HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Wired has a pretty interesting interview with Google's Larry Page posted today that is worth reading. My favorite quote of the interview:
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Larry Page Interview
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,898
Pretty sure Jobs would only say something inflammatory like that because he was feeling threatened. So...yeah. 
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
well, calling out Facebook for their poor products does sound a little more realistic when your own product isn't foundering ... Google+ isn't exactly breaking into social media at the highest levels yet ... Larry Page might do well to remember the famous Lincoln quote, "the hen is the wisest animal of all, she never cackles until AFTER the egg is laid"
bloodhawke83
I Strike Fear into the Hearts of the Masses
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 8,382
well, calling out Facebook for their poor products does sound a little more realistic when your own product isn't foundering ... Google+ isn't exactly breaking into social media at the highest levels yet ... Larry Page might do well to remember the famous Lincoln quote, "the hen is the wisest animal of all, she never cackles until AFTER the egg is laid"
they're forcing people to use it. youtube and on android market.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
They forced people to get accounts when they changed their login and account policies but although I have a Google+ account (because I don't have a choice anymore) ... I don't use it
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
Eh, I skimmed through most of the interview, a lot of stuff I have heard from him before and pretty much more of what I expected. Didn't seem like there were many sensational quotes this time really, seems like he was more reserved in this interview.
Overall I agree with his philosophy and using the money they have to try and create entirely new markets. That is something I can get behind 100%. It is not always attractive to shareholders, but innovation is what helps drive more business, which in turn should help drive more jobs and hopefully higher quality of living.
I don't think Google hits a home run with too many of their products, but they do certainly create a lot of new interesting adaptations. The one thing that I would have to argue with him on is his current idea of 10x. He mentions not just battling competition and not just going up against what people have already done. But so far, that is exactly what Google has done. They created a search engine, but there were already search engines out. They created Gmail, but there was already online email out. They created Android, but there were already mobile OS's and smartphones out. Google glasses is also something that has actually been done before. GPS mapping services, also been done before. So there really isn't a lot of true innovation going on there except seeing what others did and trying to make it better.
Sometimes I think he has lost touch with reality over what Google has really been about and been successful at. It isn't that they have created anything revolutionary as much as recreated things others have done and offer it under a completely different pricing model and scheme. So really their goal and innovation comes from finding ways to make money off of products they offer for 'free' and making them more 'open'.
Overall I agree with his philosophy and using the money they have to try and create entirely new markets. That is something I can get behind 100%. It is not always attractive to shareholders, but innovation is what helps drive more business, which in turn should help drive more jobs and hopefully higher quality of living.
I don't think Google hits a home run with too many of their products, but they do certainly create a lot of new interesting adaptations. The one thing that I would have to argue with him on is his current idea of 10x. He mentions not just battling competition and not just going up against what people have already done. But so far, that is exactly what Google has done. They created a search engine, but there were already search engines out. They created Gmail, but there was already online email out. They created Android, but there were already mobile OS's and smartphones out. Google glasses is also something that has actually been done before. GPS mapping services, also been done before. So there really isn't a lot of true innovation going on there except seeing what others did and trying to make it better.
Sometimes I think he has lost touch with reality over what Google has really been about and been successful at. It isn't that they have created anything revolutionary as much as recreated things others have done and offer it under a completely different pricing model and scheme. So really their goal and innovation comes from finding ways to make money off of products they offer for 'free' and making them more 'open'.
next-Jin
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,387
Me thinks the last few comments are FUBAR because it does not make sense on who was saying what.
Other than that it was an interesting interview and I appreciate how he has an entire division looking into entirely new things.
Other than that it was an interesting interview and I appreciate how he has an entire division looking into entirely new things.
And it was at least 10 times better than the competition.
Again, it was better than the existing competitors by a mile.
As an open system, I'd consider it 10 times better but that one is a matter of opinion (and the subject of a ridiculous amount of Android versus IOS discussion).
And it's gone nowhere in the past.
Google Maps is a lot better than the competition.
I think you may have misunderstood what he was saying. "10x" is different from creating out-of-left-field products. The products you just listed all (again, except perhaps Android, which is a question of individual utility/need) turned out to be huge improvements over the previously existing products.
10x means that while he recognizes the value of incremental improvements, if Google is going to enter an existing market they should have ideas that push way beyond other products.
Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't mention Google+ which really doesn't seem to fit into that mold, and which the Wired interviewer did bring up. Even if one ignores existing user numbers (any new service is going to lag behind established ones, and Facebook's ubiquity gives it a lot of momentum), Google+ certainly doesn't seem much better than Facebook to me.
I remain very optimistic about Google's future. While they have duds, their hits really do go right out of the park.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
First off Babbster, I think you misinterpret my point. I have nothing against Google, I tend to like google, I have google programs, google OS's, google devices. My point is that Larry is offhanded criticizing other companies while he has been doing mostly the same thing. He has just generally been doing a better job of it. But they put out a lot of crap as 'Beta' to try and sneak out marginal products, claim they are not finished and therefore don't fall under his "10x" rule.
