Tim O’Reilly: Google’s got problems(gigaom.com)
gigaom.com
Tim O’Reilly: Google’s got problems
http://gigaom.com/2012/07/06/tim-oreilly-googles-got-problems/
4 comments
The actual Tim O'Reilly post: https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/jP4g9KKT...
Reading that reminds me: we need to stop calling wasting people's time "social". In fact it's astounding how many of the outcomes for users of "social" are in fact anti-social; too much time online, ego-centrism, attention deficit etc
Anti-social is much more precise. It is primarily a tool to specifically target marketing, experimenting with extra-relational flirtation, and maintain that high school sense of social competition that we were all so happy to depart from.
When developing I cringe any time a "social" feature gets involved. Rarely are people's lives enriched from it.
When developing I cringe any time a "social" feature gets involved. Rarely are people's lives enriched from it.
And Vic Gundotra's commnent:"Ironically I'm spending time engaging with your content on Google+. I think of this as very valuable."
I agree with this as well. When Google+ came out I was thinking "Why are they afraid of Facebook?" Generally, the utility of Google will always far surpass the utility of Facebook. They may "compete", but only in the sense that both of their users spend time on the internet, and they both make money from online advertising.
It is a huge strategic mistake for Google to look at Facebook think that Facebook makes money due to how long people spend on their site.
Facebook makes their money in volume of page views. Google makes its money in quality of page views. Trying to be social and dragging people out of Facebook is going to be impossible. Conversely, Facebook trying to do search and dragging people out of Google is futile given their core business.
The Google guys are smart. I can't imagine how they are afraid of Facebook. Social data requires context, which is hard to get. Facebook screws it up all the time. Data-data (not social drivel) requires discovery, which is much easier to execute on and Google has done that really well.
My advice to Google: stop sweating Facebook. Like your momma always told you, "Just be yourself and everyone will like you."
It is a huge strategic mistake for Google to look at Facebook think that Facebook makes money due to how long people spend on their site.
Facebook makes their money in volume of page views. Google makes its money in quality of page views. Trying to be social and dragging people out of Facebook is going to be impossible. Conversely, Facebook trying to do search and dragging people out of Google is futile given their core business.
The Google guys are smart. I can't imagine how they are afraid of Facebook. Social data requires context, which is hard to get. Facebook screws it up all the time. Data-data (not social drivel) requires discovery, which is much easier to execute on and Google has done that really well.
My advice to Google: stop sweating Facebook. Like your momma always told you, "Just be yourself and everyone will like you."
If FB figures out social searching (combining intent-based, search driven advertising with social qualification), Google will be in trouble if they don't have a matching strategy.
That if is a really big one. In the meantime, Google has lost its way. I'm using it less and less as it tries to be more and more.
The other big problem is I've lost faith in them to be good with all my data they hold. Once upon a time, "Don't be evil" seemed to be interpreted as "Be good"; now, they may not be outright evil, but I think they have moved away from "Be good". Because my email and search history contains more sensitive information than the stuff I allow on FB, that is concerning.
So, while social may be important for Google, the bigger issue I see is that they've lost their identity. I no longer really understand who Google is and what it is trying to accomplish. Maybe that is inevitable at a company their size (Apple, an obvious counter to that, is anomalous in many ways).
In the end, I miss the simple search interface.
That if is a really big one. In the meantime, Google has lost its way. I'm using it less and less as it tries to be more and more.
The other big problem is I've lost faith in them to be good with all my data they hold. Once upon a time, "Don't be evil" seemed to be interpreted as "Be good"; now, they may not be outright evil, but I think they have moved away from "Be good". Because my email and search history contains more sensitive information than the stuff I allow on FB, that is concerning.
So, while social may be important for Google, the bigger issue I see is that they've lost their identity. I no longer really understand who Google is and what it is trying to accomplish. Maybe that is inevitable at a company their size (Apple, an obvious counter to that, is anomalous in many ways).
In the end, I miss the simple search interface.
The part I hate most about their search interface is the default behavior where it pops up an image of the page when you hover over the arrow thing. I always move the mouse to the side of the page so I'm not covering the search results, and when it pops out... grrr. Why is this necessary or even helpful as a default?
What's not simple about the current interface? Just because you can use extra features provided by Google+ doesn't mean you have to!
> I no longer really understand who Google is and what it is trying to accomplish.
The same as it ever was - organize the world's information.
> I no longer really understand who Google is and what it is trying to accomplish.
The same as it ever was - organize the world's information.
It's distracting, cluttered, and inundated with results that attempt to drive you to Google's own properties. It's the last one that bugs me the most. Valuable real estate and attention is being used in an attempt not to give me the best information for me, but rather the best information for Google to have me look at.
> The same as it ever was - organize the world's information.
But too often lately, they seem to be forsaking the world's information for their own.
> The same as it ever was - organize the world's information.
But too often lately, they seem to be forsaking the world's information for their own.
+1 ;-)
Tim doesn't make a case for his statement here. While Google has grown large not only as a company but also in terms of businesses (it is no longer just a search company), it is extremely hard to still remain focussed and innovative as they are right now. Hard to see how this compares with Yahoo! at all...
As you grow as a company (especially if you grow quickly or through acquisitions), the more integration points between parts of the company to have.
You eventually reach a point where you are spending more time on integration parts of the company than innovating to keep ahead of competitors. At this point you are dead in the water while your competitors start to catch up.
Yahoo hit exactly this point. If Google is not careful they will also hit this point.
You eventually reach a point where you are spending more time on integration parts of the company than innovating to keep ahead of competitors. At this point you are dead in the water while your competitors start to catch up.
Yahoo hit exactly this point. If Google is not careful they will also hit this point.
No clue in the articles about how, or why. Just because Yahoo lost its way (if they did at all) doesn't mean everyone else has to as well.
Time on site is an important metric, no matter what Tim or Tom says.
Time on site is an important metric, no matter what Tim or Tom says.