Google suffers from a digital petro curse(world.hey.com)
world.hey.com
Google suffers from a digital petro curse
https://world.hey.com/dhh/google-suffers-from-a-digital-petro-curse-908e919a
147 comments
> Super smart view. What's worse is when google (or other FAANGs) gets into a new product area, it in-effect suppresses development in the marketplace because very few people are brave/stupid enough to challenge a trillion dollar behemoth.
Is that actually true though? Googles forays into many markets were usually so horrible and clumsy that better companies could just use the media attention garnered to push their superior products.
Most Google beta products usually lack fundamental features, are geoblocked and completely ignore user voice. I haven't seen many of them really thrive over their better managed competition.
Is that actually true though? Googles forays into many markets were usually so horrible and clumsy that better companies could just use the media attention garnered to push their superior products.
Most Google beta products usually lack fundamental features, are geoblocked and completely ignore user voice. I haven't seen many of them really thrive over their better managed competition.
I think it's possible for both statements to be true at the same time.
A small company with a successful, functioning project is getting a little bit of traction when Google crashes into the market. Google bids up staff costs, uses free advertising to get customer mindshare, scares off the small company's possible investors, and acts as a huge distraction.
After stumbling around for a while, Google gives up, but in the meantime, they've put the small company out of business.
Of course, the small company might get extra attention which they can use to their advantage, but it will be hard.
A small company with a successful, functioning project is getting a little bit of traction when Google crashes into the market. Google bids up staff costs, uses free advertising to get customer mindshare, scares off the small company's possible investors, and acts as a huge distraction.
After stumbling around for a while, Google gives up, but in the meantime, they've put the small company out of business.
Of course, the small company might get extra attention which they can use to their advantage, but it will be hard.
They also don’t always leave the market otherwise. When they shut down Reader there was an opportunity for their competitors except that their exit told everyone that feeds were dead and you needed to jump onto Google+ (their poorly considered plan) or Facebook (anyone seeing what Google was afraid of).
Depending on the market and the company’s resources that kind of image shift can have a big effect.
Depending on the market and the company’s resources that kind of image shift can have a big effect.
I am sure not everyone agrees with me, but I believe Google single-handedly killed RSS by first creating Google Reader and using their power to make it ubiquitous and then killing it when there was no competition left.
There was never as many options as today for reading RSS before Google Reader went away. Killing it opened the market and we got innovation.
I don't believe it's entirely google's "fault" for the downfall of RSS.
Websites tend to not like to have RSS support due to it directing traffic away, and thus, denying ad revenue. It also allows easier aggregation from competitors/third-parties, which also denies ad revenue. Therefore, RSS is, at most, implemented as a short excerpt, with the intention to direct the user to visit the website.
Websites tend to not like to have RSS support due to it directing traffic away, and thus, denying ad revenue. It also allows easier aggregation from competitors/third-parties, which also denies ad revenue. Therefore, RSS is, at most, implemented as a short excerpt, with the intention to direct the user to visit the website.
Don't forget about removing native RSS support from their browser. Combined with the knock on effects of other browsers removing support "because Google did it" or "because Google Reader is the de-facto RSS reader" hurt RSS even more.
I am not sure where this "RSS is dead" keeps coming from, but I still use it quite happily every day.
For sites that offer it, sure. I use it frequently with podcasts too.
But the number of sites, and the easy availability of readers for it (it was built into all of the major browsers at one point), have both decreased dramatically since the early naughts. If 10% of sites offer RSS feeds, I'd personally be quite surprised.
But the number of sites, and the easy availability of readers for it (it was built into all of the major browsers at one point), have both decreased dramatically since the early naughts. If 10% of sites offer RSS feeds, I'd personally be quite surprised.
I know there are alternatives, but Google Reader just worked for me and I'm still, to this day yet, quite salty that they killed it.
I think the concern is best understood with products like Chrome, AMP, and Android, not these ephemeral ventures Google typically likes to do.
There's only a few areas where Google really was a threat to early-stage startups.
The things they're great at by simply being such a behemoth with a ton of infrastructure willing to give away a lot for free or where their AI expertise comes in handy.
Search, obviously. The ads network. Competitors for Gmail are way smaller but they exist, since you don't need network effect, thankfully. Google Photos – I knew a startup that was developing a similar product for a year and then Photos launches and they decided to give up, because they couldn't match the free tier or provide enough justification for a paid product. Of course you need to be giant to take a shot at something like Stadia.
But you can compete with almost everything else. Notion, Airtable and Coda are fine, even though it'd be smart for Google to finally add a new, more modern product to Workplace. Google Tasks hasn't killed a single task manager. Google+ killed neither Facebook nor Snapchat.
Just read some stories from the founder of Waze: https://marker.medium.com/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-star...
The things they're great at by simply being such a behemoth with a ton of infrastructure willing to give away a lot for free or where their AI expertise comes in handy.
Search, obviously. The ads network. Competitors for Gmail are way smaller but they exist, since you don't need network effect, thankfully. Google Photos – I knew a startup that was developing a similar product for a year and then Photos launches and they decided to give up, because they couldn't match the free tier or provide enough justification for a paid product. Of course you need to be giant to take a shot at something like Stadia.
But you can compete with almost everything else. Notion, Airtable and Coda are fine, even though it'd be smart for Google to finally add a new, more modern product to Workplace. Google Tasks hasn't killed a single task manager. Google+ killed neither Facebook nor Snapchat.
Just read some stories from the founder of Waze: https://marker.medium.com/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-star...
> Move everything new into Ventures and whatever products survive on their own should be taken public in the markets and vertically dis-integrated from advertising and search
This would severely dilute their brand though. All of these tech companies are implicitly promising unknown future magic through the power of technology, eventually. If Google admits that the peak of their business has come and they are now a boring mature company ("nothing but rabbits come out of the hat"), I can't see their stonk price nor their mindshare with early adopters doing well.
This would severely dilute their brand though. All of these tech companies are implicitly promising unknown future magic through the power of technology, eventually. If Google admits that the peak of their business has come and they are now a boring mature company ("nothing but rabbits come out of the hat"), I can't see their stonk price nor their mindshare with early adopters doing well.
To extend that metaphor, I'd say google needs to start stuffing more rabbits into hats, because if nobody stuffs those hats, we're all going to run out of rabbits. To do that, it means spinning off companies to go public that create wealth across a broader base of investors and innovators, instead of presuming the hive-mind monoculture of their organization can keep producing things people want.
There is an inflection point the OP makes about resource cursed economies, which is that when you have money coming out of the ground, you don't need to provide anything to your citizens in exchange for their tax base, and you get tyranny, because you don't need to pay anyone except the army to keep you in power.
By extension, Google could just flip the EVIL switch that they so strenuously tried to protect, and it would have zero negative effect on their bottom line. They don't have to produce anything else to maintain their dominant position, and this is the danger the OP I think has illustrated.
There is an inflection point the OP makes about resource cursed economies, which is that when you have money coming out of the ground, you don't need to provide anything to your citizens in exchange for their tax base, and you get tyranny, because you don't need to pay anyone except the army to keep you in power.
By extension, Google could just flip the EVIL switch that they so strenuously tried to protect, and it would have zero negative effect on their bottom line. They don't have to produce anything else to maintain their dominant position, and this is the danger the OP I think has illustrated.
