Introducing Google Helpouts(googleblog.blogspot.com)
googleblog.blogspot.com
Introducing Google Helpouts
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/introducing-helpouts-help-when-you-need.html
119 comments
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 was launched in a disastrously bad way (closed beta? for a new communication tool meant to replace email?). Then as adoption started to build (but not quick enough to satisfy the political needs of the project), Wave was yanked after just a year.
Google Reader became a cornerstone of the web's infrastructure, a public utility service that cost comparatively little, returned perhaps little other than good will, but ultimately served a purpose for millions of users. But that wasn't enough for Google, so they yanked it.
In both cases, there was no real alternative path offered. Google just made an internal political decision to yank a project, and that's that. The public never even got the option to try and support the project.
Based on the above and other less high-profile examples, I'm not willing to invest my time as an early adopter in a company that has the deep pockets to fund long-shot projects, but doesn't have the balls to follow them through to their exciting conclusions.
Google Wave was a very exciting development with a lot of promise. Google Reader could have been evolved further and become an even more important piece of infrastructure, with all the good will associated with that. Instead, both are now black splotches on Google's reputation, in my view at least.
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 was launched in a disastrously bad way (closed beta? for a new communication tool meant to replace email?). Then as adoption started to build (but not quick enough to satisfy the political needs of the project), Wave was yanked after just a year.
Google Reader became a cornerstone of the web's infrastructure, a public utility service that cost comparatively little, returned perhaps little other than good will, but ultimately served a purpose for millions of users. But that wasn't enough for Google, so they yanked it.
In both cases, there was no real alternative path offered. Google just made an internal political decision to yank a project, and that's that. The public never even got the option to try and support the project.
Based on the above and other less high-profile examples, I'm not willing to invest my time as an early adopter in a company that has the deep pockets to fund long-shot projects, but doesn't have the balls to follow them through to their exciting conclusions.
Google Wave was a very exciting development with a lot of promise. Google Reader could have been evolved further and become an even more important piece of infrastructure, with all the good will associated with that. Instead, both are now black splotches on Google's reputation, in my view at least.
Wave was really laggy and required a special chrome frame plugin to run in IE. It was laggy even in chrome.
Did anyone continue to run with the Google Wave idea? I'd be interested in using a tool like that, it showed a lot of promise.
Apache Wave (I believe the intial code was contributed by Google):
http://incubator.apache.org/wave/source-code.html
I don't think it has gained much traction, though.
I don't think it has gained much traction, though.
Yes, Apache:
http://incubator.apache.org/wave/
http://incubator.apache.org/wave/
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?
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-...
[1] http://www.androidcentral.com/larry-page-15-million-android-...
>> "Several million people who use Android had downloaded Google Reader."
That says nothing about usage though. I downloaded a lot of Google apps when I first got an Android device. Most of them I opened once and never again. I think this experience is common with apps.
That says nothing about usage though. I downloaded a lot of Google apps when I first got an Android device. Most of them I opened once and never again. I think this experience is common with apps.
I used igoogle to load a gmail iframe on my (insanely awesome) custom start page. It really sucks they shut that down.
I was also using the Google Toolbar (do not consume) spelling auto-correct "API". I was doing some really neat stuff with that technology and they shut that down too. Sure, I can't really complain about that one, but the end result is the same...
If you adopt Google technology, prepare for labor intensive migrations, alternative scrambling, and disappointments.
I was also using the Google Toolbar (do not consume) spelling auto-correct "API". I was doing some really neat stuff with that technology and they shut that down too. Sure, I can't really complain about that one, but the end result is the same...
If you adopt Google technology, prepare for labor intensive migrations, alternative scrambling, and disappointments.
FTFY
If you adopt most any new technology, prepare for labor intensive migrations, alternative scrambling, and disappointments.
The world moves fast, products shut down all the time, but Google is high profile and gets lots of complaints... that's fine, I'm OK with them being held to a higher standard, it'll be good for them in the long run. But, I recently hit a problem because Twitter shut down it's 1.0 API. I'm not running around saying don't use Twitter on every article about them.
If you adopt most any new technology, prepare for labor intensive migrations, alternative scrambling, and disappointments.
The world moves fast, products shut down all the time, but Google is high profile and gets lots of complaints... that's fine, I'm OK with them being held to a higher standard, it'll be good for them in the long run. But, I recently hit a problem because Twitter shut down it's 1.0 API. I'm not running around saying don't use Twitter on every article about them.
"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.
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.
Had an initial reaction upon seeing this post and came here to "share" only to find that so many have the same reaction. It just smells like a product that Google will be killing at some point in the not-too-distant future.
I get the whole idea behind the current environment to just throw stuff against the wall, see what sticks, then iterate.
That's great for start-ups, but, I would suggest that it is actually a problem when a well-established company does this repeatedly. In addition to Google just appearing flaky (which in itself is not good), customers do lose faith in the company's commitment to its customers/users and to their products in general.
