It's not about core competency, it's about purpose. Google's purpose in shipping a phone was to ship a good phone; Microsoft's purpose in shipping mice was (originally) to promote adoption of their software. Both goals were accomplished.

Google's purpose in releasing development tools is not to release good development tools, it's to build brand recognition and appreciation. They look like the good guys for having "open" software, while the truth of the matter is that they are not at all interested in creating a rich development ecosystem. They just like the karma.

Any number of other tech companies do the same thing; Google is hardly alone in this. So I still contend that you're disappointed because your expectations are wrong.


If Starbucks made lawn mowers, I would have no reason to believe their product was quality. Maybe I'm just more cynical than you, but I frankly find it a bit unrealistic to expect everything to be solid gold just because some business puts their name on it.

Google's purpose in releasing development tools is not to release good development tools, it's to build brand recognition and appreciation. They look like the good guys for having "open" software, while the truth of the matter is that they are not at all interested in creating a rich development ecosystem. They just like the karma.

I can't disagree with this more. Google's purpose in releasing development tools is to promote people using their ecosystem, just like Microsoft, Oracle, Amazon, et all.

One of the biggest profit centers from smartphones is the licensing cut off applications especially if you don't make the hardware, it is in Googles best interest to make developers experience as good as possible or at least it should be. Even ignoring my hatred of Objective-C, I have to acknowledge that Apple and Microsoft are doing a vastly superior job to Google in the developer support category.

The same applies to App Engine and to a lesser degree PlayN and GWT, they develop an ecosystem so they make money off their cloud based offerings. The same is true with the various web APIs that they are attempting to monetize.

This is far beyond some BS goodwill open source projects and I am disappointed because I am interested in all of these areas and in everyone one of them, Google's offering sucks.


Look for example at cloud computing. Every single billion dollar company is exploring this space in some capacity, but Amazon, Microsoft, EMC/VMWare and Google are the front runners. I personally have little experience with VMWare's offerings, but I can tell you of the three, Google's are by far the least polished, least documented and hardest to deploy to. This is predicted as a multi-billion dollar segment going forward, so proper developer tools and support are key to adoption and Google is dropping that ball bigtime.

Google's purpose in releasing development tools is to promote people using their ecosystem, just like Microsoft, Oracle, Amazon, et all.

I maybe wouldn't go this far. A lot of google's stuff is done by developers because it's cool; not due to some strategic corporate goal. If anything, I expect Dart was (originally) made because JavaScript sucks and due to the relatively cutting edge things that Google uses JS for they run into the troubles more than most.

They release the tool so that they promote that "we're the company that makes cool things" vibe to developers (which should in turn promote ecosystems), but I don't really think that the primary motivation for many of these projects are the same as they would be elsewhere.

[quote name='Serapth' timestamp='1320263388' post='4879837']
Google's purpose in releasing development tools is to promote people using their ecosystem, just like Microsoft, Oracle, Amazon, et all.

I maybe wouldn't go this far. A lot of google's stuff is done by developers because it's cool; not due to some strategic corporate goal. If anything, I expect Dart was (originally) made because JavaScript sucks and due to the relatively cutting edge things that Google uses JS for they run into the troubles more than most.

They release the tool so that they promote that "we're the company that makes cool things" vibe to developers (which should in turn promote ecosystems), but I don't really think that the primary motivation for many of these projects are the same as they would be elsewhere.
[/quote]

I think it all depends on the tools in question. Dart is an edge case, where I can see Google drawing a direct benefit from it but I can see it being a good will thing and a tool useful internally to Google themselves, that they are just happening to share with the public. I can see Dart being a lot like C# ( then Cool ) when it was initially released for public consumption ( although Cool/C# was much further along ).


However for their other developer technologies, the Android SDK, NDK, GWT, App Engine, Maps Api, Google Cloud Storage, etc... are not altruistic releases to foster developer good will, these technologies are fundamental to adoption of Google as a platform, and they are doing a piss poor job of it.