I don't disagree, but you didn't really engage with what I said - it is not in Google's interest to pivot their institutional position to being boring. Their entire brand to employees, investors, and data subjects is that they do cool new things. That brand keeps interest in and softens the reality of their core surveillance business. It's akin to how I've heard VFX houses operate - the side of the business doing commercials makes the profit, while the movies side of the business loses money but brings the notoriety.
Ah, the implication of my point was their power doesn't come from their brand anymore, it's from their data, and I think producing loss leaders into the market is a form of dumping that wrecks the markets. (haute couture houses in conglomerates that sell smelly water are another example of that VFX pattern) Their brand could be equifax or the SEC at this point and it wouldn't matter (imo), because they have ensconced, established power.
The FAANGs become pernicious, and I don't see them all being around in a decade.
The FAANGs become pernicious, and I don't see them all being around in a decade.
Google's business model requires evergreen data though. They can't just take their current trove of data and turn into an Equifax that knows things like you searched for bread recipes in 2020. So they require continuing buy in from their data subjects.
Their power also comes from employees that can do intelligent (albeit evil) things with that data. Nobody thinks it's hip to go work at IBM. Microsoft had a bit of a mindshare resurgence because they pivoted from their Big Evil brand into more of an open company, but that's in spite of being a boring company rather than because of it.
Eventually when the shine wears off, big tech will be forced to give up the pretenses. But I think it has to happen memetically first, rather than vice versa.
> I think producing loss leaders into the market is a form of dumping that wrecks the markets
You'll get no argument from me about this. I'd state it a bit differently, being more concerned about Free/Secure options, rather than a "market" of competing centralized (inherently surveillance-based) products. But I do agree, and I'm really just trying to explore what's keeping them in their current state.
Their power also comes from employees that can do intelligent (albeit evil) things with that data. Nobody thinks it's hip to go work at IBM. Microsoft had a bit of a mindshare resurgence because they pivoted from their Big Evil brand into more of an open company, but that's in spite of being a boring company rather than because of it.
Eventually when the shine wears off, big tech will be forced to give up the pretenses. But I think it has to happen memetically first, rather than vice versa.
> I think producing loss leaders into the market is a form of dumping that wrecks the markets
You'll get no argument from me about this. I'd state it a bit differently, being more concerned about Free/Secure options, rather than a "market" of competing centralized (inherently surveillance-based) products. But I do agree, and I'm really just trying to explore what's keeping them in their current state.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Microsoft went through the transition from hip new thing to office & office accessories and yet they're still worth more than Google. A company deciding to slow down and swap reckless innovation for methodological reliability can be seen as a boom by the risk-adverse; remember, no one was fired for buying IBM.
Take the Petro curse analogy to its logical conclusion. You get interesting conclusions about Google's internal political economy and the incentives of its employees when faced with the Adsense machine and the profit it spews.
Adsense/Adwords spews tens of billions of dollars in profits every year. No new product launch can come to close moving the needle on revenue or profits for Google. Google's political economy incentivizes groups to build new products not for their revenue streams but to claim larger bonuses of the ad-revenue pie. The users who buy into these "new" products are just cannon fodder in that game. Remember Google+? Vic Gundotra made off with probably tens of millions or more to launch a failed product because it was seen as strategic for Google. Anything and everything in Google happens as an internal battle between groups jockeying for bigger share of the adsense/adwords pie. We are just pawns in the game.
I can't believe I am saying it but almost anything MSFT releases in response to Google or competitors is inferior but MSFT's products are preferable due to implied longevity. MSFT has inoculated themselves against this parasitic political economy while Google's users are held hostage by it.
Most Google project launches are akin to MBS's dreams to turn Saudi into a tourism/research/commerce powerhouse. Brand new Cities in the desert etc. They would have more success dumping cash into the ocean and catching the fish that come to feed on the paper.
Ditto for google.
Adsense/Adwords spews tens of billions of dollars in profits every year. No new product launch can come to close moving the needle on revenue or profits for Google. Google's political economy incentivizes groups to build new products not for their revenue streams but to claim larger bonuses of the ad-revenue pie. The users who buy into these "new" products are just cannon fodder in that game. Remember Google+? Vic Gundotra made off with probably tens of millions or more to launch a failed product because it was seen as strategic for Google. Anything and everything in Google happens as an internal battle between groups jockeying for bigger share of the adsense/adwords pie. We are just pawns in the game.
I can't believe I am saying it but almost anything MSFT releases in response to Google or competitors is inferior but MSFT's products are preferable due to implied longevity. MSFT has inoculated themselves against this parasitic political economy while Google's users are held hostage by it.
Most Google project launches are akin to MBS's dreams to turn Saudi into a tourism/research/commerce powerhouse. Brand new Cities in the desert etc. They would have more success dumping cash into the ocean and catching the fish that come to feed on the paper.
Ditto for google.
"I can't believe I am saying it but almost anything MSFT releases in response to Google or competitors is inferior but MSFT's products are preferable due to implied longevity. MSFT has inoculated themselves against this parasitic political economy while Google's users are held hostage by it."
Yes, precisely. MSFT spent the better part of 50 years honing its selling strategies to companies, and knows how to deliver products. They may suck (and they do), but you know if you build upon them, they will not (generally, with few exceptions) disappear tomorrow. You simply cannot have that faith with google.
Gmail, could literally disappear at any moment. How screwed over would we all be if that happened? It won't, because it is the gift that keeps on giving with regards to intelligence gathering. For their real product.
Yes, precisely. MSFT spent the better part of 50 years honing its selling strategies to companies, and knows how to deliver products. They may suck (and they do), but you know if you build upon them, they will not (generally, with few exceptions) disappear tomorrow. You simply cannot have that faith with google.
Gmail, could literally disappear at any moment. How screwed over would we all be if that happened? It won't, because it is the gift that keeps on giving with regards to intelligence gathering. For their real product.
Bingo. That is the other corollary we can derive. Any product that can give google reams of data on its users that it does not already have will enjoy a long tenure in its stable of products.
Reams of data means both depth and scale. Missing either one would mean an early death.
Reams of data means both depth and scale. Missing either one would mean an early death.
Do people forget the powerhouses that Youtube, Android, GCP, Gmail, Chrome, Google Maps, Chromebooks are (plus gazillion smaller companies like Waymo that have insane potential)?
People have been predicting the downfall of Google for a very long time now and yet they have never been bigger growing every year at astounding rates.
People have been predicting the downfall of Google for a very long time now and yet they have never been bigger growing every year at astounding rates.
Google bought YouTube in ~2006. If Ruth Porat saw the amount that it bled in its first two years, they would have canceled it then too. GCP is questionable, they're falling behind.
I think the issue is that Google, at the high level, is incapable of thinking long term. It wants to see runaway success in a quarter or two.
I think the issue is that Google, at the high level, is incapable of thinking long term. It wants to see runaway success in a quarter or two.
Not predicting a downfall but just to give you some perspective: 80% of Google's revenue is from advertising. They only disclose net income for three very wide segments: Services, cloud and other bets. Only three services - that is search, youtube and google play - are profitable. GCP, maps, Chromebooks, Waymo, G Suite (that includes Gmail, Drive, etc) are a net loss.
The comment above is saying that Google can't invest for the long-term and requires runaway success in a product or two.
Your argument (that Google currently has a portfolio of products that are a net loss) shows that they at least try. In particular, GCP and Waymo are really long-term and strategic investments.
