Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Google Needs Gadgets (wired.com)

Posted by msmash on from the why-oh-why dept.

Google will tomorrow launch the next generation of its smartphone with the Pixel 2 and the Pixel 2 XL. At the same time, the company will reportedly introduce a new Chrome OS-based laptop called the Pixelbook, a small smart speaker called the Google Home Mini, and new hardware for the Daydream VR platform. David Pierce, writing for Wired tries to make sense of it: You'd think having dominated search and email, created Chrome and YouTube, plus a self-driving car project, a handful of save-the-world enterprises, and the greatest advertising business in the history of the universe would be enough to keep Google busy. You certainly wouldn't think the folks in Mountain View would suddenly feel the urge to get into the smartphone game, a remarkably mature market where nobody but Samsung and Apple makes any money, and where Google's already ubiquitous thanks to Android. [...] As they say, hardware is hard. It's a ruthless and low-margin business, but it's also an important one. Building gadgets in-house gives Google an opportunity to assert itself beyond what any of its partners can offer. More importantly, it gives Google a chance to control its destiny in an increasingly uncertain time. Depending on Samsung is a dangerous game. Galaxy products are the most popular Android phones by far, and the prime iPhone competition. But every year, you can feel Samsung leaning a little further away from Google. It built the Bixby assistant, which competes directly with Google Assistant, and gave Bixby prime placement on its phones. Samsung builds its own browser, email client, and messaging app, which seem utterly redundant unless Samsung's trying to wean its reliance on Google products. Samsung mostly eschews Daydream in favor of Gear VR, and has a home-grown smart-home platform competing directly with Nest, Android Things, and all the other Google connected-home products.

8 of 37 comments (clear)

  1. "Bought" YouTube by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >> created Chrome and YouTube

    BOUGHT YouTube. FTFY. You'd probably also find that a lot of Google gadget expertise (including talent) was purchased from elsewhere if you got inside the Googleplex...

    1. Re:"Bought" YouTube by MangoCats · · Score: 2

      In the larger corporate world, the distinction between created and bought becomes less clear or important.

      In the act of acquisition, you often "rebrand" the acquired talent under the corporate identity. Sure, YouTube was initially developed outside Google, but many of the developers remained after the acquisition, and YouTube hasn't been a static entity since acquisition - what it is today is heavily shaped by Google.

      Just because some guy in a coffee shop sketches an idea on a napkin, and that idea goes on to be developed by a startup and that startup gets bought by a large corporation and that corporation develops and grows the idea into a much larger global business - doesn't mean that the corporation didn't bring the idea to you. All credit does not reside with the napkin sketcher.

      But, yeah, historically YouTube was pretty big before Google helped them to muscle out the competition.

    2. Re:"Bought" YouTube by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Given that Google ran an obnoxious "MADE BY GOOGLE" campaign for the Pixel and Pixel XL, when they were MADE BY HTC, I'd say yes, it's an embarrassment to Google. Google wants you to believe they are innovators, inventors, creative, etc. Mostly they just things. The vast majority of shit they develop on their own they kill off unceremoniously.

      Google made PageRank and an ad platform. Nearly everything else they purchased, and most of the things they purchased they've ruined or killed off. Even internally they fight. Why does Android have Hangouts (now no longer supported), Messages, Allo, and Duo (and Google Voice!) to compete with the chat/messaging experience on Apple's side? Why are they killing off the one app that did it all (Hangouts) in favor of 3 apps that do one piece each, and shittily at that? (Answer: Because Google is too big for its britches and can't manage its own projects, teams, and products properly.)

      So yes, pointing out the truth behind the facade Google projects is embarrassing to them. Google wants you to believe one thing when the opposite is true. They can't even get security updates pushed out to an OS they fully control! EVERY Android device should be getting security updates for 3 years at a minimum, and in a timely fashion. There is zero reason for carriers or OEMs to be involved. The vast majority of security updates in Android won't impact OEM modifications / apps anyway.

  2. horseshit by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

    a remarkably mature market where nobody but Samsung and Apple makes any money

    Motorola makes money. Huawei makes money.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Bright shinies by JohnFen · · Score: 3, Funny

    Google needs to be able to sell bright shiny objects to distract the average person from the fact that they have fully embraced evil.

  4. It's none of those things by H3lldr0p · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google, now Alphabet, is going for the digital monopoly. Complete and total vertical and horizontal integration.

    That's it. That's the sum total of why Google is doing this. It has nothing to do with Samsung, Apple, or anyone else. It never did and never will. Google wants to run everything digital through itself. It could care less about the rest of the internet for so long as you start at their gate and they can record when you left and re-entered. It knows it can't stop you from going to Netflix, Slingbox, Hulu, or anywhere else but it can damn sure make it have a nice spot on any number of devices you own. A nice little gateway that can record what you do and when you do it.

    It's not about "not being evil" or any such nonsense. It was always about being the first, last, and only place you go to get stuff done on the internet.

  5. Re:Phones are a feeder business by biojayc · · Score: 2

    Apple's business is iTunes, or now the App Store. Their phones were initially built just like the iPods to feed into iTunes. Now they're built to feed into the app market. Apple is no different than the other phone producers.

    What? Apple is a hardware company. They make money selling hardware. Software is there to sell hardware. They are different than companies like Google, who are software/service companies that sell hardware to feed the dependency on their software/services. Microsoft is a software company (or was). Apple is most definitely a hardware company.

  6. Re:Phones are a feeder business by stabiesoft · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple is a design company. Foxconn is a hardware company.