Hacker News Reader

Comment by O1111OOO | Hacker News Reader

> As I understand it, Google is not well optimized for putting out new mass market customer-facing services and keeping them going.

I've been reading the threads about Google killing off products - to the point where it's become a meme. Lost in this are the number of products killed off by other large tech firms. A shame because sometimes objectivity is lost in the analysis.

Your phrasing got me thinking about some of Google's successes (off the top of my head):

They have old successes in search and gmail. In these cases, they climbed their way to the top. The have google.docs, youtube (oldish) but entering TV/Movies now, android (not that old), Chrome Browser, ChromeOS & their entry into schools, translate, google.storage, maps, that dohickey used to stream video to TV sets (can't remember the name:)...

Google Plus probably deserves a quick death. I just wouldn't underestimate Google by downplaying their successes.

View on HN

> that dohickey used to stream video to TV sets (can't remember the name:)...

Chromecast and it's probably one of the best things Google has built in recent years. It's entirely removed the need for me to hook up a media PC to the TV, and now I can just stream content from the home server. Also multi-participant Youtube parties are a thing, and work well (everyone can add things to a shared queue).

> Chromecast and it's probably one of the best things Google has built in recent years.

Yes, I love mine … and yet, why doesn't it have a remote. No, my phone is not a suitable remote: it's locked, so I must unlock it before I can do TV stuff with it. Also, for some reason Chromecast & my phone tend to desync a fair amount of time.

I've never been happy with the Apple TVs I've used, either (the UI is pretty painful), but at least they have remotes.

We've got a Chromecast and a Chromecast audio and whenever something is playing on either of them any Android phone in the house gets the ability to pause, skip or change the volume from the lock screen.

A remote doesn't make sense for it honestly.

It's still faster to pick up a remote & hit a physical button (possibly without even looking at it) than to pick up a phone, tap it to awaken it, wait for the screen to power on, look at it, find the button to pause & then hit it.

I would pay $20–$50 for a decent remote. I'd also love for the Chromecast to have the ability to use my accounts to play entertainment directly from that remote.

Sounds like you want an Android TV, or a Fire TV with Kodi+Plex+Kore+NewPipe+etc

Youtube - Aquisition

Android - Aquisition

Maps - Aquisition

Docs - Aquisition

Google is great at scaling up aquisitions and optimizing them for the audience.

Survivorship bias here. There are lots of other Google acquisitions that sank without a trace.

It seems the hit rate is low whether inside or outside Google.

The hit rate isn't as important as how well the hits perform. The list above has done quite well, and I highly doubt that Google has spent as much on the losers as the winners have made for them. If so, Google would be out of business (or close to it).

> Google is great at scaling up aquisitions and optimizing them for the audience.

I'm not sure if I buy this line of thinking related to Google only. It just sounds like another dig. Most big tech companies are fairly good at either scaling acquisitions or buying them for their IP/Talent. Some big tech companies can't even get this right.

I'm still forced to ask myself: what was Android or Maps before the acquisition?

If we compare, for example, the hacked version of CP/M (that later become DOS) with Windows 10... can we not say the same for Android - pre-acquisition? Google has certainly done much more than simply optimizing it.

If it's basically an idea that Google's buying: the idea of a hut. Optimizing that hut might be akin to building a skyscrapper. At what point does Google get credit for actually building something useful vs "optimizing and scaling" (which I think has become another meme)?

This also still leaves us with Chrome, ChromeOS, Entry into schools, some hardware, and a host of other stuff someone more in tune with Google could address.

If the response is that Chrome is based on Linux, then the counter is that macOS is based on BSD. The question remains, what is Google doing differently from other tech firms. Might they actually be building a better mousetrap (re: their successes)?

Not a fan of Google. Just think that too often people box companies in and disparage the actual work they do while, in the meantime... they take over the world.

To make it clearer:

Maps - Acquired 14 years ago

Android - Acquired 13 years ago

Docs - Acquired 12 years ago

YouTube - Acquired 12 years ago

Are we assuming Google didn't change or innovate with those at all in last 10 years?

Maps - mainly cosmetic changes, though most of that was significant improvements

Android - significantly improved all over

Docs - never a big user, don't really know

YouTube - significantly better video quality, significantly worse user experience with everything else

Maps and Youtube got worse.

Well, he did add that they were scaled up and optimized. That's where most of Google's innovation and engineering hours are spent on those products.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com