Your argument (that Google currently has a portfolio of products that are a net loss) shows that they at least try. In particular, GCP and Waymo are really long-term and strategic investments.
Do you have any source for Youtube being profitable? They've only been starting publishing revenue for it recently, but as of Q1 2020 they were still hiding profits [0]
Some analysts I follow (I think Ben Thompson was in this camp) have been long speculating that it was actually operating at a loss.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/03/google-still-isnt-telling-us...
Some analysts I follow (I think Ben Thompson was in this camp) have been long speculating that it was actually operating at a loss.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/03/google-still-isnt-telling-us...
They started reporting both of those in the last quarter.
Youtube is profitable, GCP isn't.
https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/2020Q4_alphabet_earnings...
Youtube is profitable, GCP isn't.
https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/2020Q4_alphabet_earnings...
I feel your comment only supports the points in the article.
I would say that YouTube, GMail, and Google Maps are all direct funnels into the Adsense machine.
Android, Chrome, and Chromebooks see success only as instruments to have infrastructure to more efficiently push users to use the Google products to direct data into the Adsense machine.
Any Google product that does not sufficiently funnel user data into the Adsense machine is canned. GCP exists as a covinient way to make some side money on their existing infrastructure.
I think only Waymo is the true outlier in this case, but I think that lives as it's own thing, given that's under Alphabet instead of Google proper.
I would say that YouTube, GMail, and Google Maps are all direct funnels into the Adsense machine.
Android, Chrome, and Chromebooks see success only as instruments to have infrastructure to more efficiently push users to use the Google products to direct data into the Adsense machine.
Any Google product that does not sufficiently funnel user data into the Adsense machine is canned. GCP exists as a covinient way to make some side money on their existing infrastructure.
I think only Waymo is the true outlier in this case, but I think that lives as it's own thing, given that's under Alphabet instead of Google proper.
I think people love to look at the products they've discontinued, and they have discontinued a lot, but they fail to point out all the products that have stuck around. I think it's likely a result of a company trying a lot of things rather than a company that can't focus like the author implies. People don't talk about Facebooks failed products like email, dating, phone, beacon, portal etc.
Is that likely due to a lot of those niche Facebook products simply launching to very little hype? Or simply only launching to a very select audience for essentially testing purposes?
I remember hype around the Facebook Phone and Facebook Email, but that's about it really. Email didn't really feel like a death either as the rest of Messenger continued to evolve to what it became today.
I remember hype around the Facebook Phone and Facebook Email, but that's about it really. Email didn't really feel like a death either as the rest of Messenger continued to evolve to what it became today.
Portal has failed? That's a shame.
I feel that Google has messed up its Stadia offering big time by overselling the cloud gaming features and trying to do a lot too soon (stadia exclusive games etc.) but I was hoping that Stadia succeeds. The concept of cloud as computing platform to play games rather than locally owned consoles just makes sense to me and Google was in a unique position to implement as they have data center infrastructure in place along with experience delivering consumer facing products. Now I'm thinking if Xbox started at Google instead of at Microsoft then it would have been killed too soon and we would only have Playstation as a kind of monopoly in higher end gaming. I don't think Google would be so patient to keep investing for years to nurture that biz.
I don't think so, people are def aware of these projects. The problem is the stuff you mentioned (at least YT, gmail chrome, maps) are in a pretty rough spot.
And while Waymo might have an insane potential, it is just that, a potential.
And while Waymo might have an insane potential, it is just that, a potential.
YouTube was a $15B business in 2019. Given that Google pays Firefox about $400M for search engine priority for its 4% market share, owning Chrome saves Google about $6B a year in payments for its 60% share. I bet that both maps and google apps for business (of which email is a core piece) are also quite profitable, depending on how cost accounting is done.
Why do you say they are in a "pretty rough spot"?
Why do you say they are in a "pretty rough spot"?
Also, Waymo became untouchable. A lot of Google's valuation rests on pixie dust promises of transformative potential of future AI. Admitting that it won't happen anytime soon and culling Waymo would take a lot of Silicon Valley ecosystem with it.
Youtube and chrome are still largely dominating their market. Can you expand on those?
But all those things are just vectors for gathering personal data and serving ads.
Those are all great products with excellent IP, but outside of GCP (and maybe a next-gen bet on Waymo), none contribute to revenue lines outside of advertising. In a way, this argument only further underscores the article's point.
I do wonder about GCP. Microsoft and Amazon make money on their cloud computing, while Google is losing billions on GCP every year.
They said the costs are increasing due to the data centers they are building. Their revenues have been increasing at a steady tick and if you check their blog they seem to have a steady stream of new customers
https://cloud.google.com/press-releases
https://cloud.google.com/press-releases
I was just under the impression that Google would utilize their existing infrastructure as Amazon did initially. If you have to build the whole thing upfront, it becomes a huge investment. The difference between AWS and GCP was contrasted pretty well by the Economist last week: Each year Google loses more money on GCP than Amazon has ever lost.
If that's true, then Google can't really compete with AWS.
If that's true, then Google can't really compete with AWS.
Here is the Techcrunch article after the latest earnings
"Google Cloud lost $5.6 billion in Google’s fiscal year 2020, which ended December 31. That’s on $13 billion of revenue"
"On the one hand, losses are mounting, up from $4.3 billion in 2018 and $4.6 billion in 2019, but revenue is also seeing strong growth, up from $5.8 billion in 2018 and $8.9 billion in 2019. What we’re seeing here, more than anything else, is Google investing heavily in its cloud business"
"includes all of its cloud infrastructure and platform services, as well as Google Workspace (which you probably still refer to as G Suite). And that’s exactly where Google is making a lot of investments right now. Data centers, after all, don’t come cheap, and Google Cloud launched four new regions in 2020 and started work on others. That’s on top of its investment in its core services and a number of acquisitions."
https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/02/google-cloud-lost-5-6b-in-...
"Google Cloud lost $5.6 billion in Google’s fiscal year 2020, which ended December 31. That’s on $13 billion of revenue"
"On the one hand, losses are mounting, up from $4.3 billion in 2018 and $4.6 billion in 2019, but revenue is also seeing strong growth, up from $5.8 billion in 2018 and $8.9 billion in 2019. What we’re seeing here, more than anything else, is Google investing heavily in its cloud business"
"includes all of its cloud infrastructure and platform services, as well as Google Workspace (which you probably still refer to as G Suite). And that’s exactly where Google is making a lot of investments right now. Data centers, after all, don’t come cheap, and Google Cloud launched four new regions in 2020 and started work on others. That’s on top of its investment in its core services and a number of acquisitions."
https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/02/google-cloud-lost-5-6b-in-...
> Google won't get back to the mojo that gave us search, gmail, and maps before the petro curse is cured.
HN may have differing opinions, but Google’s Cloud business is likely their next big business. They’ve been growing quite rapidly, I doubt it will join the graveyard.
HN may have differing opinions, but Google’s Cloud business is likely their next big business. They’ve been growing quite rapidly, I doubt it will join the graveyard.
I would also add their subscription business with YouTube Premium, YouTube TV, Google Drive ( using Photos storage and exclusive features ) is just warming up. Over the past year I've seen more people pony up for YouTube Premium and once you go ad-free you don't go back. I suspect they would look to extending that to GMail and some of their other products as well.