This is the next perceived battlefield, becoming the "platform" for the web. Previously it was about being the face of the web, the portal or destination if you will, but now it's all about being the technology behind the scenes and every large IT company are funneling billions of dollars into being the one. Amazon was one of the first out of the gate, but everybody else is a player in that field now. As Microsoft already learned, the key to being the winning platform is to have the developers. I

This is just a hype bubble in the process of collapsing. People got ludicrously inflated images of Google's sophistication, engineering prowess, hiring standards, processes, you name it.

...

They're just another large tech company.

this++;

Google is basically just growing out of its roots as a 90s-style dot com in many ways. They're reaching a point where they need to get more organized and more mature about their offerings, and they're going to have some teething problems with that. They've come incredibly far on the back of basically letting engineers do what engineers do, and they should never abandon that culture entirely, but at some point the scraggly college student has to cut his hair, trim that beard, and take on a more business-friendly face in order to get by (please note, this is reality for businesses as a whole, though I disagree that it should be a "reality" for individuals).

Someone else said that Google could no longer hide behind the "Beta" tag, and they're entirely correct. At some point you need to step up to the plate, solidify your APIs, stick to a reasonable schedule and roadmap, and provide support. Businesses and individuals that make use of such offerings thrive on stability, and certainty -- You can't build your business on a buggy, unsupported API that might be revoked (or who's licensing terms may change) at any time.

At some point every company has to slow down, take stock of where its done well, and hunker down there -- the entire company can't go on charging blindly into the future forever, even if it is fun and hip.

I think the next 3-5 years will see the deflation of some of these tech companies like Google and Apple, and the restoration of some of the old stalwarts like IBM and Microsoft, both in terms of stock prices/valuation, and in terms of the innovation attributed to them.

[quote name='ApochPiQ' timestamp='1320209219' post='4879550']
This is just a hype bubble in the process of collapsing. People got ludicrously inflated images of Google's sophistication, engineering prowess, hiring standards, processes, you name it.

...

They're just another large tech company.

this++;

Google is basically just growing out of its roots as a 90s-style dot com in many ways. They're reaching a point where they need to get more organized and more mature about their offerings, and they're going to have some teething problems with that. They've come incredibly far on the back of basically letting engineers do what engineers do, and they should never abandon that culture entirely, but at some point the scraggly college student has to cut his hair, trim that beard, and take on a more business-friendly face in order to get by (please note, this is reality for businesses as a whole, though I disagree that it should be a "reality" for individuals).

Someone else said that Google could no longer hide behind the "Beta" tag, and they're entirely correct. At some point you need to step up to the plate, solidify your APIs, stick to a reasonable schedule and roadmap, and provide support. Businesses and individuals that make use of such offerings thrive on stability, and certainty -- You can't build your business on a buggy, unsupported API that might be revoked (or who's licensing terms may change) at any time.

At some point every company has to slow down, take stock of where its done well, and hunker down there -- the entire company can't go on charging blindly into the future forever, even if it is fun and hip.

I think the next 3-5 years will see the deflation of some of these tech companies like Google and Apple, and the restoration of some of the old stalwarts like IBM and Microsoft, both in terms of stock prices/valuation, and in terms of the innovation attributed to them.
[/quote]

You basically exactly summarized my frustration with Google, with more clarity but less emotion and vitriol. I just personally think Google is well past the point they should have become a "Big Boy" business and yet they show no signs of even starting the process, while at the same time moving more and more into markets that very much require stability and support. The 90s was a long time ago at this point.

That said, cry no tears over IBM, take a look at a 10 year stock plot. IBM may not be praised on the internet, but all Wall Street they are a darling and Louis Gerstner is regarded as a messiah of sorts among the business types. Now Microsoft, they are a stock that has taken an absolute beating, which I really don't understand. They remained profitable through a very lousy economy, managed to diversify into a number of markets, have good to great growth and a low P/E ratio. I really though they would be a safe harbour stock during the recession, but boyo was I wrong. Then again, they are run by an idiot and until Ballmer is gone, Microsoft stock is going to suffer, I am amazed the board hasn't ousted him yet, especially after trying to spend 40 billion on Yahoo, to say nothing of 8 billion for Skype!

