Google has really taken it on the chops these last few years. I remember back in 2006 or whenever the time was when they were the shiznit, and were easily the most admired company in tech. And I remember thinking, let's see how well it goes when everyone is NOT cheering you on and you have a tailwind in your sails. Google is definitely in that situation now.
Why I Left Google
121–130 of 322 posts
Re: Why I Left Google
#122Larry Page is killing his company to chase after a market that is less profitable that the one he currently owns.
Larry Page, like anybody else with any chops in the business, understands that the internet is about communication, and communication is about identity, data, and a sharing protocol. If Facebook owns those things, they own everything.
As long as all the users are on one identity and sharing platform you can develop all the open social APIs you want but it's totally pointless. We need at least a duopoly and angry users wanting to share with people not on their platform for any kind of standards to emerge.
You're thinking ad money, ad money, ad money. And Microsoft and others are quite happy to feed that theory with there substantial PR budgets and lack of ethics. But I don't think that's what's on Larry's mind. I might not agree with his strategy, or particularly like Google+, but I think if you study the man you would come to the same conclusion.
Re: Why I Left Google
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think giving users a percentage of ad revenue is a feasible business model. How/why would that work?
Shrug I thought I made the case already. If Google makes X on untargeted ads and X+Y on targeted ads then it comes out ahead by offering Y/10 of that money to the user somehow. Yeah it's peanuts so you make it Google Play credit. For some people maybe it's only one song a month, for others it might be one movie a quarter.
Or Google could make a deal with Facebook: If Google makes X without Facebook's data and X+Y with their data, they can offer Facebook Y/3.
Re: Why I Left Google
#124Ouch. Not enough people think about year 10. You know, that's when you're 10 years old as a company and you've got a lot of huge successes behind you. Kind of like teenagers when they realize that finding a job is suddenly not an 'optional' thing in their lives. James' rant here reminded me of a similar rant I read (internally) at Sun on its 10 year anniversary. They had published a book all about Sun's first decade,…
Clayton Christensen's "The Innovator's Dilemma" was motivated by DEC getting killed. He claims that DEC was a victim of a disruption: a new technology that offered something that didn't seem to be a threat, become successful in other markets and eventually improved enough that it was threat - then it was too late. There, the old technology was minicomputers; the new technology was workstations.
The new technology isn't perceived as a threat because it is not as good and will never be as good in the old market. It manages to survive in a different new market (because it really can't compete in the old pond). As it improves, it never catches up with the old technology - but it becomes good enough. That is, the old technology has also improved, and is definitely better - but the old market doesn't care for that extra improvement. You can see there are a few things that have to happen for disruption to occur.
One of the reasons for Google's 20% was to try to prevent this kind of thing, but it never worked out. Some business types redefine terms, so that "invention" is a new technology (make something), and "innovation" is a new business (people want). Google's made a lot of stuff, but most isn't wanted and didn't create a business. They aren't innovations. Closing down businesses that aren't making enough to move the needle is the classic mistake of disrupted businesses: Christensen suggests setting up separate, autonomous business units (even separate businesses; startups), with limited resources, that will get excited by small wins - because new disruptions start small. (YC is pretty much doing it right...)
However, right now, Google is fighting for its life. At the beginning, facebook didn't seem threatening - or at least not that threatening. Then again, I'm not sure that Google ever could win this fight; social is such a different kind of business. Perhaps the best that google could hope for is to settle back into owning search forever.
My only disappointment is that google didn't manage to transform its internal inventions into innovations. I'm not saying it's easy or that I could do better, it's just that unlike winning social, it seems possible... and who knows what new disruptions might have come from that?
As it is, Google seems closer to Xerox: one fantastic invention/business, invents the future, makes no money from it.
Re: Why I Left Google
#125> App Engine fees were raised. APIs that had been free for years were deprecated or provided for a fee. From where I'm sitting Google has been pretty rough on independent developers recently. I think their lack of caring (or understanding?) indy devs is best summed up by the Google+ API. Read-only is understandable as they get off their feet, but you can't even get a user's profile stream (you can only fetch profiles…
The real problem with G+ is that I forgot about it. Facebook nags you with emails every time something happens, but G+ just has a dropdown box that lets me approve friends or not from gmail, and I never see my "wall". If they made me go to the "wall" to approve friends, then I'd see what my few active G+ friends were posting and maybe post something back. I went months without seeing the wall, even though I have close friends who work at Google and post things I'd actually want to read.