> once you go ad-free you don't go back
I've gone back repeatedly. I keep accepting the free trial for three months without their incredibly annoying and hostile ads, and then cancel before it charges me because I'd rather walk on hot coals than give Google or it's ilk money.
90% of the YouTube ads I get are just for a freaking keylogger[1] anyways.
[1] Grammarly is a keylogger, it logs every keystroke you make and sends it to their cloud service. Fair warning.
I've gone back repeatedly. I keep accepting the free trial for three months without their incredibly annoying and hostile ads, and then cancel before it charges me because I'd rather walk on hot coals than give Google or it's ilk money.
90% of the YouTube ads I get are just for a freaking keylogger[1] anyways.
[1] Grammarly is a keylogger, it logs every keystroke you make and sends it to their cloud service. Fair warning.
Google Cloud is fourth in it's market. Sure, there's room for everyone to grow right now, but... they're not winning here.
who is #3 ?
I thought it was AWS Azure GCP
I thought it was AWS Azure GCP
Alibaba Cloud
This is what Gartner says is #3, and I would consider them fairly reputable as a source.
Once you get past the big two, it also probably depends what you consider part of their market share. Like some include Office suites and some don't, so it probably gets less accurate.
Once you get past the big two, it also probably depends what you consider part of their market share. Like some include Office suites and some don't, so it probably gets less accurate.
Alibaba exists on a closed market, and with all respect (and not just due) to their effort, I do not think it's viable to count their mainland china size - same as I wouldn't count mainland china AWS region etc.
IBM Cloud /s
Oracle Cloud /s
Alibaba Cloud?
OVH?
Oracle Cloud /s
Alibaba Cloud?
OVH?
Almost every article except for 1 lists GCP as #3
https://www.bmc.com/blogs/gartner-magic-quadrant-cips-cloud-...
https://www.bmc.com/blogs/gartner-magic-quadrant-cips-cloud-...
That was not snarky "?"
that was just consideration :P
that was just consideration :P
aah no worries about that, I didnt take it as snark :) I was asking the original OP since almost everywhere I had seen them as #3.
Can Google mine user/usage data from GCP for sale to advertisers?
"Dutch Disease" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease is the usual term. Although arguably corruption and kleptocracy are more problematic in resource rich nations, and the Dutch did ok.
That looks similar, but it's not the same phenomenon that is described in the article. The Dutch disease is based around currency appreciation making industry less competitive. Google is not a nation with its own currency (yet?).
Did they? I'm under the impression that it's a small country with a distinct upper class. The right people live in Wassenaar and Bussum etc. with ludicrous property prices and have all the influence.
They are good at camouflaging inequality and other things. The lower classes get enough to get by, so it isn't obvious. The rich don't brag, wear cheap suits and look like regular people.
But the old-money royalty is obvious, and probably just very good at hiding corruption.
They are good at camouflaging inequality and other things. The lower classes get enough to get by, so it isn't obvious. The rich don't brag, wear cheap suits and look like regular people.
But the old-money royalty is obvious, and probably just very good at hiding corruption.
Can you expand on this? It's the first time I've heard the Netherlands described this way (corruption and inequality)
Most lists I've seen rank the Dutch as having low levels of inequality and high standards of living.
Most lists I've seen rank the Dutch as having low levels of inequality and high standards of living.
> Just earlier this month, Google rang the death notice on Stadia
I keep seeing this, and it isn't true. (Not yet at least.)
Google shut down its game studios (which never released anything anyway), but is continuing to support 3rd party developers releasing their games on Stadia.
I keep seeing this, and it isn't true. (Not yet at least.)
Google shut down its game studios (which never released anything anyway), but is continuing to support 3rd party developers releasing their games on Stadia.
The fact that they have up on their first party studio means the clock has been started on a shutdown. If Google sends the signal that their first party Stadia studio is a lost cause, what signal does that send to the third party developers?
Google didn't have the patience for their own studio to bear fruit, so it doesn't bode well for them to have patience with the platform, much less invest in it.
Google didn't have the patience for their own studio to bear fruit, so it doesn't bode well for them to have patience with the platform, much less invest in it.
The shutdown of the first party studio sends a signal, but the freezing of the Google account for the Terraria lead developer to the point where the Stadia port of Terraria was cancelled sends an even stronger signal to indie developers who were considering Stadia - Google does not support you, you are a digital sharecropper, and you'll take what you're given and like it or buzz off.
(Googler, opinions are my own)
Note: Terraria for stadia is uncanceled[0]. Sadly, Terraria devs nor Google has said anything about what happened (in any kind of detail), but accounts were unlocked and game is back on.
[0] https://forums.terraria.org/index.php?threads/terraria-state...
Note: Terraria for stadia is uncanceled[0]. Sadly, Terraria devs nor Google has said anything about what happened (in any kind of detail), but accounts were unlocked and game is back on.
[0] https://forums.terraria.org/index.php?threads/terraria-state...
I think that lack of explanation is bigger than the Stadia executives think: when you’re asking people to take a gamble on a completely proprietary platform both prospective developers and buyers are going to be worried about the prospect of things randomly going away.
This is especially true given Google’s poor reputation for support even with paid products. Right now would be a key moment for a post mortem response detailing what they’ve done to ensure that developers don’t have to worry about being locked out and customers don’t have to worry about losing access to their purchases. This is an unproven service and anyone who is at all worried has multiple safer options available so trust is especially critical.
This is especially true given Google’s poor reputation for support even with paid products. Right now would be a key moment for a post mortem response detailing what they’ve done to ensure that developers don’t have to worry about being locked out and customers don’t have to worry about losing access to their purchases. This is an unproven service and anyone who is at all worried has multiple safer options available so trust is especially critical.
The account issues have apparently been resolved, and Terraria port to Stadia has been uncanceled:
https://forums.terraria.org/index.php?threads/terraria-state...
Disclaimer: I work at Google, but don’t work anywhere near this.
https://forums.terraria.org/index.php?threads/terraria-state...
Disclaimer: I work at Google, but don’t work anywhere near this.
A minor correction: the stadia port of terraria is still alive and kicking.
> [...] what signal does that send to the third party developers
This but also: what signal does this send to the consumer to whom Google abandoning services is already a running joke. Would anyone knowing about this now buy a game on Stadia that they can only play on that very shaky platform?
This but also: what signal does this send to the consumer to whom Google abandoning services is already a running joke. Would anyone knowing about this now buy a game on Stadia that they can only play on that very shaky platform?
Never mind signals, the last hn thread on Stadia said third party developers were basically left on their own with a paltry $10,000 budget (as opposed to Microsoft’s investing millions).
But they also launched it with a big bang like any other big console maker. Therefore shutting down first party studios is a big red flag that they intend on not supporting the device going forward. Imagine what the message would be if Microsoft or Sony shut down their internal/owned game development studios, or if Nintendo decided to stop making games and just make the console hardware. You would not want to buy their new consoles which were released just now.
Even though it might not be true that they're shutting it down, it for sure sends a strong signal that they intend to.
Even though it might not be true that they're shutting it down, it for sure sends a strong signal that they intend to.
Google had a perception issue when they started Stadia - many people thought they would abandon it pretty quickly. Even if they're, in fact, still supporting 3rd party developers closing their 1st party studio is going to send the skepticism that existed from the beginning of Stadia into overdrive. Whatever Google plans to do, the perception now is that Stadia is already dead. That's going to make Stadia a tough(er) sell to both users and 3rd party studios.