I get the whole idea behind the current environment to just throw stuff against the wall, see what sticks, then iterate.
That's great for start-ups, but, I would suggest that it is actually a problem when a well-established company does this repeatedly. In addition to Google just appearing flaky (which in itself is not good), customers do lose faith in the company's commitment to its customers/users and to their products in general.
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 services can be so easily closed. Sounds fair to me.
I don't think anyone's forgotten the cost of innovation, they're simply aware that the costs of it are borne by users, not by Google.
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 services can be so easily closed. Sounds fair to me.
I don't think anyone's forgotten the cost of innovation, they're simply aware that the costs of it are borne by users, not by Google.
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
Yeah, Reader was closed just eight years after it launched. I didn't even had time to import all my feeds.
Yeah, Reader was closed just eight years after it launched. I didn't even had time to import all my feeds.
Yeah, Reader was closed just eight years after it launched. I didn't even had time to import all my feeds.
The issue is how easily these services can be closed, not how long they last, in fact if they last longer it's worse for the users involved if they are suddenly shut down. Now free services for life doesn't seem like such a good deal, because the terms are that they owe you nothing and life may equal 2 months, 1 year or 10, it's impossible to know.
I didn't use Reader or participate in the Reader drama and feel it's a bit over-egged, but there is certainly a reputational cost to closing mainstream services or modifying them without consulting those who use them as Apple, FB, MS, Google, Twitter et al do regularly. This doesn't really apply if you have 10 users, but if you have 10 million and an ecosystem it can become important.
Building on top of these platforms like FB or G+ is in my opinion very risk for other businesses, so depending on something like helpouts is a huge risk for the people who might use it to actually sell/provide services and build a reputation, but very little short-term risk for Google.
The issue is how easily these services can be closed, not how long they last, in fact if they last longer it's worse for the users involved if they are suddenly shut down. Now free services for life doesn't seem like such a good deal, because the terms are that they owe you nothing and life may equal 2 months, 1 year or 10, it's impossible to know.
I didn't use Reader or participate in the Reader drama and feel it's a bit over-egged, but there is certainly a reputational cost to closing mainstream services or modifying them without consulting those who use them as Apple, FB, MS, Google, Twitter et al do regularly. This doesn't really apply if you have 10 users, but if you have 10 million and an ecosystem it can become important.
Building on top of these platforms like FB or G+ is in my opinion very risk for other businesses, so depending on something like helpouts is a huge risk for the people who might use it to actually sell/provide services and build a reputation, but very little short-term risk for Google.
>Building on top of these platforms [...]
Relying on an other business (platform, as a customer, [...]) for more than 25% (33, 50 your call)of your revenue is risky no matter the industry.
Relying a 100% is stupid.
Relying on an other business (platform, as a customer, [...]) for more than 25% (33, 50 your call)of your revenue is risky no matter the industry.
Relying a 100% is stupid.
Relying... 100% is stupid.
And yet this is what FaceBook, Twitter, Google, Apple and many other web and OS corporations are encouraging people to do - build on top of their platform (be that FB apps, Twitter API, iOS/Android apps or web apps relying on a single-signon). They all want to own the platform which everyone builds and consumes on, and turn everyone else into sharecroppers.
With this particular service, it might be really great for connecting people to provide each other services, but as it also relies on Google+ (which, for example, people have been arbitrarily shut out of), and is provided by Google of Reader infame, is it worth an investment of time or resources? Perhaps as an adjunct to other services, but I'd be wary of depending on it in any meaningful way, as you say.
That may sound like common sense, but see the examples given above of platforms which try to push both consumers and developers into reliance on one tech company for essential parts of their online identity (professional and personal).
And yet this is what FaceBook, Twitter, Google, Apple and many other web and OS corporations are encouraging people to do - build on top of their platform (be that FB apps, Twitter API, iOS/Android apps or web apps relying on a single-signon). They all want to own the platform which everyone builds and consumes on, and turn everyone else into sharecroppers.
With this particular service, it might be really great for connecting people to provide each other services, but as it also relies on Google+ (which, for example, people have been arbitrarily shut out of), and is provided by Google of Reader infame, is it worth an investment of time or resources? Perhaps as an adjunct to other services, but I'd be wary of depending on it in any meaningful way, as you say.
That may sound like common sense, but see the examples given above of platforms which try to push both consumers and developers into reliance on one tech company for essential parts of their online identity (professional and personal).
[deleted]
I'm glad I was able to use it for those 8 years. Not bad for a free service.
> 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 Reader was a service more than it was an application.
So all the other rules that apply to services apply here as well. The commercial entity behind it can simply decide to end it -- just like a restaurant can decide to stop doing deliveries for whatever reason, including the manager simply not wanting to do it anymore.