Regarding IBM specifically, they have done well over the past decade, but they had, at some point before that, fallen out of favor with investors, and more importantly in the court of public opinion as one of the harbingers of tech innovation. Microsoft came along and by Windows 95, it was Microsoft that was the new star of Tech innovation. Now, Microsoft finds itself in that stage of its life -- the hot new thing (Google) has come along -- and the perception of Microsoft simply will not change (in terms of stock price or recognition) no matter how good Microsoft does at innovating or executing on its existing products. Now, we see signs of Google beginning its descent into this same role, and with that, Microsoft will do as IBM did as rebuild its credibility for innovation. In a lot of ways, this pattern seems to be par for the course for tech companies -- The new darlings get put on a pedestal and become grossly overvalued -- they can do no wrong; then, the shoe drops at some point (usually due to new competition, changing landscape, or overreaching) and opinion swings too far the other direction -- but eventually people regain their senses and the company moves into a stable and rightful place where it can again begin to grow at a reasonable pace. In short, IBM begat Microsoft, Microsoft begat Google, and Google begat... we'll see. IBM has climbed out of their trough, Microsoft is just starting to, and Google is heading towards their descent.

Regarding Microsoft and Balmer, Balmer is not a problem -- He's actually a really great business man, and he's turned around or focused a lot of profitability -- What he lacks that Gates had, was *vision*. Which is not to say that he has no vision, but that Gates had a very clear, very bold vision of what the world could be and how Microsoft could be a part of it. Basically, the problem is not that Balmer replaced Gates as CEO, but that no one yet has replaced Gates the visionary. I don't think there's any significant, long-term value in ousting Balmer -- If he were out tomorrow, you would probably see a bump in the stock short-term just on perception alone, but he knows the company and the business well, and it would become apparent over the next several quarters what had been lost. I'd like to see someone like Steven Sinofsky take on that visionary role officially, but I imagine he's already quite influential at his current level.

As a disclaimer, I'm a Microsoft employee; and I've got a good friend who works at Google.

Regarding IBM specifically, they have done well over the past decade, but they had, at some point before that, fallen out of favor with investors, and more importantly in the court of public opinion as one of the harbingers of tech innovation. Microsoft came along and by Windows 95, it was Microsoft that was the new star of Tech innovation. Now, Microsoft finds itself in that stage of its life -- the hot new thing (Google) has come along -- and the perception of Microsoft simply will not change (in terms of stock price or recognition) no matter how good Microsoft does at innovating or executing on its existing products. Now, we see signs of Google beginning its descent into this same role, and with that, Microsoft will do as IBM did as rebuild its credibility for innovation. In a lot of ways, this pattern seems to be par for the course for tech companies -- The new darlings get put on a pedestal and become grossly overvalued -- they can do no wrong; then, the shoe drops at some point (usually due to new competition, changing landscape, or overreaching) and opinion swings too far the other direction -- but eventually people regain their senses and the company moves into a stable and rightful place where it can again begin to grow at a reasonable pace. In short, IBM begat Microsoft, Microsoft begat Google, and Google begat... we'll see. IBM has climbed out of their trough, Microsoft is just starting to, and Google is heading towards their descent.

One major difference though, before [color="#1C2837"]Gerstner righted that ship, IBM was actually going down fast. They were losing money, and their two biggest market segments ( Big Iron mainframes and personal computers ) were going down the toilet and their software portfolio was falling just as fast. OS2 was basically on it's way to an early grave. In the 3 years leading up to Gerstner's hire, IBM lost 16B dollars, and 8B in the last year alone. By today's standards 8B is pocket change, but then that was an outstanding amount of money to lose. Pretty much everyone predicted IBM's death. There fall from grace was very much deserved, they fell quite behind the curve and paid the price. Microsoft on the other hand continue to dominate their primary markets and is obscenely profitable. Granted they aren't sitting on the hoards of cash they used to be, but then, sitting on hoards of cash is generally seen as a very stupid thing to do. Thus Microsoft paid a dividend. That seems to be the point the stock got a black eye and stagnated in the market. Microsoft has done well, extremely well, but investors are the biggest fanboys of all ( which is scary when you think about it ), and sex appeal more than actual hard numbers drive stock valuations these days.

