Why I Left Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I Left Google

#111

Post by MatthewPhillips » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 2:14 AM UTC

natrius wrote: post #109

whiletruefork wrote: post #73

The author states that in his time at Google he realizes it was always a company funded by ads, but that he did not have to personally feel the need for Ads in all products. That's a fair point. Where I lost him is his connection of Google+ with Ads. I disagree that G+ is an Ads play. It's a play for staying relevant on the internet. When you think about it, Facebook is a closed system. They want CNN to post articles…

"When you think about it, Facebook is a closed system." People say this all the time without any justification. As far as I know, all content within Facebook that has no privacy restrictions can be viewed without being a Facebook user. Facebook has an API that can be used to both read and write. Facebook is stingy with phone numbers and email addresses, which is a significant failing in my opinion. Other than that, I…

So what you're saying is that Facebook is open because you are allowed to fetch information that Facebook allows?

Re: Why I Left Google

#112

Post by davemel37 » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 2:16 AM UTC

malnourish wrote: post #74

davemel37 wrote: post #33

I think Google+ 's mistake, like the author, has to do with a changing doctrine, but i think it has more to do with a branding issue than an innovation or technology issue. (it could be both, but i would argue perception comes before reality when it comes to success) I think "Google+ is a dud," has less to do with whether social is broken, but rather with human perception and branding. Much the way Google owned the c…

This is a fantastic post on what branding is and how to position oneself. There's probably more to it, and I am not fully versed in such a field, but I am now far more interested in the aspect and history of branding than I was before. Thank you.

Thanks. The only way to really know what works is to study the history of successful brands. If you really want to learn more, I highly recommend The books mentioned Below by Al Ries and Jack Trout, or Al Ries and Laura Ries. They also have a bunch of videos on youtube you can watch called Ries Report. They actually took the time to study successful branding, and completely opened my eyes to a world where there is actually a rhyme and reason to successful brands. (keep in mind that you can still make money without owning a category in peoples minds. This is probably what throws big executives off track. They see opportunity to make money in a new category, assume if they launch under their recognized brand, they will rake it in.... but fail to appreciate how they might hurt their brands in the long run.

What ends up happening is more often than not, they fail, fold, and move on.

Just as a note: since we have less history with Internet Brands, there are different rules, rhymes, and reasons why certain things work.

Re: Why I Left Google

#113

Post by davemel37 » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 2:25 AM UTC

manish_gill wrote: post #45

davemel37 wrote: post #33

I think Google+ 's mistake, like the author, has to do with a changing doctrine, but i think it has more to do with a branding issue than an innovation or technology issue. (it could be both, but i would argue perception comes before reality when it comes to success) I think "Google+ is a dud," has less to do with whether social is broken, but rather with human perception and branding. Much the way Google owned the c…

At first, I also thought it had to do with branding, and was infact, quite enthusiastic about G+. But then G+ launched, and I tried it, and about half of my friends also came ever to give it a try. It just wasn't good enough. I've had people tell me that they go to G+ to escape from the madness that people apparently post on facebook. This 'madness', as the person quoted, was simply the fact that people post more per…

I guess the question is... Were your preconceived beliefs about facebook being more personal, etc.. the chicken or the egg?

I suspect your perception highly influenced your experience. On that note, I also suspect that had Google done a decent job branding, it wouldn't have been an either/or choice... They would have convinced you that facebook is for personal entertainment but G+ is a utility for managing information and relationships... they would have talked to your existing beliefs about facebook and explained why you need them for a different reason, or why their solution makes facebook obsolete. By trying to win you over with " a better product" they didn't stand a chance in the battle for your mind.

Re: Why I Left Google

#114

Post by crdoconnor » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 2:40 AM UTC

pragmatic wrote: post #101

nextparadigms wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But "the people" were on Myspace, Hi5, Friendster and other social networks before Facebook - hundreds of millions of them. So clearly it's something about the product, too.

Yes, those services were cool (at the time). Google+ is only cool for geeks, if even that. I'm not sure what to do with Google+. The technical folks I work with aren't sure. The non-technical people barely know it exists.

Thing is, Google search used to be the exact same way.

Re: Why I Left Google

#115

Post by chj » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 2:40 AM UTC

when the best a company can do is copying, no wonder people are leaving.

