Congratulations Google, you just re-invented IRC.
Yeah, pay-per-assist interactive 1:1 video. Basically IRC.
Clue: you don't need the video part.
Introducing Google Helpouts
111–120 of 120 posts
Re: Introducing Google Helpouts
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also outside of HN/geek how many people REALLY used Reader? I bet you its less than 0.1% of the overall Google users. I would have done exactly the same in Google's position. If a feature had been built that only 0.1% of users are using yet is taking up time to run, why keep it?
Several million people who use Android had downloaded Google Reader.
So 900 million Android devices back in July[1] and even if 5 million devices had Android that is a total of 0.55% of all Android users. Still worth it?
[1] http://www.androidcentral.com/larry-page-15-million-android-...
Re: Introducing Google Helpouts
#113The only way I would consider using this service is if Google started advertising paid support of their own products on it.
Re: Introducing Google Helpouts
#114Reader derangement syndrome strikes again. Summarizing the thread, if you're are an early adopter of anything, you run the risk it won't be here in a year. That's what we tolerate in the tech arena, start ups throwing lots of good and dumb ideas at the wall to see what sticks, evolution in action. How many people who built their business on Facebook's F8 platform went belly up due to changes? Google is a company that…
Having a product disappear while you're using it is more of a risk when you invest a lot of your time into it. If Gmail disappeared with a month's notice, a lot of people would be forced to spend hours or days migrating their data and settings. If Google Search disappeared overnight, people could just use Bing.
This seems fairly transactional and thus fairly low-risk, although on the help provider side there's probably a reputation system which will become meaningless when the product is shut down.
Re: Introducing Google Helpouts
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they did at least 7 years of studies (which are tuition-free in Uruguay). It's not their wage that is important, it is the value of their skills and time. If two people must meet face to face, it is most efficient use of resources to have the least skilled person spend their time traveling.
So if I'm say, a top-tier nuclear physicist, the doc should come to me? Who makes the determination?
Price. That's in market based economy, of cause.
Re: Introducing Google Helpouts
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Failure is an acceptable risk to move forward. It's certainly an acceptable risk for Google and other companies like FB - the short-term cost of innovation for Google is pretty close to zero. The long-term cost of reputation is perhaps something they're only now starting to realise. Whether it's an acceptable risk for the users of these services is up to them, and many of them are deciding it is not, because these se…
> Whether it's an acceptable risk for the users of these services is up to them, and many of them are deciding it is not, because these services can be so easily closed. Sounds fair to me. I think an important bottom-line to this is that using an application you do not own, on a system you do not own, is not like running a program, it's like having a service done for you. Despite the web application misnomer, Google…
The problem often comes with data. If the service collects user data (and most services do), it is often a real problem when it shuts down. Suddenly none of the links work, the data is gone, and any reputation or network built up is also hard to retrieve.
If the service was offering a discrete operation on local files (by analogy with a desktop app or a restaurant), then it wouldn't be a great problem if it shuts down, you just find another.
However, going back to this service - someone using this help service to help others might build up a stellar reputation over 10 years, only to have the plug pulled on all their posts, and all the content disappearing or at best losing all its links in when Google decides to move on to Google++ and retires it.
Re: Introducing Google Helpouts
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's really sad we've forgotten that. I don't think anyone's forgotten; we forgive small companies for trying-and-failing to do something cool all the time. For some reason, though, we (as an angry mob) seem to be incapable of allowing big companies to try-and-fail at exactly the same sorts of things. (Personally, I think it might have something to do with how ancestral-environment humans saw leaders making promise…
I think it's because we expect start-ups to fail, most of them do. Big companies fail, too, but less often, because they once were part of the few start-ups who didn't fail. If you want high-end and are happy to live with the risk, you go to a start-up. If you want safety and are happy to live with a more conservative approach, you go to a big company. If the big one fails, you feel robbed of your safety.
But why can't people differentiate between "big company serving their regular audience" and "big company trying something new"? The something-new ventures, no matter how hard they fail, never affect the ability of the company to deliver on their something-safe ventures. For example, no matter how much of a flop a new version of Ubuntu is, it won't stop them from supporting the LTS versions.
Re: Introducing Google Helpouts
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is not a history of killing failed product, it's a history of killing products that everyone is actually using, without giving it as much of a chance as a company of Google's resources might be expected to, for political reasons rather than practical reasons. As a couple of good examples: Google Wave was created to give the Rasmussen brothers (creators of Google Maps) something high-profile to do. Then it…
"history of killing products that everyone is actually using" That's true for amazingly small values of "everyone." It may include you, several people you know, and other people in your line of work, but that's not remotely the same thing.
Hyperbole aside, the point is that it's possible for Google services to be successful but not successful "enough". They're willing to shut down services that have devoted followings. So , whenever you consider investing in a small service from Google, you should understand that could accomplish all its goals and still be shut down.
Re: Introducing Google Helpouts
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
"history of killing products that everyone is actually using" That's true for amazingly small values of "everyone." It may include you, several people you know, and other people in your line of work, but that's not remotely the same thing.
Hyperbole aside, the point is that it's possible for Google services to be successful but not successful "enough". They're willing to shut down services that have devoted followings. So , whenever you consider investing in a small service from Google, you should understand that could accomplish all its goals and still be shut down.
Hyperbole aside, the point is that it's possible for any company's services to be successful but not successful "enough". All companies are willing to shut down services that have devoted followings. So , whenever you consider investing in a small service from any company, you should understand that could accomplish all its goals and still be shut down.
Re: Introducing Google Helpouts
#120My kneejerk reaction is to wonder when this will go the way of Google Wave and Google Reader.
How original. A comment mentioning reader and wave on a new Google product announcement thread. Can we move on already? Innovating companies try and fail a lot, like any startups.
Who said Reader and Wave "tried and failed?" I liked those products.