Also, the "circles" thing and their change of terminology seems like it's being different for the sake of being different, or to avoid being sued by Facebook or something. Stick to the terminology people know.
G+ should have tried an "import Facebook" feature that takes all your pictures off Facebook and invites your friends to G+. This alone would help me not care about Facebook. I have a ton of pictures on Facebook that I'll never see again if I were to close my account. Facebook might try to block a feature like this, but it's sorely needed to make the transition.
G+ is also a bad name.
Re: Why I Left Google
#126I do miss the old Google. They had some good products. Search was search, and it was clearly designed to provide the very best search possible. Unadulterated and honest. Same story with Gmail, despite the ads. No lock in, no rent-seeking. Too bad, really. The new Google is obnoxious in a "why-are-you-doing-this?", Facebook kind of way.
I would put the difference this way. I used to feel like Google was providing me cool, useful services. Now I feel like Google is trying to figure out ways to collect my data.
I think they will learn to their cost that trust doesn't grow back.
Re: Why I Left Google
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
>But if you're able to get behind Google+ in the first place, and you're able to call a move from Google to Microsoft an improvement, it's a pretty safe bet there isn't an entrepreneurial bone in your body. And it's not as if the guy's a hacker, either. He's some kind of suit, or polo shirt at best. I think it's pretty safe to bet that you don't like MS at all. There is a lot of cool stuff happening there and to pain…
Do you own winsupersite.com or something?
Re: Why I Left Google
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree the responses seem a bit harsh. Also as someone who never worked at Google but has been a pretty big Google "fanboy" (of the search, Google Apps, Android, etc) his waning enthusiasm for the brand as an employee seems to have taken a very similar dip to my waning enthusiasm for them as a user, though due to personal investment his dip was probably faster and deeper than my own. I've loved Google in the past pr…
> trading in their old fans for the hope of new fans that probably aren't interested anyway. 100% agree. Two small decisions that enrage me for some reason: 1. Stealing the "+" operator away from searches 2. Making Google+ a (semi) closed platform - when I see a link on HN and I click through and it wants me to login to my google+ account just to view the article, I rage inside. I always want better search, and I've…
Delete your Google cookies and only log in to Google+ in an Incognito window. Then you won't have the "wants me to login to my google+ account just to view the article" problem ever again.
Re: Why I Left Google
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ten years on, ask yourself, "What value do you bring to the table?" if you don't know, that is a big problem. Is there a reason you shouldn't be asking yourself that after every year you spent at a company?
Oh absolutely but if you've ever gone hiking without a compass you may have experienced the 'many straight segments run you in a circle' kind of effect. Generally for a 'huge' success the first 10 years are just developing potential, there aren't a lot of questions because its 'obvious' where you need to be. But once you get to the top of that mountain, you really need to think long and hard about the next mountain y…
Also, you can do a lot (relative to where you started) in 1 year or 5 (depending on your market), as compared to where you started. 10 years after you start though, you had better have something globally significant to show for it, or you should be doing something different.
Re: Why I Left Google
#130I also miss the old Google. I think it's a mistake to blame this on ads though. I don't believe that the G+ crusade is being driving by advertising (though I'm sure it looks that way to people who assume that everything is about ads).
Really? Please enlighten me, what is Google+ (or Facebook for that matter) about if it isn't about advertising? Because as far as I know, every service that isn't about being so great people would pay for it is about advertising and nothing else.
>what is Google+ (or Facebook for that matter) about if it isn't about advertising?
It's about your identity.
Google has said outright that their plan is to become an identity company. Google already knows everyone's identity (or have at least put extraordinary amounts of effort into probabilistic matching it). They're not going to stand by and let Facebook and Twitter own the login authentication process the same way Google currently owns the website analytics process.
Any user can create a context-specific throwaway identity on the net, and Gmail used to be an easy way to do that. But the identity that's very difficult to throw away is the one you've built connections with in a social network.
This is why they're hell-bent on pushing G+, banning pseudonyms, requiring mobile phone numbers, and merging user tracking data across all of their properties.