Slashdot Mirror
Why Google's New Products Need Not Succeed
RJS writes "There have been some industry analysts lately who have called into question Google's real success, claiming that while Google's search remains a big winner, it has missed the mark when it comes to generating profitable, secondary products. BusinessWeek has just such an article ("So much fanfare, so few hits") but others argue that success relative to the size of Google's bread-and-butter (search) ultimately doesn't matter because it doesn't cost Google much extra to keep these secondary services — like Gmail — operational: the Google grid is on and growing regardless of what services are being run on top of it."
These are all basic principles of economics. Nothing for you to see here, move along.
--- What
Gmail is by far my favorite web-based email client. Google Calendar has proven to be a very useful tool as well. I use Google Local at least once a week and on and on and on. Maybe Google knows they make enough money on search and that they just want to release good, useful, user-friendly products that are miles better than the competition, even if they aren't profitable. Yahoo's gazillion ads on their email service is one reason I don't use it anymore.
firestream.net
it took google's search engine 3-5 years to overcome inertia in a relatively new arena (web search). Now, it is competing against much longer established business (e-mail has been around for multiple decades). It will not be overnight that Google services will grow, but they will grow.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
MalaMata.com is a cool DHTML application that really upgrades the use of Google IMHO.
These analysts miss the point. The big win for Google is to replace Micro$oft as the default platform. As Google tools, google desktop and of course Google search as the homepage become the default start point for users, the operating system becomes less relevant.
Put another way, once people are Google-centric, they can use a Mac or a "GooglePC" or anything else. Linux anyone?
If Google can't find secondary sources of income and continues to ride on excitement and enthusiasm they will fall prey to the dot-com business model. Eventually someone will build a better mouse-trap (search engine).
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
When Google starts charging for all this free crap, and trust me they will,
/.
Sorry, I'd rather trust Google's established business model of targetted ads than some dvorak like tro^h^h^hpundit on
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
They won't charge. They don't need to. You use it, they get to show you ads (their main revenue stream) AND use your data later with advanced data mining techniques so they can sell aggregate data on users. The more users the better.
I think you're crazy if you think Yahoo! Mail is better than Gmail. I have two accounts for each. My first web-based email account was Yahoo!, so I've been with them for a very long time.
The reasons I like GMail so much better are:
1. I got on board early (admittedly not a design feature) so I got the names I wanted
2. Better GUI - simpler, more powerful
3. Integration with awesome products that involve sharing I love being able to share Google Calenders with my wife. We each have a personal calender and we share a calender for stuff we do together - and it all shows up (color-coded) on one display. It's brilliant. We use Google Spreadsheet for simple budget tracking as well.
Yahoo is #1 because of the head-start, that's it.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Google has an ace in the hole: the reverse of the Net Neutrality extortion scheme. First they get everybody to use all their free services, Google account, calendar, mail, search history, desktop search, etc. And then Google says to the big ISPs, hey, your customers want to jack in to our distributed computing network? Better pay up! $x.xx per user per month. Guaranteed revenue from the big telcos/cable companies, the ISPs have to run the billing and collection operations while Google just rakes in the bucks.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
That's right: Bah! Following the example of my heroes W Buffett and W Gates III, I hereby announce that I'm giving all my savings to the Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation. I don't want any dynasty founded on my $763.84.
Google is building highly usable applications that are not OS-dependent. THAT is what is scaring the traditional software makers. The browser is the interpreter. Firefox is Google's wedge and everything they do is helping to change the way people use computers.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
"but that would be sort of evil."
They're already evil. Why else would they be retaining personally-identifiable search information? So far, they've refused to divulge it. But a change in company policy or a court-order could change that. (It's like the library information controversy in the PATRIOT Act arguments: once you've returned the books, why should the library retain any sort of record of your past book checkouts AT ALL????)
Where were you when the voynix came?
Google might not be making large sums of money off of their other products that have been created but it's hard to deny that they haven't caused a major change in how other online companies do their business.
After using Hotmail for all those years and then switching over to GMail as my primary e-mail I was stunned by how many things Gmail did that made it easier to work with. Now my junk e-mail account was still at Hotmail and when they asked me to be part of the beta testing for Windows Live Mail I figured it's only the junk e-mail account so I gave it a shot.
Windows Live Mail seems like someone tried to take Outlook and GMail and just mash the two of them together. However, Microsoft has still dropped the ball in making it easy to work with. For anyone who is part of the beta just try and delete multiple mails at the same time. Due to my long time of using computers I have no problem but most regular users are going to have trouble.
Even before Microsoft went for the complete overhaul they upped their maximum storage capacity in order to compete with GMail. So while it may not be a giant winner for Google money-wise, they've been a great boon to the end users who have finally started to see things get shaken up
Just like the article mentions I'll leave this innovative and beautiful Google web program with just a name, as if you've used it it's not likely you've forgotten it: Google Maps.
Actually, their approach isnt that much different from Microsoft's, at least from an abstract view. They are slowly accumulating more and more useful products, and over time this will bring them to a critical mass. Once they surpass this, then more and more of their "other tools" will be the tools of choice in their specific areas, and then Google will be a monster in the marketplace. The trick will be to not then turn around and be "evil" (i.e. charge for services that were once free because you can, etc).
stuff |
"Windows Live Mail seems like someone tried to take Outlook and GMail and just mash the two of them together. However, Microsoft has still dropped the ball in making it easy to work with. For anyone who is part of the beta just try and delete multiple mails at the same time"
Exactly! I stopped beta-testing it because they made it so difficult to delete the spams. In the regular hotmail, you can tag-check the spams in your inbox quickly and then delete the tagged ones. In "Live", you have to right-click all of them and then left-click the "Delete" button which is too close to the "Print" button so you end up accidentally printing spams instead of deleting them. Of course, if Microsoft/Hotmail were to ever bother to put a spam filter in place, this would be much less of a problem.