Actually, no. When it started it wasn't better than the competition at all. The algorithm was not mature and it was much harder to narrow searches down and find meaningful information. It got better as they grew and perfected the algorithm and then improved search times.
To be honest gmail STILL isn't better than a lof of competitors. Their sorting sucks, their folders suck, their capabilities and options in their email sucks, and their security sucks. Their search is good, filter is good and their storage is good, but everything else sucks. So not only is it not 10x better than the competition, it is in some ways still worse than the competition.
Open source is good, but its not really better than the competition. I really dislike Apple, but their iOS is still more polished than Android. What I like about Android, and why I have a lot of android devices is the fact that it is mostly open (it is not truly open btw), and it has a lot of versatility. It is easier to develop for than the iOS, but it is still clunky and less polished than iOS or Windows 8 phone to be honest.
As for Google glass and whether the products in the past have gone anywhere or not doesn't matter. Google glass hasn't gone anywhere either. And the point wasn't how successful Google glass may be, it is about the fact its not an innovation in the market place. Hell I had worked with a similar set of glasses back in the late 90s. Just like I had smart phones back then too and mobile tablets, and handheld computers. All of this stuff has been done before. Technology has improved since then, and the technology itself is 10x better. So if you want to go by the 10x claim and say they are making a product that is 10x better than one 20 years ago...okay you got me there.
As for maps. Again, when it started it was most definitely NOT better than the competition, it had a lot of errors, it took years to fix those and for them to figure out how to do it right. Remember most of the features they have now have been added on through years and years of use. What you see now is better than the competition because of years of flooding the market with their product and making smaller incremental improvements.
No, I didn't misinterpret what he was saying, you are just not understanding my comments and you have a skewed view of how Google has operated. Google has been all about the incremental improvements. Their search engine had incremental improvements, google maps has had incremental improvements, gmail has had incremental improvements.
Why would I mention Google+? It is a non factor.
Still my comments are to inform, not criticize Google. It is a statement much like all the "magical" and "innovation" claims that Steve Jobs made for Apple marketing. They just don't hold much water at all. After close examination they completely fall apart. But what bother Larry Page and Steve Jobs understand is that it doesn't matter if what they say in marketing lingo isn't true, it is all about what people believe. And they both believe they can make these outrageous claims and the vast majority of their following will believe it. I mean it works with revisionist history for politics, why not for consumerism?
Actually, no. When it started it wasn't better than the competition at all. The algorithm was not mature and it was much harder to narrow searches down and find meaningful information. It got better as they grew and perfected the algorithm and then improved search times.
To be honest gmail STILL isn't better than a lof of competitors. Their sorting sucks, their folders suck, their capabilities and options in their email sucks, and their security sucks. Their search is good, filter is good and their storage is good, but everything else sucks. So not only is it not 10x better than the competition, it is in some ways still worse than the competition.
Open source is good, but its not really better than the competition. I really dislike Apple, but their iOS is still more polished than Android. What I like about Android, and why I have a lot of android devices is the fact that it is mostly open (it is not truly open btw), and it has a lot of versatility. It is easier to develop for than the iOS, but it is still clunky and less polished than iOS or Windows 8 phone to be honest.
As for Google glass and whether the products in the past have gone anywhere or not doesn't matter. Google glass hasn't gone anywhere either. And the point wasn't how successful Google glass may be, it is about the fact its not an innovation in the market place. Hell I had worked with a similar set of glasses back in the late 90s. Just like I had smart phones back then too and mobile tablets, and handheld computers. All of this stuff has been done before. Technology has improved since then, and the technology itself is 10x better. So if you want to go by the 10x claim and say they are making a product that is 10x better than one 20 years ago...okay you got me there.
As for maps. Again, when it started it was most definitely NOT better than the competition, it had a lot of errors, it took years to fix those and for them to figure out how to do it right. Remember most of the features they have now have been added on through years and years of use. What you see now is better than the competition because of years of flooding the market with their product and making smaller incremental improvements.
No, I didn't misinterpret what he was saying, you are just not understanding my comments and you have a skewed view of how Google has operated. Google has been all about the incremental improvements. Their search engine had incremental improvements, google maps has had incremental improvements, gmail has had incremental improvements.
Why would I mention Google+? It is a non factor.
Still my comments are to inform, not criticize Google. It is a statement much like all the "magical" and "innovation" claims that Steve Jobs made for Apple marketing. They just don't hold much water at all. After close examination they completely fall apart. But what bother Larry Page and Steve Jobs understand is that it doesn't matter if what they say in marketing lingo isn't true, it is all about what people believe. And they both believe they can make these outrageous claims and the vast majority of their following will believe it. I mean it works with revisionist history for politics, why not for consumerism?