They release products, only to abandon many of them without a clear reason (like Google Talk). Or they release two products that should be one instead (Android & ChromeOS, or Allo & Duo).
The Google Talk fiasco got me particularly disenchanted. A beautiful, open, standards-compliant product (they even helped extending XMPP with Jingle!) gets replaced by a proprietary mess like Hangouts.
Coupled with no clear strategy other than "we need the next toothbrush" you get what you see.
I'd love an open and honest answer from someone up high in the org chart at Google on that. Better yet, just an acknowledgement of it and how they're going to stop doing this in the future. If they were a startup with 200 employees under the age of 30 I'd understand it, but they're obviously waaaaay beyond that stage.
I know a ton of people who set up a G+ profile and I found both the web version and mobile app to be superior to Facebook's offering. Plus they had better image hosting and they had good text/video chat before FB updated theirs.
But in the end it comes down to critical mass of users (and particularly, non-early-adopters) on Facebook. You might get your other peers to try out a new service if you're into trying out new sites/services but unless you get everyone to make (and use) a profile the way most people seem to at least have a Facebook account, you're stuck maintaining two profiles on two sites and switching between them depending on who you want to share that update or photo or link with.
In the end it didn't matter if they had a modestly better site or mobile app because nobody wanted to post to two sites. And since, unlike email, these things don't operate on any sort of standard protocol, you can't just switch your client and let grandma keep using her old one so it fizzled as a FB competitor.
(I still use it for several niche interest groups though. Also I think circles are vastly superior to whatever Facebook has for granular control of who you share something with.)
When fb came into existence there wasn't much of a competitor to it, so they focused on making it easy to use and stuff, later, when g+ was being created they misread the entire picture. At that point fb had become a platform or was becoming a platform. Currently, FB has different users, some use it as a buy sell group, some for messenger, some for playing games (APIs) etc
g+ didn't focus on good things, just beautiful UI doesn't mean you win, you have to differentiate yourself, they should have gone this way, start a private beta, build a terrific API for developers, so devs will flock to your platform and build apps on it, plus the circles stuff, it is great for geeks like us, but not so much for my grandma, who doesn't even know what google means. Plus, g+ takes an awfully large amount of time to load on slow network. Overall. Plus they don't have an end vision.
What pisses me off most is that there is no clear alternative if you want to keep your data portable between multiple brands/devices. Microsoft often works poorly. Apple only works on Apple. The alternative is a hodgepodge of services (SimpleNote, HERE maps, EverNote, etc) that requires tons of accounts.
They might-should-be the same, but they're fundamentally very different roots.
Newer phones should've shipped with the ping-pong update system, and the secure permissions system that permeates Linux.
Instead we're left with, what is really 75% a hack, Android. The update system sucks. The "recompiling" of app sucks. The permissions system sucks. The bloat really sucks. I am pretty sure my Nexus One was more responsive than my last Nexus phone, or any of the competition (which also, despite Google's best (awful) efforts have deviated in user experience greatly).
Google, once a golden god of the entire computer/software industry has fallen so far. It's really depressing. I wonder if it is even possible for a business to succeed the way Google used to and be profitable.
It's only a matter of time before someone eats their lunch, just the same as Microsoft. In 15 years $COMPANY will dominate and we'll be in the same spot.
Chromeos on the other hand is a very well-thought-out distro that is extremely simple and low-level, enough that it could easily form the basis of a great OS like Android
It's not that someone internally calls it out as a failure, but the constant pressure to compete for scarce resources (department budgets and developers in Google's case) encourages the internal politicking and resource wars. If YouTube or Search or Android is considered top priority at the moment, it's very unlikely some project like Google Voice or Google Talk have any kind of leverage in defending their budgets and/or teams.
As best I recall, ChromeOS started as a personal project to see if one could build a OS around a web browser (and Google already had one handy).
On top of this Android didn't start within Google. And Rubin ran it as his own fief. Supposedly he insisted that all Android devices come equipped with a mobile radio, and thus Google would not certify WiFi only tablet devices.
I still haven't fully bought into the Google ecosystem but I'm slowly move over.
The issue is if you take a lot of photos that you will want to upgrade. But it is a small amount.
Various features like "auto install apps I installed on other devices" want to hide this away, but they fail. For example, they will install apps I installed on another device, but they won't install them in the same position on the screen (something very important for me), and they won't delete it.