This isn't a disaster to anyone. It can be quickly turned into a disaster if you start basing your whole business model on it. Like when you decide to start a food delivery business that receives orders for restaurants that don't do home deliveries, but you only take orders for one restaurant and as soon as that closes, you're out.
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 Reader was a service more than it was an application.
So all the other rules that apply to services apply here as well. The commercial entity behind it can simply decide to end it -- just like a restaurant can decide to stop doing deliveries for whatever reason, including the manager simply not wanting to do it anymore.
This isn't a disaster to anyone. It can be quickly turned into a disaster if you start basing your whole business model on it. Like when you decide to start a food delivery business that receives orders for restaurants that don't do home deliveries, but you only take orders for one restaurant and as soon as that closes, you're out.
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.
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.
> 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 promises as mostly a chance to tear them down from their dominant positions.)
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 promises as mostly a chance to tear them down from their dominant positions.)
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.
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.
Part of the problem is also in the way that Google kills things. They generally don't attempt to sell it, open it up, or spin it off, etc. You just wake up one day and it's dead (or announced as soon-to-be so).
Another example is their Google Affiliate Network, a product they acquired as part of their ValueClick acquisition. There were tons of businesses using it on both the advertiser and affiliate sides. This usage included heavy integrations, reporting, API access, product catalogs, etc. They suddenly announced that they were killing it within a couple of months.
There was no attempt to sell it, assist customers with migration, or otherwise provide some continuity for customers. Google seems to have no sense of responsibility that people and businesses are depending on their services. Their M.O. is to just get people to "invest" in Google products/services and entrust their own businesses to Google, then pull the rug from under them when it no longer suits Google.
It's a problem, and the reputation they are receiving is well-earned.
Another example is their Google Affiliate Network, a product they acquired as part of their ValueClick acquisition. There were tons of businesses using it on both the advertiser and affiliate sides. This usage included heavy integrations, reporting, API access, product catalogs, etc. They suddenly announced that they were killing it within a couple of months.
There was no attempt to sell it, assist customers with migration, or otherwise provide some continuity for customers. Google seems to have no sense of responsibility that people and businesses are depending on their services. Their M.O. is to just get people to "invest" in Google products/services and entrust their own businesses to Google, then pull the rug from under them when it no longer suits Google.
It's a problem, and the reputation they are receiving is well-earned.
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.
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.
This would help with the times I've just wanted to ask someone "so, does this shirt actually go with these pants, or am I totally crazy?"
All joking aside, this could be interesting. It makes me think of that service that existed for a while where you could ask a question of a topic area, and it would send an IM to people and ask them to answer it. I forget what it was called, but I used it for a little while.
The payment/HIPAA compliance aspect are pretty interesting, too. I would easily throw $50 at a 10 minute consult with a doctor instead of having to make an appointment and haul myself in to the local clinic. Particularly if said doctor could then fax a prescription for something completely boring but still not OTC to my local pharmacy.
All joking aside, this could be interesting. It makes me think of that service that existed for a while where you could ask a question of a topic area, and it would send an IM to people and ask them to answer it. I forget what it was called, but I used it for a little while.
The payment/HIPAA compliance aspect are pretty interesting, too. I would easily throw $50 at a 10 minute consult with a doctor instead of having to make an appointment and haul myself in to the local clinic. Particularly if said doctor could then fax a prescription for something completely boring but still not OTC to my local pharmacy.
Are you thinking of Aardvark? I think Google bought that a while back and then discontinued it.
Said doctor should come to you, as is customary in many countries. Instead, in the US you have to drag your sick self in to see a physician. And pay a boatload for a 5 minute consult; ridiculous.
While I'm by no means a fan of the US health care system, it seems pretty wasteful for high-value doctors to be wasting their precious time travelling to see patients.
Perhaps videoconferencing could be a good option for simple cases (viagra, sleeping pills) while a medical pick-up system could be instituted for patients requiring in-person consultations, but lacking mobility or the urgency required for an ambulance.
Perhaps videoconferencing could be a good option for simple cases (viagra, sleeping pills) while a medical pick-up system could be instituted for patients requiring in-person consultations, but lacking mobility or the urgency required for an ambulance.
It's usually not "high-value doctors".
Here in Uruguay, the lowest rung of doctors (which are the ones you get on call) are paid about U$ 1500/month. And they did at least 7 years of studies (which are tuition-free in Uruguay).
A lot of them are emigrating to Brazil of course.
Here in Uruguay, the lowest rung of doctors (which are the ones you get on call) are paid about U$ 1500/month. And they did at least 7 years of studies (which are tuition-free in Uruguay).
A lot of them are emigrating to Brazil of course.
> 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.
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.
>I would easily throw $50 at a 10 minute consult with a doctor instead of having to make an appointment and haul myself in to the local clinic.
I remember hearing an NPR report recently about some doctors running their private practice similar to that. They were basically operating on a subscription model - they would come see you if needed, but for quick consults and the like, they'd do things like Skype calls to talk with their patients. Struck me as a very interesting idea.
