however, arrogance & secrecy aside, they usually do a pretty good job of innovating, so i try and be even-handed when i think it's merited. for example, if they're doing what i think they are with Google Checkout then it's a pretty smart move.
if there's anything i'd criticize them for, it's that the culture is SO secretive. for a company whose stated mission is to "organize all the world's information and make it universally accessible", they sure do a good job of making sure *their* information is universally hidden ;)
anyway, i give them kudos for the YouTube acquisition... the ex-PayPal folks over there i worked with definitely deserve credit for the amazing service they built. it's impressive Google recognized they were losing the battle in that market and bought the winner before someone else did.
but i agree, there are some similarities between Google in the late 2000's and Microsoft in the early 90's.
- dave
Lynnette
· 3 years ago
Thank you for helping me spread the word on Google. I think the issue of personal security needs to be brought to the fore front. I don't care if Google is busy with YouTube -- they should take care of their customres. I also appreciate that you don't think it was wrong for me to contact a VP. They purposely don't publish email addresses of lower level employees, so that was really my only choice. Google makes an artform out of preventing customers from talking to a live person!
Krishna
· 3 years ago
I agree that Google is not perfect. However * If someone contacts the wrong person (a VP, for example) in a company with defined processes, that can actually slow the process down rather than kick start it (if every time the VP is contacted he/she puts that person at the head of the line, then the concept of a queue disappears) *The service being free doesn't mean it's ok to suck BUT Google chooses to provide a certain service level free. If people don't like it, they'll defect. If Google wants to make money off of them (ads), it will have to improve. It's a naturally balancing system. I hope they do better with user security next time *There are privacy dangers to GMail (infinite archiving is NOT a good thing) and I'd strongly recommend people use a computer based e-mail system (Thuderbird!!!) to download their Gmail account. Something Google freely allows (unlike Yahoo) *The Microsoft analogy is unfair and inaccurate. Microsoft LIES (blatantly) about competitor products, it funds "research reports" (tobacco institute type scientists), and it pre-announces all sorts of vapour-ware. Google does none of these.
Say what you want about Google (and no, I don't use their search engine all that much), but they've been remarkably consistent. Growing very, very big, but consistent
Byron
· 3 years ago
I agree with the blog poster. The goal seems to be to start questioning Google and not just accept everything as the word of God.
They do lots of things well and some things poorly. No one calls out the poorly. Time they were treated like mortals like the rest of us :)
Mike
· 3 years ago
Nice post Shri. I would have to agree with you that it seems everyone is just pointing at the great parts of Google and nobody is calling them out when they do bad. In the end, I think that hurts Google as much as their customers since many important issues won't trickle to the top. Still love the company and what they are doing but like any company, there is a lot they could be doing better.
Shripriya
· 3 years ago
I think my Microsoft comparison pulled all the focus there. That wasn't really my point. My point was perfectly encapsulated by Mike -- they are a super-cool company that does a lot of great stuff. But they are now a very large company that also makes mistakes. It is in their best interests to try and improve those things. We'll all be better for it.
Matt Cutts
· 3 years ago
(Disclaimer: I'm an engineer at Google.)
Regarding example 1, I think it's helpful to bear in mind that Gmail lets you set a secondary email address and a security question. As far as example 3, I couldn't speak to why some search blogs veer toward discussing Google more..
Shripriya
· 3 years ago
Matt,
Re: 1, that is a fair point and people should use that. Email is a tough one because right now, GMail does not collect any other verification information and so, you guys probably can't figure out if the person is the owner of the address. Probably something for the GMail team to think about. My point was more that when shit happens (like in this case), there has to be an escape valve to shut down baddies quickly.
Re: 3, that's really not your fault in any way... Google does the most in search and sets the trend, but I think it behooves the bloggers to rave when things are great and make thoughtful suggestions when things are suboptimal.
In the long run, balance is what will help Google hear good feedback. That was my point. I firmly believe that companies that are willing to be self-critical are the ones that will grow and improve. I hope Google falls into this category.
Matt Cutts
· 3 years ago
I totally agree, Shri. There are safeguards in Gmail, but when those don't work, I think we should still have ways to respond to complaints--plus have more safeguards. :)
On the larger issue of feedback, especially from bloggers, I think Google does pretty well, but we could clearly do more to take feedback from smart folks and apply it. All those thoughtful suggestions (with the occasional angry rant) helps us see what we need to do better.
libertarian
· 3 years ago
Definitely agree that GOOG is the new MSFT. They'd better enjoy their moment in the sun though. Folks aren't quite that afraid of GOOG as they were even 6 mo. ago. The Youtube acquisition is a tacit admission of middle age - however GOOG and the street might spin it.
All Comments
in fact, i even got invited to coffee and made a friend there over over this critical post about the Google black hole of new product launches.
however, arrogance & secrecy aside, they usually do a pretty good job of innovating, so i try and be even-handed when i think it's merited. for example, if they're doing what i think they are with Google Checkout then it's a pretty smart move.
if there's anything i'd criticize them for, it's that the culture is SO secretive. for a company whose stated mission is to "organize all the world's information and make it universally accessible", they sure do a good job of making sure *their* information is universally hidden ;)
anyway, i give them kudos for the YouTube acquisition... the ex-PayPal folks over there i worked with definitely deserve credit for the amazing service they built. it's impressive Google recognized they were losing the battle in that market and bought the winner before someone else did.
but i agree, there are some similarities between Google in the late 2000's and Microsoft in the early 90's.
- dave
* If someone contacts the wrong person (a VP, for example) in a company with defined processes, that can actually slow the process down rather than kick start it (if every time the VP is contacted he/she puts that person at the head of the line, then the concept of a queue disappears)
*The service being free doesn't mean it's ok to suck BUT Google chooses to provide a certain service level free. If people don't like it, they'll defect. If Google wants to make money off of them (ads), it will have to improve. It's a naturally balancing system. I hope they do better with user security next time
*There are privacy dangers to GMail (infinite archiving is NOT a good thing) and I'd strongly recommend people use a computer based e-mail system (Thuderbird!!!) to download their Gmail account. Something Google freely allows (unlike Yahoo)
*The Microsoft analogy is unfair and inaccurate. Microsoft LIES (blatantly) about competitor products, it funds "research reports" (tobacco institute type scientists), and it pre-announces all sorts of vapour-ware. Google does none of these.
Say what you want about Google (and no, I don't use their search engine all that much), but they've been remarkably consistent. Growing very, very big, but consistent
They do lots of things well and some things poorly. No one calls out the poorly. Time they were treated like mortals like the rest of us :)
Regarding example 1, I think it's helpful to bear in mind that Gmail lets you set a secondary email address and a security question. As far as example 3, I couldn't speak to why some search blogs veer toward discussing Google more..
Re: 1, that is a fair point and people should use that. Email is a tough one because right now, GMail does not collect any other verification information and so, you guys probably can't figure out if the person is the owner of the address. Probably something for the GMail team to think about. My point was more that when shit happens (like in this case), there has to be an escape valve to shut down baddies quickly.
Re: 3, that's really not your fault in any way... Google does the most in search and sets the trend, but I think it behooves the bloggers to rave when things are great and make thoughtful suggestions when things are suboptimal.
In the long run, balance is what will help Google hear good feedback. That was my point. I firmly believe that companies that are willing to be self-critical are the ones that will grow and improve. I hope Google falls into this category.
On the larger issue of feedback, especially from bloggers, I think Google does pretty well, but we could clearly do more to take feedback from smart folks and apply it. All those thoughtful suggestions (with the occasional angry rant) helps us see what we need to do better.