Also many apps, including apps made by Apple, do not use iCloud to store their settings and data, or use it inconsistently (e.g. only for data, but not for settings). One spectacular example is the messaging app, which doesn't show SMSs received on all devices (although it shows SMSs received on other devices before I made the backup, making it even more confusing). Of course, the messaging app shows iMessages. So some messages work, but others don't.
http://www.apple.com/pt/pr/library/2014/09/02Apple-Media-Adv...
Whilst there was a security issue in iCloud it wasn't the root cause behind the "fappening" scandal. It was purely social engineering.
Google really had momentum. They bungled it terribly. I just use an iPhone now. It works, no bloatware, no bullshit, no need for useless tweaks.
I should have switched years ago.
Once it becomes a legacy party of Google (hey, remember the original Pixel that Google made? The premium laptop that they no longer support at all? I own it.), chances are they'll drop all that support, just like everything else at Google.
Google has a vested interest in not fixing Android's brokenness. They make a lot of money off phones that needs to be replaced every 2 years. With their strict control over OHA, they can easily mandate PC style platform standards to reduce e-waste, fight planned obsolescence and offer real security updates:
http://penguindreams.org/blog/android-fragmentation/
But they don't. I feel like I'm through, but I don't want an Apple phone either. Ubuntu Mobile has no device support and Plasma only supports two devices (neither with an SDCard option). I wish we had real open hardware :(
No... they really don't. They make a lot of money off search traffic and the app store. Android licensing amounts to approximately $0.75 per handset. That's not even a rounding error on their balance sheet, and SURELY not something to "intentionally break android" over. Broken android is a great way to drive people to other platforms. There's nothing to be gained for them in that.
more to the point, why do you think they released the Pixel line-up? They got sick of vendors screwing up Android by skinning every premium handset on the market (and skins are the primary source of broken garbage). And in that endeavor they've been wildly successful. The pixel is by far the best android handset I've ever owned. You pay for it, but it's worth it if you like android.
Google Assistant? Not available on my Nexus 5X, which I received less than a year ago. Search button behaves differently, Allo behaves differently, "night mode" removed Nexus 5X build and added to Pixel build.
I'm upset because I thought switching to a Google-designed Android phone would rescue me from fragmentation and give me access to the best, cleanest Android experience.
Then they released the Pixel and removed a feature from my phone and fragmented their own operating system's features to differentiate a new device.
I've used it exactly 1 time, and if my choices were a 5x or a Pixel and that was the only feature I cared about, I wouldn't spend the money in a million years to enable it.
Allo is useless to me, so I guess I don't really have any comments there. No desktop app? No multi-device? I'll stick with hangouts.
None of the things you mentioned would be worth upgrading for. And I REALLY don't think you're missing anything. The camera and the build quality are what make the pixel awesome. Assistant, night mode, and allo functioning slightly differently don't even enter into the equation on the price hike being justified.
http://www.androidauthority.com/how-does-google-make-money-f...
The Pixel doesn't have an sdcard slot, which is a deal breaker for me. (I don't rent my music, so I have a 200GB micosd card with my collection on it). Even their 128GB model simply won't cut it.
I'm not sure what to tell you on the sdcard slot or how it applies to the discussion. I simply said the Pixel is a clear example of the rest of the android ecosystem not living up to Google's expectations of a premium phone. There will NEVER be a phone that is all things to all people, if an sdcard is a dealbreaker for you, don't buy one. I think it's ridiculous to claim you need 200GB of songs on your phone, but that's your choice. Of course, google will let you upload 50,000 songs for free over google music, so even that excuse doesn't hold water, but I'm sure you'll find another reason to complain.
I mean, not OP here, but my music library is ~140 GB, and I don't think it's unreasonable to want to have that available without internet access. I run with a 64gb iPhone, so I'm definitely not the guy arguing for massive SD cards on everything, but I don't think you can say it's totally ridiculous to have a use case for that much storage.
So now I am back to managing music files on my device and changing them out and feeling like I jumped 10 years back to the past.
Someone is vested in making money every 2 years alright, but it's not Google - it's Qualcomm.
> With their strict control over OHA, they can easily mandate PC style platform standards to reduce e-waste, fight planned obsolescence and offer real security updates
Unfortunately due to Linux's intentional lack of a stable driver ABI, the ability to upgrade Android depends on Qualcomm's willingness to write drivers for old chipsets on newer kernel versions, but that is a rather unattractive proposition for Qualcomm since they want as much demand for their new chips as possible. Qualcomm is a member of the OHA, but they are effectively a monopoly and I doubt Google could push them around.