EDIT:
This isn't the report I'm thinking of, but it's very similar:
http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-virtual-urgent-care-the-...
This is for urgent care, but as I said above, I've heard similar reports about private practices working this way.
I remember hearing an NPR report recently about some doctors running their private practice similar to that. They were basically operating on a subscription model - they would come see you if needed, but for quick consults and the like, they'd do things like Skype calls to talk with their patients. Struck me as a very interesting idea.
EDIT:
This isn't the report I'm thinking of, but it's very similar:
http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-virtual-urgent-care-the-...
This is for urgent care, but as I said above, I've heard similar reports about private practices working this way.
You should consider http://coinmd.org then. They're cheaper and seem to give really good advice so far. It's anonymous for doctors though, so of course, there's a risk in that. However, I read through their faq and find their policy of selecting and working with doctors quite convincing.
There are other services like that. I think JustAnswer is one of them.
Wizpert (http://wizpert.com) is one as well.
An interesting new avenue for Google, where the results and satisfaction are entirely subjective, according to perception of the customer.
With search results or Gmail they can hand-wave away dis-satisfaction my saying the 99th percentile are happy, but this is one-on-one. I can see the Money Back Guarantee being quite a support burden.
But why are Google doing this? It's not really "organizing the World's information" because it keeps knowledge compartmentalised in the 'experts'.
With search results or Gmail they can hand-wave away dis-satisfaction my saying the 99th percentile are happy, but this is one-on-one. I can see the Money Back Guarantee being quite a support burden.
But why are Google doing this? It's not really "organizing the World's information" because it keeps knowledge compartmentalised in the 'experts'.
Agreed. It may be useful but I don't see how it fits Google's overall mission; Google Answers were more relevant and they killed it (a long time ago).
Maybe the strategy is to eventually make sessions public? which would actually add value for the community.
Or it's a cheap ploy to get people to use Google+ (and if so, good luck with that).
Maybe the strategy is to eventually make sessions public? which would actually add value for the community.
Or it's a cheap ploy to get people to use Google+ (and if so, good luck with that).
"Google Answers were more relevant and they killed it (a long time ago)."
Oh I had quite forgotten about that! Good point.
See how things used to look :)
http://answers.google.com/answers/
At least with Google Answers the information was public.
Oh I had quite forgotten about that! Good point.
See how things used to look :)
http://answers.google.com/answers/
At least with Google Answers the information was public.
This is the core concept of organizing the world's information. If you think otherwise, you don't realize that the majority of the world's information is held by individuals for brief periods of time and specific to its application. The generalized consensus has already been archived, but insights into emergent things that come up in life have not. Connecting people with each other to give advice about situations that can't be predicted but can be categorized is the next step.
> Or it's a cheap ploy to get people to use Google+
Everything Google's done lately has been about Google+
Everything Google's done lately has been about Google+
it is helping to make information universally accessible, which is part of the company's mission. lots of information cannot get organized yet because it's still contained inside people's minds. if you see each individual as an information source -- much like a website -- then helpouts is organizing the information by lumping the sources into well-defined categories and showing when that "information" is available as well as its quality.
>Today, we’re announcing Helpouts—a new way to get and give help over live video.
I'm confused, hasn't this existed for months? Here is an earlier HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6248771
I'm confused, hasn't this existed for months? Here is an earlier HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6248771
[deleted]
This is the public release.
It still asks for invitation code. I think its not fully open yet!
Am I the only one that doesn't understand all the google hate? (about discontinuing a few of their products)
Many people were of the belief that Google was primarily motivated to be good[1] and bring benefits to the internet and if they made some money for shareholders that would be nice too[2]. They were (and still are) massively trusted.
Closing down services and increasing the ad prominence in search, turning into the big bureaucratic bully rather than the small snappy startup has come as a nasty shock to a number of people and they then feel betrayed and angry at Google. It is precisely those who trusted them most who are most angry.
The irrational love has now flipped (for many not all) into irrational hate (to use your word).
Those on the sidelines who never trusted Google enough to look after their mail might find both the love and the hatred overblown but many people feel heavily dependent on Google with Android phones, Gmail accounts and using Google Docs heavily. They worry not just about the current situation but what might come next.
[1] "don't be evil"
[2] I seem to recall the IPO prospectus didn't make shareholder returns seem a very high priority.
Closing down services and increasing the ad prominence in search, turning into the big bureaucratic bully rather than the small snappy startup has come as a nasty shock to a number of people and they then feel betrayed and angry at Google. It is precisely those who trusted them most who are most angry.
The irrational love has now flipped (for many not all) into irrational hate (to use your word).
Those on the sidelines who never trusted Google enough to look after their mail might find both the love and the hatred overblown but many people feel heavily dependent on Google with Android phones, Gmail accounts and using Google Docs heavily. They worry not just about the current situation but what might come next.