Re: Why I Left Google

#116

Post by defen » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 2:54 AM UTC

If life were a movie, all the "advice" Steve Jobs gave to Larry Page toward the end of Jobs' life was completely bogus, and part of a long con aimed at destroying Google in retaliation for Android being a "stolen product" (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/10/20/steve_jobs_vow...)

We all know Jobs was enough of a mastermind to pull it off; but was he that malicious?

Re: Why I Left Google

#117

Post by donaq » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 2:56 AM UTC

pragmatic wrote: post #101

nextparadigms wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But "the people" were on Myspace, Hi5, Friendster and other social networks before Facebook - hundreds of millions of them. So clearly it's something about the product, too.

Yes, those services were cool (at the time). Google+ is only cool for geeks, if even that. I'm not sure what to do with Google+. The technical folks I work with aren't sure. The non-technical people barely know it exists.

Personally, I love Google+. It doesn't replace Facebook for me, but it has definitely replaced Twitter.

Re: Why I Left Google

#118

Post by timr » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 3:06 AM UTC

pragmatic wrote: post #100

timr wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I've loved Google in the past precisely because they weren't Apple and they weren't Facebook." I absolutely do not understand this frame of mind. Why not just like a company for its products, rather than liking them because they're "not" some other company? Life is too short to get caught up in the identity politics of corporations. Google is a business, not your buddy.

Trust. If you invest time/money in something, you want to have a good feeling about it. I want to know I'm not going to get screwed down the road. I think of if like a relationship with person. Do you want to be friends/lovers with a thief/liar/cheater? Reputation matters.

"I think of if like a relationship with person. Do you want to be friends/lovers with a thief/liar/cheater? Reputation matters."

It's entirely possible to have good feelings about products, value the reputations of brands, and trust companies (or not) without getting caught up in politics. I like Whole Foods because they have really good produce, not because they're "not Safeway".

You don't have to choose sides in a religious war to make product judgments.

Re: Why I Left Google

#119

Post by vibrunazo » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 3:09 AM UTC

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #108

vibrunazo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always seemed to me that social is the evolution of search. And google knows this very well. Social signals are very important for finding what you're looking for. The idea of g+ was always to implement something like the new "google + your world" on a larger scale on all google products. If they didn't do this, they would fall behind to the competition. They felt forced to. Erick Schmidt once said something like…

There's nothing evolutionary about "social signals". It's very, very old. Since the beginning of time advertising companies have used big data to better target their ads. Facebook obviously makes this easier, but it is not new. 20 years ago advertisers knew, within a margin of error, what type of car you drove, how much money you made, and whether your wife was pregnant. Social signals are less valuable than search t…

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not implying they need social signals to better target ads. But to give better search results. (as in google + your world)

The competition was already doing this, Google was threatened. Bing had a deal with Facebook. Users were already using Facebook to look for information instead of Google. They tried to outsource social to facebook and twitter. That proved an unideal strategy. Social was too important for their business to rely on the good will of another company. Social is the future of search. Google saw this coming a mile away and got into social before they could become irrelevant.

Social is the future of search, this fact is independent of advertising. Even if Google had a different business model for their search engine. They would still need social. They didn't get into social because of ads, they did because search needs it.

Re: Why I Left Google

#120

Post by pasbesoin » Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 3:13 AM UTC

An observation from the inside of what I've been seeing/feeling from the outside.

When Google started killing the "cool" stuff, I perceived (rightly or wrongly) the writing on the wall as far as attracting and retaining top talent. And they lost my semi-hesitant... "devotion". I wanted to believe they really did care about e.g. next generation energy sources, at a time when even our lame-ass federal government can't get its act together on that front. And Earth, Maps, various API's (Translate, for example), and the like produced fundamental changes in various environments and endeavors, both professional and hobbyist.

Now, sliding into "corporate", lame-ass Google. So sad. Perhaps inevitable; nonetheless, if so, then "just another".

P.S. As I reflect a bit more, I still have more respect for them than e.g. Facebook (manipulation) or Microsoft (domineering, monopolistic, and (perhaps resultantly) now fumbling senior management). But I fear the arrow is pointing in the wrong direction.

And yeah, this is just one random guy's observation. I guess I've added it because in the past Googlers (and "Google") seem to have occasionally observed and perhaps absorbed some of the collection sentiment expressed on HN.