http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Wow-6-whole-days-without-a-Nexus-4-post-tp7581833p7581880.html
I appreciate the fresh view of the
situation, while I thoroughly admire Doug's "Pester Power"
(admire, not envy, nor aspire to), I think it assumes something
that is not neccesarily true about Google. They just are not who
we want them to be, and perhaps not even who we think they are?
Owen's analysis is very pointed and I find it convincing for the
most part. For what it is worth, Google is still a very YOUNG
company, despite it's breadth and depth. Think Apple and
Microsoft *back* in the 80s, maybe early 90's. The founders are
still clearly driving and apparently with NO contention (as
opposed to Apple/Jobs in the 80s). I don't follow tech news
closely, so I could be missing something.
They claim that their model is to "do one thing really well", when
in fact, they either do that one thing (search) really well, and
dozens of others pretty well, and a few things poor to middling
(but not for very long?), or they just keep expanding what they
mean by that "one thing"?
While they operate within the existing economy and technical
landscape, they are also redefining it by their existence as well
as their nature.
Whatever we may think about their play in the telephone market, it
*has* significantly changed the game all around. Would the
iPhone be what it is if Android hadn't been introduced?
“The best way to predict your future is to create it”
- Abraham Lincoln
For some reason, I have often heard this attributed to Steve
Jobs... in any case, it would seem that Brin and Page (and
Schmidt?) are doing their best to re-invent the concept.
- Steve
Owen,
Based on your analysis,
Google is a
venture-capital company that likes to play things close to the
chest, and sometimes pretends to be an advertising agency. Their
core
stregnth is seeing
projects through to deployment, and so long as individual
project's R&D budgets stay in line with the proportion of
projects that succeed, then who needs focus?
So... Those phones didn't work? Well, we can always try again,
because the majority of consumers have short memories. Or we can
drop it and transition the resources to one of our 815 other
projects that seem more promising. The only way to loose is to
commit too much to a project that fails, so being less committed
to follow-through is a form of protection!
If that is what they are doing, you are right that their
business model is structured screwy. On the other hand, if they
were "
Google Group
LLC"
then they would have to officially close companies when projects
fail. Certainly they would be viewed more negatively if they
"closed 7 companies last year" then if they "ended 7
beta-tests". Never mind that the beta-tests were 8 years long
and had a dedicated staff of 350 people; carry on, nothing to
see here.
Eric
--------
Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State, Altoona
From:
"Bruce Sherwood" <
bruce.
sherwood@
gmail.com>
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group" <
friam@
redfish.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:13:44 PM
Subject: Re: [
FRIAM] Wow. 6 whole
days without a Nexus 4 post.
Nice analysis, Owen. Makes a lot of sense.
Bruce
============================================================
FRIAM Applied
Complexity Group
listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to
unsubscribe http://
redfish.com/mailman/
listinfo/
friam_
redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College