[1] "don't be evil"
[2] I seem to recall the IPO prospectus didn't make shareholder returns seem a very high priority.
I find it ridiculous too. Just take it as a cute HN excentricity.
It's just the vocal minority. Don't fuel the trolls.
could possibly be 'paid contributors' from MS funded marketing agencies (scroogled campaign). Paying for social media influence is a real thing.
Yes.
This could be a great way to monetize skills.
Youtube channel with tutorials, how-to's etc. to build up your credibility.
Google Helpouts to help people directly when they want to go beyond the tutorials or get that little extra.
Youtube channel with tutorials, how-to's etc. to build up your credibility.
Google Helpouts to help people directly when they want to go beyond the tutorials or get that little extra.
Remarkably similar to sites like https://clarity.fm/home and https://www.popexpert.com/
This feels like "online tutoring to me". And as far as tutoring goes, I feel like most of the time it's better to automate it. Like using treehouse instead of getting a programming tutor.
I could see some situations where it'd be useful though.
- If you have a quick question and are really frustrated and are willing to pay.
- Sometimes you care a lot or have a lot of money, and are willing to get a tutor.
- Some things (like doctor appointments) might be better served online than in person.
I could see some situations where it'd be useful though.
- If you have a quick question and are really frustrated and are willing to pay.
- Sometimes you care a lot or have a lot of money, and are willing to get a tutor.
- Some things (like doctor appointments) might be better served online than in person.
Yep, they're targeting tutors. They contacted me (SAT Tutor) and got me to signup. I haven't completed the registration yet as they want me to schedule a phone interview with them and I don't see how it can help me yet.
For anyone interested in a tech specific version of this there is a site http://anyfu.com/ (I'm a fan but not associated).
I believe this model for connecting people for very brief engagements over the internet is an interesting one. With the educational model being pushed by companies like Coursera I could see something like this becoming popular for access to tutors or even peers studying the same subject. For quick help solving a problem there is obviously a problem of getting to sufficient scale in a 2-sided market place. Perhaps google will achieve that. I suppose the risk is becoming the yahoo answers or the expersexchange of the space.
I believe this model for connecting people for very brief engagements over the internet is an interesting one. With the educational model being pushed by companies like Coursera I could see something like this becoming popular for access to tutors or even peers studying the same subject. For quick help solving a problem there is obviously a problem of getting to sufficient scale in a 2-sided market place. Perhaps google will achieve that. I suppose the risk is becoming the yahoo answers or the expersexchange of the space.
My initial reaction is "cool, but I won't use it as it'll be shutdown soon enough". I wonder if enough people avoid new Google products due to shutdown fears so it leads to a product ultimately being shutdown due to neglect.
A bit of a vicious cycle.
A bit of a vicious cycle.
>> "My initial reaction is "cool, but I won't use it as it'll be shutdown soon enough"."
Why? It's not like you have to invest anything into the service (building a network, creating a profile etc.etc.) and it doesn't seem like a tool that is meant to become part of your workflow (e.g. reader). Also, if Helpouts goes away these 'experts' will still be available somewhere - you could schedule appointments directly.
Why? It's not like you have to invest anything into the service (building a network, creating a profile etc.etc.) and it doesn't seem like a tool that is meant to become part of your workflow (e.g. reader). Also, if Helpouts goes away these 'experts' will still be available somewhere - you could schedule appointments directly.
> I wonder if enough people avoid new Google products due to shutdown fears [...]
I doubt it. That attitude is mostly a HN/geek thing. I like that they're willing to try things and test for viability in the real world. I'd rather have something and for it go away than to never have it at all. (And yes, I do understand the frustrations with Reader but I wouldn't go back in time and never use it from the start)
I doubt it. That attitude is mostly a HN/geek thing. I like that they're willing to try things and test for viability in the real world. I'd rather have something and for it go away than to never have it at all. (And yes, I do understand the frustrations with Reader but I wouldn't go back in time and never use it from the start)
This wasn't about Reader specifically. Google has shutdown a lot of products. The latest being Google Checkout, which makes people nervous of building their business on Google's software. Since this service is paid, I could be netting a lot of money through it, only for it to fizzle out.
> Since this service is paid, I could be netting a lot of money through it, only for it to fizzle out.
But that's true of any service from any company. If I'm a stay-at-home mom making some extra cash on Helpouts, I have a very different risk profile than a doctor who closes down his practice to see patients exclusively through Helpouts. The stay-at-home mom might not be happy about a shutdown but she still "[netted] a lot of money" whereas the doctor might have destroyed his/her career. Every individual/company needs to assess their own risk and take the appropriate risk-mitigating actions.
The point I'm making is that the damages from a Google service shutdown are typically very low or easily mitigated (Google Checkout being no exception) and every service should be evaluated on an individual basis with your risk profile. If the value you are getting from any service is lower than the damages that would result from a shutdown, don't put all of your eggs in that basket; if you do anyway, get some contractual guarantees and be confident that they will be fulfilled.