You are correct, but, have you used Stadia at all? I have and frankly it's clear that Google is not investing in it. Even with a great internet connection, the rendering on the server side is often laggy, pixelated, blurred, and stutters. It definitely appears that they are not running the games on big enough machines or are oversharing machines or something. I tried playing 3 different games over this past weekend and all 3 were unplayable. When the user experience is that poor, the writing is on the wall.
People and companies peak for one or two generations at most. What happens long before the petro issue described here is people generally stop giving a fuck.
There are few organizations that make it past any long range of time and when they do they’re well past their hay day, whether is Std Oil, Dutch East India, Exxon ,etc. Folks at Basecamp will lose their steam similarly when DHH leaves too and stops giving a fuck. It’ll happen to Apple, Amazon and Google. It’s the natural cycle.
There are few organizations that make it past any long range of time and when they do they’re well past their hay day, whether is Std Oil, Dutch East India, Exxon ,etc. Folks at Basecamp will lose their steam similarly when DHH leaves too and stops giving a fuck. It’ll happen to Apple, Amazon and Google. It’s the natural cycle.
There is also the issue of pay and a sense of having enough. Many tech workers are very highly paid. At some point, you have enough money so you don't really have to work. I myself reached "my number" last year and retired. My guess is that there must be many more people like me who will be retiring early in the future.
Congrats on the hard work and discipline paying off. Best of luck in your retirement, bummer that the first year of it was in a pandemic
Thank you - despite the challenges of 2020, I was so happy to be retired. My hobbies mostly involve indoor hobbies so I was not too badly affected.
that doesn't jive with reality as I see it. for most people, any number is never enough, it would seem
According to self-reported income satisfaction levels across all classes, almost everyone thinks that if they only made 10% more, then they would be set.
This creates the hilarious situation where most millionaires in the US don’t subjectively feel wealthy. Because we are taught that our subjective feelings are the truth, this creates an interesting political situation where we have a built-in assumption that no one will ever be satisfied.
This creates the hilarious situation where most millionaires in the US don’t subjectively feel wealthy. Because we are taught that our subjective feelings are the truth, this creates an interesting political situation where we have a built-in assumption that no one will ever be satisfied.
Here in Australia, being a millionaire just means you finally paid off your mortgage. :/
If you are supporting a family, you probably still can't stop working.
If you've got no dependents and you're willing to go lean you could sell up, head out to the sticks and live off your capital. It would not grant you a lifestyle conventionally described as "wealthy" but you'd be doing OK.
Or am I just in the trap?
If you are supporting a family, you probably still can't stop working.
If you've got no dependents and you're willing to go lean you could sell up, head out to the sticks and live off your capital. It would not grant you a lifestyle conventionally described as "wealthy" but you'd be doing OK.
Or am I just in the trap?
No, I think this is the same way in much of the US. Millionaires are just skilled labor around age 35-40 (depending on a lot ofc). And you're going to need about 4x that to retire, depending on the kind of lifestyle you want.
It's expensive as hell to do the whole "2.5 kids, a house, and 2.5 college tuitions" thing while still having a life of your own.
I also realize this comes from a place of privilege (many people can't even really expect to ever retire, much less retire comfortably or lavishly).
The middle class has really eroded away to basically not having any lower or middle segment. You're either working poor (whether you self-identify that way or not) or you're upper-middle-class (where you might start to externally seem "rich" but if you lose your job you still have to find another one pretty fast.)
It's expensive as hell to do the whole "2.5 kids, a house, and 2.5 college tuitions" thing while still having a life of your own.
I also realize this comes from a place of privilege (many people can't even really expect to ever retire, much less retire comfortably or lavishly).
The middle class has really eroded away to basically not having any lower or middle segment. You're either working poor (whether you self-identify that way or not) or you're upper-middle-class (where you might start to externally seem "rich" but if you lose your job you still have to find another one pretty fast.)
I'm 40 years old with a masters in computer engineering, working in aerospace since grad school. Not even close to a millionaire WTF you talking about?
But there is an objective way to know when you've reached your number using the concept of "Safe Withdrawal Rate". If your savings (typically in the form of a diversified portfolio) is at about 25 times your typical annual expenditure, you can retire with relative safety (See for example https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Safe_withdrawal_rates).
Last year, my savings had reached over 60x annual expenditure so I felt more than safe even with allowances for self-insurance for long-term care and higher education for my children. How much more do you need?
Last year, my savings had reached over 60x annual expenditure so I felt more than safe even with allowances for self-insurance for long-term care and higher education for my children. How much more do you need?
What's your number in terms of net worth?
As I posted elsewhere in this thread, start by thoroughly understanding and tracking your expenditure patterns including healthcare. Then add some additional buffer for known expenses (kids education, long term care, big ticket maintenance etc). The savings you need to retire is at the minimum (25 * expected
yearly expenditure) + buffer.
In my case, I way overshot my savings needs: my current net worth is about 60x my typical yearly expenditure.
I was well paid in my career and saved and invested at least about 70% of my income.
In my case, I way overshot my savings needs: my current net worth is about 60x my typical yearly expenditure.
I was well paid in my career and saved and invested at least about 70% of my income.
There are exceptions but it is hard to think of many. Nintendo, for example, is 120 years old.
Nintendo as a company is 120 years old. Nintendo as a video game company is 50 years old, more or less. The reason why it's held on for so long is not its brand , it's their properties. Nintendo is essentially the Disney of the video game world; they own immensely popular pop-culture trademarks which they can rehash and reboot over and over and over again.
Nintendo isn't a tech company, they're a publisher which so happens to publish their properties mostly as games, and do a remarkably good job of producing consoles which you need to buy to enjoy their properties. This is why they'll still be around in 100 years, and Microsoft and Apple most likely won't.
Nintendo isn't a tech company, they're a publisher which so happens to publish their properties mostly as games, and do a remarkably good job of producing consoles which you need to buy to enjoy their properties. This is why they'll still be around in 100 years, and Microsoft and Apple most likely won't.
> Nintendo isn't a tech company
I wasn't restricting myself to thinking about tech companies.
> This is why they'll still be around in 100 years, and Microsoft and Apple most likely won't.
You never know. Just like Nokia once made rubber boots, maybe 100 years from now Apple and Microsoft will be doing something entirely different than now. That's my point - companies survive by adapting.
I wasn't restricting myself to thinking about tech companies.
> This is why they'll still be around in 100 years, and Microsoft and Apple most likely won't.
You never know. Just like Nokia once made rubber boots, maybe 100 years from now Apple and Microsoft will be doing something entirely different than now. That's my point - companies survive by adapting.
Also, much like Disney, Nintendo is notoriously awful to its third party artist/developers and they are very litigious about fan art projects.
Nintendo as everyone knows it is only a few decades old; a company can continue to exist for centuries if it becomes simply a "holding company" (Berkshire Hathaway is just a mutual fund, basically) or otherwise reinvents itself.
Goldman Sachs is 150 years old and still kicking.
I wonder if a part of that longevity is the org/incentives structure.
And (cynically) maybe just that regulation entrenches existing finance players and there isn't anywhere near as much anti-trust conversation over there.
I wonder if a part of that longevity is the org/incentives structure.
And (cynically) maybe just that regulation entrenches existing finance players and there isn't anywhere near as much anti-trust conversation over there.
