. E.g., iTunes was unusably slow, though it's improved. Quicktime ran horribly. I am assuming this was in part due to wanting to use MacOS-style brushed-metal chrome.
They released a buggy app they didn't go about punching orphans. Their webapp is excellent and the native one will be fixed and re-released, let's get things in prospective and try to complain less about free stuff.
Then they went and released the iOS app for G+ and it was woeful (and continues to be woeful after a couple of updates). I didn't get the new gmail app before they pulled it so I can only speculate (and considering they pulled it rather than left it to iterate, I'll assume the bugginess was pretty bad).
Why is it they can get a mobile web version of an app so right and get the same native app so wrong?