But that's true of any service from any company. If I'm a stay-at-home mom making some extra cash on Helpouts, I have a very different risk profile than a doctor who closes down his practice to see patients exclusively through Helpouts. The stay-at-home mom might not be happy about a shutdown but she still "[netted] a lot of money" whereas the doctor might have destroyed his/her career. Every individual/company needs to assess their own risk and take the appropriate risk-mitigating actions.
The point I'm making is that the damages from a Google service shutdown are typically very low or easily mitigated (Google Checkout being no exception) and every service should be evaluated on an individual basis with your risk profile. If the value you are getting from any service is lower than the damages that would result from a shutdown, don't put all of your eggs in that basket; if you do anyway, get some contractual guarantees and be confident that they will be fulfilled.
> get some contractual guarantees and be confident that they fill be fulfilled.
In that case, no services that Google offers should be used. They don’t give any guarantees, not even to their paying customers.
In that case, no services that Google offers should be used. They don’t give any guarantees, not even to their paying customers.
They have deprecation policies in at least some cases. They may not be unconditional guarantees but they're still just risk factors to be evaluated individually. I have no problem with the risk averse avoiding any services for their own reasons but it's gone beyond that in many cases here on HN to pure FUD. In any case, you've taken that clause out of context.
Yeah, Google Checkout only lasted seven years. I could barely make an account, and it was closed!
Think about it: most Google users did not even use Google Reader. So: no, this does not happen in "real life", just in geek circles.
The idea of a marketplace for experts is intriguing. I can't imagine this will ever work well, though.
- Google is presently curating this list, approving everyone who would be a provider. This is fine for launch, but this obviously needs to scale.
- From a functional standpoint, this is the Human App Store. How do I, the provider, promote myself among thousands of search results for underwater-basket-weaving experts?
- Race to the bottom: I don't associate Google with any sort of premium pricing model. If I think my services are worth more than the low-cost providers, but I'm one of a thousand providers, am I going to have to go the only other route Google tends to provide -- paid advertising placement?
The idea is interesting, but I don't think Google will ever position it to be helpful to anyone but users and themselves.
- Google is presently curating this list, approving everyone who would be a provider. This is fine for launch, but this obviously needs to scale.
- From a functional standpoint, this is the Human App Store. How do I, the provider, promote myself among thousands of search results for underwater-basket-weaving experts?
- Race to the bottom: I don't associate Google with any sort of premium pricing model. If I think my services are worth more than the low-cost providers, but I'm one of a thousand providers, am I going to have to go the only other route Google tends to provide -- paid advertising placement?
The idea is interesting, but I don't think Google will ever position it to be helpful to anyone but users and themselves.
So this is a solution to the "problem" of people looking up how to do something on youtube, now you can ask an expert and get detailed two-way feedback.
This will fail. Why? Because the financial incentives of the helper are set up wrong, "paid by the minute" will reward slow talkers and slow help. This will make customers unhappy and customers will choose help from cheaper, faster sources.
The DYI video success will be better the shorter and better the video is, and I'd rather pay-per-video. If I wanted to talk to a human, there are millions nearby in the city. A DYI video can explain in 2-3 minutes what will take a human 60 minutes in a meeting including greetings and other social fluff.
The DYI video success will be better the shorter and better the video is, and I'd rather pay-per-video. If I wanted to talk to a human, there are millions nearby in the city. A DYI video can explain in 2-3 minutes what will take a human 60 minutes in a meeting including greetings and other social fluff.
> Because the financial incentives of the helper are set up wrong, "paid by the minute" will reward slow talkers and slow help.
Most of the listings are listed with either the form "$X per Helpout" or "$X per Helpout or $Y per minute". So, it doesn't look like paid by the minute is either the only supported or even the dominant model. So this objection seems misplaced.
> The DYI video success will be better the shorter and better the video is, and I'd rather pay-per-video.
Canned DIY videos are widely available, and serve a different need that person-to-person consultation.
> If I wanted to talk to a human, there are millions nearby in the city.
Not everyone lives in or near a city with millions of people. And not all those millions in the city are experts in the field that you are concerned about.
> A DYI video can explain in 2-3 minutes what will take a human 60 minutes in a meeting including greetings and other social fluff.
Sure, if there is a specific enough DIY video, that may be the case. OTOH, finding a specific-enough DIY video for a particular need can be a hassle, and in many cases of not particularly common specific needs may not be practical.
(Plus, its quite possible for the experts that do Helpouts to do DIY videos, and to identify good opportunities for DIY videos from what questions they get through Helpouts. Its not a one-way communication.)
Most of the listings are listed with either the form "$X per Helpout" or "$X per Helpout or $Y per minute". So, it doesn't look like paid by the minute is either the only supported or even the dominant model. So this objection seems misplaced.