Parts of the analogy are true: over dependence on a single source of lucrative revenue can make it hard to invest in new things.
That said, the analogy breaks down. Petro-states have other issues: weak institutions, corruption. Their lucrative revenue steam, unlike online ads at least so far, is also very volatile with boom and bust cycles. It also creates all sorts of weird economic distortions, like exchange rate effects that make it hard to invest in other industries.
And finally, GCP, Waymo, Android and many others beg to differ. Yes, Google still depends primarily on Ads, but it's far from being the Venezuela or Iraq of companies.
That said, the analogy breaks down. Petro-states have other issues: weak institutions, corruption. Their lucrative revenue steam, unlike online ads at least so far, is also very volatile with boom and bust cycles. It also creates all sorts of weird economic distortions, like exchange rate effects that make it hard to invest in other industries.
And finally, GCP, Waymo, Android and many others beg to differ. Yes, Google still depends primarily on Ads, but it's far from being the Venezuela or Iraq of companies.
>GCP
GCP is still flailing around trying to find solid ground. After multiple fits and starts, with Kurian at the helm they're at least making an attempt to attract enterprises, but their inability to commit to a product in the consumer division has ABSOLUTELY tarnished their reputation with the enterprise.
>Waymo, Android
Waymo and Android have only survived because they feed the advertising beast. Don't kid yourself into believing either one would still exist if they didn't.
The reason google can't make a decent messaging app is because by definition, people want their messages to be private. Google can't data mine and let you have privacy - it's why allo literally died DURING the product announcement because someone caught wind that they were going to do encrypted chats that couldn't be data mined. And instead they're trying to push RCS - without encryption - that nobody wants besides them and the mobile companies who also want to data mine.
Everything about a petro state seems to apply here. As for google not having weak institutions and corruption, I'd say they just do a better job of covering it up than most petro states. See: Andy Rubin.
GCP is still flailing around trying to find solid ground. After multiple fits and starts, with Kurian at the helm they're at least making an attempt to attract enterprises, but their inability to commit to a product in the consumer division has ABSOLUTELY tarnished their reputation with the enterprise.
>Waymo, Android
Waymo and Android have only survived because they feed the advertising beast. Don't kid yourself into believing either one would still exist if they didn't.
The reason google can't make a decent messaging app is because by definition, people want their messages to be private. Google can't data mine and let you have privacy - it's why allo literally died DURING the product announcement because someone caught wind that they were going to do encrypted chats that couldn't be data mined. And instead they're trying to push RCS - without encryption - that nobody wants besides them and the mobile companies who also want to data mine.
Everything about a petro state seems to apply here. As for google not having weak institutions and corruption, I'd say they just do a better job of covering it up than most petro states. See: Andy Rubin.
Andy Rubin case is horrendous, but it's a different type of corruption. Petro corruption would be siphoning money off to personal accounts, kick backs, etc.
Anyway, petro states depend on a single source of depletable revenue. They even fail at all attempts to expand up the value chain around services or refining of their oil. Even if Google's only successes are around furthering their ads revenue, that's still a far cry from petro states.
Anyway, petro states depend on a single source of depletable revenue. They even fail at all attempts to expand up the value chain around services or refining of their oil. Even if Google's only successes are around furthering their ads revenue, that's still a far cry from petro states.
>They even fail at all attempts to expand up the value chain around services or refining of their oil.
What are you talking about? Saudi Aramco has extensive refining capabilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco#Refining_and_chem...
They got into exploration, and shipping as well.
So they ABSOLUTELY build successes around the cash cow, just like google.
What are you talking about? Saudi Aramco has extensive refining capabilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco#Refining_and_chem...
They got into exploration, and shipping as well.
So they ABSOLUTELY build successes around the cash cow, just like google.
This reads like bitter grapes.
One of Google's new products (Google Cloud) does more than 100x in revenue more than Basecamp and it's likely growing much faster too. Android is on billions of handsets. Chrome is the most popular browser. These are all new, non-search products.
One of Google's new products (Google Cloud) does more than 100x in revenue more than Basecamp and it's likely growing much faster too. Android is on billions of handsets. Chrome is the most popular browser. These are all new, non-search products.
Oh and then there’s YouTube, Maps, Docs/Drive, GSuite/Workspace, Classroom, Chromecast, etc. And also Tensorflow, Flutter.
It’s definitely sad to see some products shut down. But it seems that that’s a natural consequence of experimentation. And I’m grateful for so many of the experiments that ended up sticking around.
It’s definitely sad to see some products shut down. But it seems that that’s a natural consequence of experimentation. And I’m grateful for so many of the experiments that ended up sticking around.
Agreed that Docs, Drive, GSuite are all a real enterprise businesses
YouTube though is video ads, and Maps is local ads. I think that reinforces the author's point.
(Open source projects like Tensorflow, Flutter, K8s are nice spin-offs but they're not going to command the same amount of attention or resources as revenue-generating products.)
YouTube though is video ads, and Maps is local ads. I think that reinforces the author's point.
(Open source projects like Tensorflow, Flutter, K8s are nice spin-offs but they're not going to command the same amount of attention or resources as revenue-generating products.)
I'd add to that, from a recollection when my old company signed up for Gsuite many moons ago, you give them the right to use your emails, documents, etc. to help them train their models. Which is all about improving their actual product.
Maps knows where you are and where you (regularly) travel. I get email updates from Google on this. Drive enables you to work on documents and files, and provides this implicit access to google to provide them training data (unless they changed that clause of the user agreement).
While Gsuite is an "enterprise" product, that you pay for (and I did, for years), getting "support" out of google was damn near impossible. This seems to be a common theme with them. They stand something up, put up FAQ pages which don't cover what you run into, don't have a human you can contact, or a site you can email, or a ticket system you can report a problem into ... and leave you to figure out workarounds on your own.
And, should your data masters decide that you are a bad company in any way, shape, or form, you can be completely removed from (all) their platform(s), with absolutely no recourse.
Put another way, it is a huuuuuge risk to use them for anything in the critical business services path. FWIW, Microsoft seems to know how to sell/support services. Doesn't matter if their stuff is inferior in many regards, you can reach them if you have a problem. Though, quite likely, they can pull the plug on you quickly as well. But they are far more business friendly than google.
Maps knows where you are and where you (regularly) travel. I get email updates from Google on this. Drive enables you to work on documents and files, and provides this implicit access to google to provide them training data (unless they changed that clause of the user agreement).
While Gsuite is an "enterprise" product, that you pay for (and I did, for years), getting "support" out of google was damn near impossible. This seems to be a common theme with them. They stand something up, put up FAQ pages which don't cover what you run into, don't have a human you can contact, or a site you can email, or a ticket system you can report a problem into ... and leave you to figure out workarounds on your own.
And, should your data masters decide that you are a bad company in any way, shape, or form, you can be completely removed from (all) their platform(s), with absolutely no recourse.
Put another way, it is a huuuuuge risk to use them for anything in the critical business services path. FWIW, Microsoft seems to know how to sell/support services. Doesn't matter if their stuff is inferior in many regards, you can reach them if you have a problem. Though, quite likely, they can pull the plug on you quickly as well. But they are far more business friendly than google.
To be fair, Android and Chrome basically only make sense in the context of propping up their search monopoly. I'm not aware of any substantial income from either, directly.