Where were you when the voynix came?
I used yahoo search and email YEARS ago. One day they up and changed format. Stuff scattered all over the place searches returned were by those who paid more.. and OMFG the adds. Hotbot became my next choice and then the company we all know and love GOOGLE. Yahoo is still the #1 site not because of content or ease of use. Its simply because people hate change. No one wants to change their email address from @yahoo to @gmail because its a hassle. It has nothing to do with yahoo being better. only stupid people. My mom knows she types in yahoo then clicks on the email button to get her mail. Trying to even get her to navigate to gmail would be next to impossible. to her yahoo is better because she knows how to do it.
MISSING - Sig file. 2 years old black and white and very funny. If found please email me.
Yahoo! couldn't be popular because it is the default homepage of millions of SBC/AT&T customers who don't know any better? Nah that's silly. Yahoo! has some nice services and some are indeed better than Google's offerings but for the most part people simply stick with their ISP's default homepage.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
But if you own that overpriced stock on the premise that Google is going to keep generating new businesses to complement the only thing they have that makes them money -- then it matters whether GWhatever turns a profit or not.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Not as many as they'd like to I think, but then again, they can also advertise that space as being there as long as no one is using it. They may or may not do that, but if you've got enough space for 100k people to use 2gb+ and only 5k or them use that, and the rest use 100mb then you know that you can really offer 2gb+ to 20x more people. It's an airline strategy. They almost always over bok becuase they know that not everone will show up for thier flight. Trust me, google knows what percetage of people will actually use all 2gb.
Whoever wrote this silly blogpost clearly hasn't considered the real reason Google needs their products to succeed. Google's bread and butter is their search product. But here's the problem: search growth is slowing. The only way for Google to keep growing their business at the breakneck speed that they and Wall St have become accustomed to is to find new places besides search pages that they can stick their ads on. Right now Google gets to do that using their Adsense program. Thousands of websites around the world are making Google tons of money. But the margins there will keep slipping as more competitors (Yahoo, MSN etc) come on in and offer to share higher percentages of their revenue with 3rd party publishers. This leaves Google with having to own their own "content" pages where they can stick their ads and book 100% of revenues from them. Unless their other products succeed, Google will truly become a one trick pony as far as their revenues are concerned. No responsible business can afford to become a one trick pony. That way lies death.
Yes, you don't understand it.
Archive everything to keep your Inbox clear. Then search for old messages when you need them, by labels, by people, or by keywords. You don't have to see a "cluttered view" of your mail.
Having just checked both the GMail Terms of Use and the Program Policy, the only information I can find relating to multiple accounts is:
"Prohibited Actions: Create multiple user accounts in connection with any violation of the Agreement or create user accounts by automated means or under false or fraudulent pretenses...."
which is under the Program Policy.
Where are you getting your information regarding only one account being allowed?
I think the GP's point is that all these secondary 'misses' are just another way to keep the google brand (and google search and adwords) front in center in Internet culture. One could argue that Coke wastes tons of money developing advertisements and promotions, but they have a very strong brandname and they got it because they continually push it. As soon as Google stops releasing a new beta for everyone to go gaga over once a month, they will no longer hold the spotlight, and people will take them for granted. As long as google uses new products to generate buzz, they will keep generating revenue for their ads.
An analogy would be how Nintendo used to operate... I'm sure they didn't make a ton of money on each game title, but having a good collection of games was critical to get people to buy the console in the first place. This analogy isn't too great though, because nowdays the consoles most likely sell at a loss and the bread and butter are the games and accessories.
Self-referential Sigs are cool on /. these days...
54
So you admit to breaking the agreement with Google?
Yes, I did it, alright! I admit it! I did everything.
But why!? Why would you do that to Google, Stormin?
It was for the money. Money I needed. Money I could only get with 2 Gmail accounts.
Well do you think it was worth it now, Stormin? Now that we've got you red-handed? We're taking you downtown after this. It's the big house for you, Stormin. You threw your life away!
You don't know nothin copper! Was it worth it? Damn straight it was worth it! I did what I did to survive. Out on the street it's have 2 GMail accounts or die. I ain't sorry about what I done. I lived my life like a man, a man with with TWO GMAIL ACCOUNTS. Even if it's all over now, you can't take that away from me!
Sorry? The only thing I'm sorry about is getting caught. If only I'd kept my mouth shut on the stupid Slashdot forums, I'd have made it. I nearly did make it. You just got lucky, copper, and I didn't. You and I, we ain't so different.
Watch your mouth, Stormin, you want to run into an accident on the way to the station? Is that what you want?
We're through here. Just take me in already. Let's get this over with.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
People will rail against the "spreading thin" of Google as they offer a wider variety of services. Dozens of failed or mediocre offerings, oh my. If we look at certain other fields where the drive is to innovate and create a new and powerful product we find similar, if not significantly worse, failure rates. The medical and pharmaceutical industries are full of failures and high R&D costs. However, when they get their one single success it provides a level of value that will support them to their next great hit.
Google is doing the right thing in two ways here - they are allowing their developers to think and work on their own pet projects, which will ensure retention of some of the best and brightest, and they are understanding that for every brilliant idea there will be a string of failures. If they spend one billion on R&D (made that number up for the sake of argument), drop 999 products that aren't winners and get one single product that becomes a 6-billion-a-year success, they will have done the best thing for their investors, for their developers, and for their own continued growth.