> The DYI video success will be better the shorter and better the video is, and I'd rather pay-per-video.
Canned DIY videos are widely available, and serve a different need that person-to-person consultation.
> If I wanted to talk to a human, there are millions nearby in the city.
Not everyone lives in or near a city with millions of people. And not all those millions in the city are experts in the field that you are concerned about.
> A DYI video can explain in 2-3 minutes what will take a human 60 minutes in a meeting including greetings and other social fluff.
Sure, if there is a specific enough DIY video, that may be the case. OTOH, finding a specific-enough DIY video for a particular need can be a hassle, and in many cases of not particularly common specific needs may not be practical.
(Plus, its quite possible for the experts that do Helpouts to do DIY videos, and to identify good opportunities for DIY videos from what questions they get through Helpouts. Its not a one-way communication.)
Looks good but just not something that fits Google's DNA. A smaller & hungrier startup could have been a better place for this kind of marketplace
I agree, if nothing else because it'll probably need support to work properly, and calling Google's support non-existent would be an understatement.
It's interesting that Google seems to be moving into the freelance space. I wonder if they're going to stay in the limited fashion, or expand to go after Odesk etc.
Personally I really love this idea, but isn't anyone else seriously concerned that Google is taking over the whole `World's Information Economy`?
I think BuyOuts should be regulated, this could help the whole industry and econmy. Google should probably be fined with multi billion penalties for using their monopoly power.
-- IMHO: (Services stealing the market of businesses, who lost their job or company should be paid their loss. Services not focusing on their main product should be forced to get closed, or get opened up to the public. I know this is very harsh and I don't think that all of this is necessary or should really be done, but someone has to stop Google from acting so dominantly and strategically. They're aiming for world leadership, nothing less and are killing every enemy sector, one by one. This is not a paranoid act of me to boycott Google. I use their services every day. But I don't want them to kill every other sector, just because they're not innovating as fast as Google can (by forcing innovators to a BuyOut with millon/billion dollor offers).)
I think BuyOuts should be regulated, this could help the whole industry and econmy. Google should probably be fined with multi billion penalties for using their monopoly power.
• ISP's with Google Fiber
• PayPal and Banking Industry → Google Wallet + Google Checkout
• Automobile Industry → Google Car
• TelCo's → Android+Nexus (a google plan soon?)
• Small Businesses in "successfull niche sectors" → BuyOuts
• RIAA, Music and Video Industry → Google Play
• Energy Industry → "Energy startup" BuyOuts
• Spy Agencies → =sumOf(Google Products)
• …And even more that I've not listed, or that is to come…
-- IMHO: (Services stealing the market of businesses, who lost their job or company should be paid their loss. Services not focusing on their main product should be forced to get closed, or get opened up to the public. I know this is very harsh and I don't think that all of this is necessary or should really be done, but someone has to stop Google from acting so dominantly and strategically. They're aiming for world leadership, nothing less and are killing every enemy sector, one by one. This is not a paranoid act of me to boycott Google. I use their services every day. But I don't want them to kill every other sector, just because they're not innovating as fast as Google can (by forcing innovators to a BuyOut with millon/billion dollor offers).)
Shameless plug, but if you want to try out a Helpout, or learn a little Android development, you can check out my listing here:
https://helpouts.google.com/114052868601022948953/ls/a65184a...
https://helpouts.google.com/114052868601022948953/ls/a65184a...
I wonder if there's something in this that could be used to provide extra income to open source contributors.
I'd be interested to see GitHub experiment with providing their own service like this for the open source projects it hosts.
A project could designate certain contributors as experts and say you're having a problem with that project, you could talk with an expert via GitHub, for a per-minute fee, with an optional minimum of 15 minutes (for example).
I'd guess it'd be more likely to succeed by being right there integrated in GitHub's UI, rather than shoehorning just a link to Google Helpouts or another service into a project's README.
I'd be interested to see GitHub experiment with providing their own service like this for the open source projects it hosts.
A project could designate certain contributors as experts and say you're having a problem with that project, you could talk with an expert via GitHub, for a per-minute fee, with an optional minimum of 15 minutes (for example).
I'd guess it'd be more likely to succeed by being right there integrated in GitHub's UI, rather than shoehorning just a link to Google Helpouts or another service into a project's README.
At this point I don't even know what will convince me that stuff like this that Google releases isn't yet another dead-in-a-year product. We've seen a number of great service being killed just in the past few months alone. What makes this any different?
My only advice to kids is: don't make this something you depend on. Remember if you aren't paying for it, you're the product, and Google could care less about you and your silly needs when it comes time for some Spring Cleaning™.
My only advice to kids is: don't make this something you depend on. Remember if you aren't paying for it, you're the product, and Google could care less about you and your silly needs when it comes time for some Spring Cleaning™.
You may think that you're blowing peoples' minds with that "you're the product" line - but if you're literally selling your skills then that is the whole point - it's a positive!
