What will Google offer?
google.com
google.com
I'd like to see more innovation and less parroting coming out of them. I don't want my search results to be social - I want them to be relevant and spam free. If they really feel like going "social" is the way to deliver those results, then cool - go with it - but don't just copy what another company is doing. Personally I feel like they're good at algorithmic and engineering solutions to problems and not good at social - why not stick with what you excel at?
That strategy doesn't work with social, though. They can rip off an idea and build a more technically sound product, but social needs more than just a good product, and google can't deliver.
I still think you need to have people on the ground. And lots of them. As a small aside, I work for a Groupon-clone website in a non-US market. I've built a very nice Internet-based redemption interface for the business owners to check the clients' coupons. Guess what? ~75% of them don't even have Internet at the POS, they print their coupon lists at a home computer and somehow manage all the clients we send them manually. We also manually create accounts for about half of them, because, apparently, creating an user account on our Drupal-based website is too damn difficult.
Maybe this time is different, and all the tech-savy small-business owners from out-there will go directly into Google's arms. I personally doubt it.
Big overlay on google maps: "Get 0.5% off your total bill at Joe's Pancake House when you order at least sixteen pancakes!"
PS. Man, I feel like pancakes now
Open up Maps, hit the 'Find Places' button, and pick Restaurants, for example. There's a sponsored, very generic link for Groupon here; Google could do one better by adding a little 'offers available' symbol beside some of the restaurants.
Hopefully the leadership shakeup at Google will turn things around.
And to quote Eric Schmidt: "The last new idea in computer science was public key encryption in 1975"
It's the implementation of an idea that sets it apart.
Some amount of copy-catting is certainly necessary and healthy to push horizons and to help competition keep things fresh. But that doesn't mean all copying is benign and healthful. Copying can certainly be tacky.
Most people seem to agree that some large companies copy not because they have something genuinely worthy of merit to bring to the table, but simply because they are very large, and can leverage some of the advantages of that largeness to horn in on the market. You can be certain that in these cases, said large companies will make the case that their differentiations are worthy, but that doesn't automatically make it so.
Schmidt's quotation is roughly true, obviously. But it's also something that you'd say to a group of people you wanted to motivate to continue to perform well even though some of the crew is growing restless. Many high performers would rather attempt visionary and trailblazing products rather than work on another boring me-too project.
Because most companies don't believe that trying to expand into another area will significantly hurt them in areas they already excel at.
Similarly, Cisco buying Groupon increases perimeter to surface area far more than Google buying Admob.
That still doesn't explain why they didn't just put the temporary page at /offers, though. I tend to give Google benefit of doubt and assume they had a sound technical reason when they do something I don't understand, but I'd like to see an explanation of the thinking behind that.
(Also, did anyone else think the subject meant what would Google offer salary-wise to not leave for Facebook? ;))
But I also had to upvote this "its not a zero sum game" aspect of this comment. Just like two 7-11's diagonally across from each other at a busy intersection can (or a circle-K across from a 7-11 etc) can make money there is a huge amount of squish around what constitutes a 'saturated' coupon market.
Google could win just by virtue of the fact that they integrate better with their own properties. That is why I felt Groupon turning down their $6B bid was not particularly wise. We'll see of course, its clear this process is going to complete the full cycle.
This is going to get interesting. I can see this getting pushed to Android phones, with the option of getting a notification for one shot deals within you location. Pretty sure the Groupon guys are rethinking the offer they turned down.
In one, google was the first, the inventor if you like, and gathered the customer base slowly, in the other, they have competition, are late to the game, and probably besides tech savy people who read hacker news or other tech magazines very few people would know that Google Offers even exists without some massive ad campaign.
And I mean that literally. Once Google enters the game, who else will bother? Either
a) Google will lose against Groupon, proving that it's impossible to dislodge Groupon, or
b) Google will win against Groupon, in which case you'd be crazy to take on Google
David can sometimes beat Goliath, but if King Kong shows up to the fight as well then David should probably just go home.
c) Google launches, and some people use it... but not enough to make a dent in Groupon, but just enough people to justify running the service
Let the games/war begin.
Is it just me or is Google going to war with too many people ?
More 'me too,' products, more Walmartization of SERPS to kill the small guys and a sliding stock price.
(does this sound coming from the future?)
What Google's entry into this market means is that it will basically kill off any other Groupon clones, and merely solidify Groupon and Living Social's dominance.