I’ve been to so many big earth-shaking events from BigTechCo’s — today’s Google thing is making me yawn, while my eyes glaze over in boredom. Permanent link to this item in the archive.
Here’s how products like this are conceived: Permanent link to this item in the archive.
1. We need to kill Facebook. Permanent link to this item in the archive.
2. What will we do. Permanent link to this item in the archive.
3. It can’t just be Facebook. Permanent link to this item in the archive.
4. No one will use that. Permanent link to this item in the archive.
5. It has to be better. Permanent link to this item in the archive.
6. It has to be something only we can do. Permanent link to this item in the archive.
7. Some place where we have the advantage. Permanent link to this item in the archive.
8. Something people have no choice but to use. Permanent link to this item in the archive.
So if you’re Microsoft in 1999, you bake it into Windows. Permanent link to this item in the archive.
If you’re Google in 2011, you bake it into search. Permanent link to this item in the archive.
All you do is make your core product heavier. The thing you wanted to kill doesn’t go anywhere. It hardly notices what you did. The users might care to the extent that they’re annoyed (or in the case of wordpress.com and their fear of being left out of the iPad, hugely annoyed). Permanent link to this item in the archive.
A picture named elephant.jpgThe thing that makes Facebook great is that it incubated in the market with real users. It was made by real users. It was formed by actual use. One day at a time, one feature at a time, in public, every home run visible, and every mis-step. Permanent link to this item in the archive.
Products like the one Google just announced are hatched at off-sites at resorts near Monterey or in the Sierra, and were designed to meet the needs of the corporation that created it. A huge scared angry corporation. What little is left of the spark that created it in the first place is now used to being Number One, and wants to feel that again. It’s being created to make that person feel better. Permanent link to this item in the archive.
Eventually they will become an investment bank and a services company. The fate for all former high-flying techco’s. Permanent link to this item in the archive.
Yawwwwwwwwwwn. Permanent link to this item in the archive.
- Why hasn’t Hollywood found a way to create a simple licensing model that works for everyone that wants in? It’s their own fault that video piracy is rapidly overtaking music piracy as they continue to banish any who attempt to access their (very replaceable) content. That said, it’s intriguing how everyone seems to be attacking Google for their seeming failure at the slick Hollyweird game vs. say, Netflix, a quiet giant in the on-demand space.
- Google TV is on pause because it lacks the content distribution relationships that Netflix has created. The conventional way to forge these relationships is old school— IRL shmoozing. The implication here is that Google suffers in that capacity, so they’ll keep delaying until some partnerships are established that ensure Goog can pipe fresh content out there.
- The 100 year old film business still clinging to an ancient distribution model despite all signs pointing to the fact that the majority of people would be fine with just paying for a download of the movie straight to their TV, on-demand style. An insightful commenter put it:
The revolution is coming the question is will Hollywood survive it or will the new generation of movie makers learn to bypass the middle men like what’s happening in the music industry.It’s Greek tragedy level pathos…all this greed and self-importance and blindness. Even so, Google has never been a content engine. Contextual serving of search or ads is radically different than having to stock a pipeline up with rich, engaging features. Still, with so many forecasts of Netflix’s impending contract re-negotiation fallout, I’m staying glued to the hinternetz to track this story. Any predictions?
You don’t work on great technology at a startup. Startups, by and large, aren’t about technology — at least, not the Web 2.0 startups like Facebook, Foursquare, Twitter, Groupon, etc. They are about business model discovery. So if you are fundamentally a technologist at heart, whose heart sings when you’re making a better file system, or fixing a kernel bug, you’re not going to be happy at a startup. At least, not if the startup is run competently. If you have the heart of an entrepreneur, and you are willing to roll the dice (since 9 out of 10 startups go belly up; those are the ones that failed to find a viable business model), then sure, go for a startup. And understand that your job will be to make something that works well at a small scale, quick, dirty, and cheap. If that means using some proprietary software, then that’s what you should do. Hopefully you’ll get lucky and win the IPO lottery.
But if your primary interest is to doing great engineering work, then you want go to company that has a proven business model.
Theodore Ts’o: Google has a problem retaining great engineers? Bullcrap. in response to this Daily Finance article on the matter & this NYT article.
what do you think?
Finally Android users have something new and fun to do: go for a dive. With the release of Google Earth for Android 1.1 (available to Android 2.1 and above devices), you can now zoom in below the surface of the waves and explore the majestic wonder of undersea trenches.
scan the QR code below to download!
In an extremely important court decision, a New York federal judge ruled in favor of Google’s YouTube in a defense against Viacom’s $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit on Wednesday. Viacom claimed that YouTube knowingly ignored the tens of thousands of videos uploaded to the site that included copyrighted materials owned by the music and entertainment company.
I believe that the industry’s survival also depends greatly on its ability to adapt to audience behaviors and desires. We now live in a world where people demand access to content they want, instantly, and enjoy paying homage in active ways through mash-ups, compilations, spoofs and other incorporations and interpretations of the copyrighted material that they love. Smart companies, in my opinion, have accepted this and are finding ways to leverage this enthusiasm for their content into sales, PR, and otherwise positive brand affinity. It’s worth noting that YouTube has created Video Identification, a filtering technology that helps to identify copyrighted material when it is uploaded to the site. Also, YouTube itself has become a powerful platform in increasing entertainment industry revenues, allowing record labels to sell song downloads directly from videos on their platform…..
such a thoughtful blog post from Tarah. I cannot recommend it highly enough. Mostly agree with everything he says. This is big news, you guys— for me personally as a creator of content & believer in open source (literally/ creatively / metaphorically) but also for our industry & future.