Oh please drop this "Oh Google killed Reader" drama already.
If you are interested in this use it. Engage as a user first if you do not trust. This is not a life and death application anyway (Reader or many of the dead services were not either). Products may or may not live they need to see if this will float or sink.
The comments here show an interesting legacy that Google is developing. The lack of durability in its products.
I think the helpout concept is great, although only a small step up from the fact that for many things there is a youtube video it seems explaining how to do something. But it could be killer in education, specifically is MOOCs are the new college, what is the new TA? This could work there.
I think the helpout concept is great, although only a small step up from the fact that for many things there is a youtube video it seems explaining how to do something. But it could be killer in education, specifically is MOOCs are the new college, what is the new TA? This could work there.
I signed up in the beta, mainly to learn how Google is approaching this. Observations:
+ High degree of curation and investment in quality + High investment of people to achieve the above
For example, I did a live video interview with a knowledgeable Google rep and she had several recommendations. About a week later, my submission was reviewed again, with even more (good) recommendations.
+ High degree of curation and investment in quality + High investment of people to achieve the above
For example, I did a live video interview with a knowledgeable Google rep and she had several recommendations. About a week later, my submission was reviewed again, with even more (good) recommendations.
Anybody looked at the pricing of some of the services offered - e.g. end user:
help with your printer - $45 per help - $2 per minute (guess that will always be more than the printer was actually retailing for)
General computer help $10 (per incident) $2 per minute
maybe contact your printer / computer support team first - many today have online / real-time chat features now for free.
help with your printer - $45 per help - $2 per minute (guess that will always be more than the printer was actually retailing for)
General computer help $10 (per incident) $2 per minute
maybe contact your printer / computer support team first - many today have online / real-time chat features now for free.
Interesting product. As others have pointed out, there are a number of similar services, many of them vertically-focused.
Google says it's starting small, but Helpouts is already quite broad. Covering lots of subjects won't be such a problem if Google leverages search and YouTube to promote relevant providers, but I'm not sure it will.
Google says it's starting small, but Helpouts is already quite broad. Covering lots of subjects won't be such a problem if Google leverages search and YouTube to promote relevant providers, but I'm not sure it will.
Can someone explain to me what's the difference between this and a skype/FaceTime session? Because I am confused.
It is a 3rd party arranged video chat between strangers intended to fulfill a specified purpose, involving a payment and reputation system.
How is that different than a skype/FaceTime session? The video interaction part is likely similar. But a mere video chat session is a much more general idea than this specific use of video chat.
How is that different than a skype/FaceTime session? The video interaction part is likely similar. But a mere video chat session is a much more general idea than this specific use of video chat.
[deleted]
My take on this is that Google is using Helpouts to figure out - what are the queries people cannot use Google for.
It's almost as if Google answers has been somewhat resurrected. Definitely keeping an eye on this.
wonder if this will get integrated into google search results as a way to help users with subjective questions not well addressed by google search ... e.g., search for "best way to bake a cake" and see as an option the ability to chat with an expert live.
Google's biggest enemy will continue to be themselves. If they are unable to promote and market this save for a few blog postings (as is their want to so often do) then it will die on the vine...just like so many other projects of theirs they can.
I wonder if this uses WebRTC. Or regardless maybe I should make a clone using WebRTC.
Makes perfect sense to piggyback on the success of DIY/how-to guides on YouTube, but that said, I have idea whether it's going to catch on.
Clearly Google should try this out either way.
Clearly Google should try this out either way.
So what technologies is this using for streaming etc..
My guess would be WebRTC or whatever it is google hangouts use at the moment.
Skype used to have something like this in 2006-ish...
The only way I would consider using this service is if Google started advertising paid support of their own products on it.
Feels less Odesk, more Clarity.fm to me
interesting, we'll see if consumers pick this up. I personally just think it is somehow another way to funnel people into G+.
Sidenote: 71 indexed pages site:helpouts.google.com thusfar.
Sidenote: 71 indexed pages site:helpouts.google.com thusfar.
This is obviously a Google's version of Mechanical Turk
Is this some way of popularizing hangouts?
My kneejerk reaction is to wonder when this will go the way of Google Wave and Google Reader.
Exactly.
Mine was, "Cool; how long's this one gonna last?" It seems like a neat idea, but I bet the novelty is going to wear off pretty quickly.
Mine was, "Cool; how long's this one gonna last?" It seems like a neat idea, but I bet the novelty is going to wear off pretty quickly.
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.
If you think it's interesting, better go ahead and use it now then. Otherwise, if it's canceled, you'll never even know if you would have been missing it.
Google is a company that is constantly experimenting with new products and services. Yes, some of them will fail. That's the cost of innovation. It's really sad we've forgotten that. Failure is an acceptable risk to move forward. If you're risk averse, leave the opportunity to others to jump in and place their bets if Helpouts is a winning platform for them.