My understanding is that the underpinnings of Google Cloud were built to support their own technology needs supporting their ad empire. It's also worth noting that Google Cloud indirectly supports their ad-based ventures. It gives them access to a higher economy of scale which makes serving ads cheaper, and customers are subsidizing development costs for things Google uses as well.
They're complaining that Google is built on data-mining and selling that to advertisers, not specifically about search. Anything that fails to compete with the crazy profit margins of targeted advertising gets killed, which is pretty much everything at the moment.
Google Cloud is somewhat of an outlier, I don't know why it's still around. They're still losing money on it, aren't they? I have a hard time believing the tangential benefits to their other products are enough to offset that, but I could be wrong.
My understanding is that the underpinnings of Google Cloud were built to support their own technology needs supporting their ad empire. It's also worth noting that Google Cloud indirectly supports their ad-based ventures. It gives them access to a higher economy of scale which makes serving ads cheaper, and customers are subsidizing development costs for things Google uses as well.
They're complaining that Google is built on data-mining and selling that to advertisers, not specifically about search. Anything that fails to compete with the crazy profit margins of targeted advertising gets killed, which is pretty much everything at the moment.
Google Cloud is somewhat of an outlier, I don't know why it's still around. They're still losing money on it, aren't they? I have a hard time believing the tangential benefits to their other products are enough to offset that, but I could be wrong.
> Android and Chrome basically only make sense in the context of propping up their search monopoly
Android and Chrome make sense in terms of defending all of their web-based offerings from a hostile mobile OS or browser monopoly.
Their advertising dominance obviously is the only reason they had the money to throw at those problems, but a “search monopoly” isn't the only reason it made sense.
Android and Chrome make sense in terms of defending all of their web-based offerings from a hostile mobile OS or browser monopoly.
Their advertising dominance obviously is the only reason they had the money to throw at those problems, but a “search monopoly” isn't the only reason it made sense.
Agreed – I’d say “ad business” instead of “search monopoly”: Chrome is easily justified simply by making sure that most users spend most of their time on web sites rather than native apps. Web users are heavily accustomed to everything being subsidized by ads, and Google is definitely winning there even if you rarely use search.
[deleted]
It’s not the case that Google Cloud products are the same as the tools used internally. For example, Borg was never publicly released. Kubernetes is an open source project intended for public use.
And there's a great reason that they haven't got rid of Android and Chrome I guess. Maybe it's all that data they can harvest to better their advertising business.
You have a valid point about Google Cloud, but Android and Chrome are both surveillance feeders for their core business of data mining, supporting the author's thesis. The problem isn't creating new technical products, but having the institutional desire to maintain them.
Yes and they were considering shutting down GCP, can't make this shit up
2 of these 3 are data collection products providing some level of features to end users. That is, they are an implicit contract to provide google with an unending stream of up-to-date user data, in exchange for "free" features.
GCP is a way to monetize excess capacity. The excess capacity in their data extraction machine.
Search is not their product. Advertising is.
GCP is a way to monetize excess capacity. The excess capacity in their data extraction machine.
Search is not their product. Advertising is.
You clearly know very little about Basecamp and their values. They're very articulate that they're not competing with Google in any shape or form :)
> They're very articulate that they're not competing with Google in any shape or form :)
They can say that all they want, but it doesn’t make it true.
In many ways it’s a pretty odd denial.
It seems pretty likely that in the absence of Gmail, Hey would have a bigger market.
They can say that all they want, but it doesn’t make it true.
In many ways it’s a pretty odd denial.
It seems pretty likely that in the absence of Gmail, Hey would have a bigger market.
> It seems pretty likely that in the absence of Gmail, Hey would have a bigger market.
Many people just wouldn't pay for email so it's very hard to say.
And again, they talk specifically about not competing with Google because they realise the disproportionate scale here: https://world.hey.com/jason/an-alternative-to-competition-ff...
> They can say that all they want, but it doesn’t make it true.
I've been following them for years and read most of their books. If this would be IBM or Oracle I'd understand (and agree with) your skepticism, but this is really unwarranted.
Many people just wouldn't pay for email so it's very hard to say.
And again, they talk specifically about not competing with Google because they realise the disproportionate scale here: https://world.hey.com/jason/an-alternative-to-competition-ff...
> They can say that all they want, but it doesn’t make it true.
I've been following them for years and read most of their books. If this would be IBM or Oracle I'd understand (and agree with) your skepticism, but this is really unwarranted.
The subscription sign up form at the bottom of the page is rotated by -1 degree. It may be designed to catch my attention but it just drives my OCD side crazy. Anyone else notice that?
I wonder if the A/B tested this UX. I am inclined to do not use that form and, honestly, took me a moment to realize that was an actionable card.
Haha yes, saw it on my phone and had to hold it back from my face and rotate it back and forth to make sure it wasnt just my imagination.
Yeah, it activates your OCD and disturbs my CN X.
I do not think this is the correct view. Google is an ad company and they are constantly improving that part of business. They are not standing still in that space. And, sadly for us, Gmail, Android, Chrome and YouTube are critical pieces for ads business.
Yeah, they spend some money to build random things but that is just that lay people have illusion that Google is not an ad company - ie they are inventing something.
In short, releasing these products is necessary so that there is a perception that Google is not an ad company.
Yeah, they spend some money to build random things but that is just that lay people have illusion that Google is not an ad company - ie they are inventing something.
In short, releasing these products is necessary so that there is a perception that Google is not an ad company.
It's like Google is running its own business incubator. I wonder how Google practices and success rates compare to VC funding for startups. What is the distribution of lifetime of VC funded startups before the money supply gets cut off compared to Google projects?
I often wonder if it's less Google running a business incubator and more a combined retention and PR program. Running these projects helps them retain talent, and it helps them create a lot of talk about stuff they are doing that isn't tracking your every move and invading your privacy.
Still would be interesting to know whether it's more likely for a Google project to survive than it is for a startup.
Company actions are always going to line up with incentives. And that means in an advertising based company, well the actions will line up with generating more ad revenue.
Through and through their business is advertising revenue.
Through and through their business is advertising revenue.
Yes, the same is true for a company like Valve: there's a nozzle that cash just comes pouring out of not matter what they do. Thus they struggle to put out new games, typically having to acquire them. This covers up the problems with their organizational structure.
This comes off as criticism, but it's not intended as an insult. Simply dispassionate.
It's a great problem to have...for a while.
This comes off as criticism, but it's not intended as an insult. Simply dispassionate.
It's a great problem to have...for a while.
> Why spend the executive energy really nurturing something new to life over multiple years when you can just turn the screws on your dominant internet advertisement winch a few more degrees to make the quarter?
Because, in theory, antitrust should prevent Google from obtaining market dominance, and therefore differentiation is necessary at that scale.
In theory.
Because, in theory, antitrust should prevent Google from obtaining market dominance, and therefore differentiation is necessary at that scale.
In theory.
> Why bother investing in other industries when you can make so much money from shit that's literally spouting out the ground? You have to be extraordinarily disciplined and well-functioning prior to finding such riches, if you are to stand any chance. Google has never been either.
But is this really a matter of discipline or being well-functioning? I believe that this kind of behavior is to be expected on any publicly-traded company, given the pervasiveness of the Friedman Doctrine. I.e. if the company is run to maximize the shareholder value, it becomes extremely hard for executives to justify support for any product, if the profits/benefits it provides cannot be quantified as shareholder profit.
But is this really a matter of discipline or being well-functioning? I believe that this kind of behavior is to be expected on any publicly-traded company, given the pervasiveness of the Friedman Doctrine. I.e. if the company is run to maximize the shareholder value, it becomes extremely hard for executives to justify support for any product, if the profits/benefits it provides cannot be quantified as shareholder profit.
[deleted]
This is what eventually killed RadioShack [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-02-02/inside-ra...]. They found easy recurring revenue from cell phone sales and that nectar was so sweet that they couldn't justify the effort required to spend time at anything else in the garden. Then, wireless carriers all opened up their own stores and mall kiosks and suddenly RadioShack didn't have a business left.
Google isn't going to suffer this fate anytime soon though. RadioShack's peak revenues were $6.3 billion in 1996. If you crudely model a company's trajectory as a parabola in a gravity well, that $6.3 billion allowed RadioShack to coast through the air for another 20 years. Google has about 30x the revenue, and they have significant influence in multiple and related segments of the internet market.
Google could, tomorrow, make changes to email policy which would leave hey.com dead in the water, because between 40% and 60% of email traffic goes through Gmail, and email is extraordinarily sticky. If you can't send or receive email to Gmail users, Gmail users will tell you it's your fault, even if it's not. (Speaking from experience here.)
Chrome likewise is hovering around 65% market share. If Google decides they no longer want to tolerate ad-blockers, they can make a subtle change to Chrome that will boost their search engine revenues significantly (where they currently own about 91% of the search market).
Google's not going to follow a RadioShack trajectory, but they're never going to be anything other than an advertising company either, and that's going to leave some opportunities available for startups in Google's market.
Google isn't going to suffer this fate anytime soon though. RadioShack's peak revenues were $6.3 billion in 1996. If you crudely model a company's trajectory as a parabola in a gravity well, that $6.3 billion allowed RadioShack to coast through the air for another 20 years. Google has about 30x the revenue, and they have significant influence in multiple and related segments of the internet market.
Google could, tomorrow, make changes to email policy which would leave hey.com dead in the water, because between 40% and 60% of email traffic goes through Gmail, and email is extraordinarily sticky. If you can't send or receive email to Gmail users, Gmail users will tell you it's your fault, even if it's not. (Speaking from experience here.)
Chrome likewise is hovering around 65% market share. If Google decides they no longer want to tolerate ad-blockers, they can make a subtle change to Chrome that will boost their search engine revenues significantly (where they currently own about 91% of the search market).
Google's not going to follow a RadioShack trajectory, but they're never going to be anything other than an advertising company either, and that's going to leave some opportunities available for startups in Google's market.
I enjoy a lot of what DHH writes, but I suspect the main explanation for Google product churn is less Google's choice (to the extent it makes sense to anthropomorphize a giant organization) than he ascribes.
There are all these smart people making things, inventing projects, coding, optimizing, etc. Google hires them, and they make things at Google. Google could fire them, directly reducing the churn. Or Google could change its incentives, take away the internal rewards for making new things. Either way, that would push smart people out, and they take their knowhow and understanding of how to google-scale with them.
What helps Google more? All that innovation happening inside Google, even though many products get discontinued? Or having all those folks wander out, raise some capital, and 1% of the time their effort ends up seriously disrupting Google’s core businesses?
My theory is: this kind of thing happens inside Google, and inside other tech giants (perhaps less visibly), because it is the closest there is to a sustainable equilibrium. Pay a lot of really smart people high salaries to keep them around, making things, rather than disrupting from outside.
There are all these smart people making things, inventing projects, coding, optimizing, etc. Google hires them, and they make things at Google. Google could fire them, directly reducing the churn. Or Google could change its incentives, take away the internal rewards for making new things. Either way, that would push smart people out, and they take their knowhow and understanding of how to google-scale with them.
What helps Google more? All that innovation happening inside Google, even though many products get discontinued? Or having all those folks wander out, raise some capital, and 1% of the time their effort ends up seriously disrupting Google’s core businesses?
My theory is: this kind of thing happens inside Google, and inside other tech giants (perhaps less visibly), because it is the closest there is to a sustainable equilibrium. Pay a lot of really smart people high salaries to keep them around, making things, rather than disrupting from outside.
Love that 'petro curse' analogy. It makes me wonder where else it applies - where else that easy success in one domain prevents success in another.
This is pretty common in games companies that have a cash cow that provides a good income then they struggle to release anything else.
Valve seems to be a good example of this.
Nike's FuelBand is the first one the comes to mind. Why make a wearable with (maybe) low double digit percentage margins when shoes just rake in money?
>> Why make a wearable with (maybe) low double digit percentage margins when shoes just rake in money?
Because it is a complement to your shoes and drives more sales of your shoe brand specifically. (Unfortunately, that band-shoe integration didnt arrive in time.) Same way as AppleWatch+iPhone (vs AppleWatch+Android)
Because it is a complement to your shoes and drives more sales of your shoe brand specifically. (Unfortunately, that band-shoe integration didnt arrive in time.) Same way as AppleWatch+iPhone (vs AppleWatch+Android)
https://mobile.twitter.com/dhh/status/1368957511118843908
@dang Is this happening?
@dang Is this happening?
hey.com is a competitor to Google's GMail services right?
Yup. So there is undoubtedly some bias / ulterior motives in here.
hey.com is a competitor to Gmail like the Lamborghini Aventador is a competitor to the Toyota Corolla.
Toyota Corolla sales are seriously higher than the Lamborghini Aventador.
That's the point of the analogy.
I haven't used hey.com but reading various people's reactions (and how those opinions changed over time) this analogy is more real than you probably realize.
Like a Lambhorgini, it's very fancy, absolutely excellent first impression. You're impressed. And then a few weeks later it becomes the new normal, and you are more hobbled by things like how low the car is, how limited you are in driving it, how nothing else fits in the car. A few people have gotten tired of hey.com already because it is too controlling.
Again, I actually haven't used it myself so I don't want to just state these as facts, I just thought the analogy was even more apt.
Like a Lambhorgini, it's very fancy, absolutely excellent first impression. You're impressed. And then a few weeks later it becomes the new normal, and you are more hobbled by things like how low the car is, how limited you are in driving it, how nothing else fits in the car. A few people have gotten tired of hey.com already because it is too controlling.
Again, I actually haven't used it myself so I don't want to just state these as facts, I just thought the analogy was even more apt.
[deleted]
Sigh... I remember the days when Gmail was considered a power user tool. Sad how far it's fallen.
Can you explain? I never really tried Hey.
"Google won't get back to the mojo that gave us search, gmail, and maps before the petro curse is cured."
- DHH
Search, email and maps are essentially all search products, just with different domains, that's why google invests in them.
Search, email and maps are essentially all search products, just with different domains, that's why google invests in them.
So true. Again and again.
Nobody wants to say it, but Google is basically internet government at this point, and when government starts building products instead of just directing traffic, it's going to be anti-competitive and destroy opportunity in general.
How do they get out of the way and benefit while enabling growth? Move everything new into Ventures and whatever products survive on their own should be taken public in the markets and vertically dis-integrated from advertising and search. If they want to create growth, they're going to need to open it up to public markets, otherwise, they're going to be an anti-competitive monolith.
It's not a charity, and it will still make bazillions, but leveraging their incumbency means they are both risk averse themselves and opportunity destroying for everyone else.