Regarding Microsoft and Balmer, Balmer is not a problem -- He's actually a really great business man, and he's turned around or focused a lot of profitability -- What he lacks that Gates had, was *vision*. Which is not to say that he has no vision, but that Gates had a very clear, very bold vision of what the world could be and how Microsoft could be a part of it. Basically, the problem is not that Balmer replaced Gates as CEO, but that no one yet has replaced Gates the visionary. I don't think there's any significant, long-term value in ousting Balmer -- If he were out tomorrow, you would probably see a bump in the stock short-term just on perception alone, but he knows the company and the business well, and it would become apparent over the next several quarters what had been lost. I'd like to see someone like Steven Sinofsky take on that visionary role officially, but I imagine he's already quite influential at his current level.
[/quote]

I used to have that impression, but after watching the recent moves of trying to buy Yahoo ( for a massively over valued amount ), then this horrific purchase of Skype, those levels of epic stupid can only really be hung on the CEO's head. That's the ludicrous part, Ballmer seems to be making desperation plays to try and bouy the stock, when the financials and future of the company are so solid.


I hold some MSFT, and I am so on the fence about continuing to hold it. I purchased it fairly recently so I am not underwater like many investors, but in a time where other companies that show a glimmer of financial hope go through the stratosphere Microsoft stock continues to flounder. It's so freaking irritating, as all the rules of investing seem to have gone completely out the toilet lately. Microsoft trading at 9.4 P/E ratio is almost criminal given their continued increases in both revenue and profit, especially in this economy! Especially with GOOG trading at 20 P/E with their ongoing proof they can't expand other profit centers... it all just makes no effing sense.

On the off chance you haven't read this, you really ought to.

I'm not just pulling this stuff out of thin air. The facts of Google's situation are pretty easy to come by, and the fact of the matter is that they do not have any manner of focus on being a development tools or platforms company, at least not right now.

I'm not even trying to argue that their stance is a good one; frankly I'm of the opinion that they're grossly overrated and most of the company deserves to wither and die. So don't misinterpret this as a defense of Google. If anything, my point is that the only reason Google seems worth attacking is because people had overblown expectations. If you come to the table with the assumption that they're just another fallible, prone-to-crap large tech company, it shouldn't surprise you at all that their tools are the way they are.

And honestly, if you weren't surprised but still managed to get this vitriolic about the issue, you need a vacation or something ;-)

And honestly, if you weren't surprised but still managed to get this vitriolic about the issue, you need a vacation or something ;-)

This may very much be the case; a frame of reference, I made the initial post after banging my head against the wall of Google's shoddy craftsmanship... but you are right, a vacation is probably very much in the cards!

I did read that rant the day it leaked, it was pretty insightful, but I remember there being a comment of pure and absolute arrogance that I almost choked my coffee while drinking...

[font=arial, sans-serif][size=2]You know how people are always saying Google is arrogant? I'm a Googler, so I get as irritated as you do when people say that. We're not arrogant, by and large. We're, like, 99% Arrogance-Free. I did start this post -- if you'll reach back into distant memory -- by describing Google as "doing everything right". We do mean well, and for the most part when people say we're arrogant it's because we didn't hire them, or they're unhappy with our policies, or something along those lines. They're inferring arrogance because it makes them feel better.[/font]

In the same paragraph he basically states that Google isn't arrogant, then goes on to say anyone that thinks Google is arrogant it's simply because they aren't good enough to work there. I read that, read it again, tried reading it one more time with my head tilted at a 45 degree angle, then came to the conclusion that it wasn't in fact meant to be ironic. Then I had to go get paper towel to wipe the coffee off my keyboard and screen.

He is also woefully dismissive of the power of the accident, the simple being at the right place at the right time. For example Apple very much does not get it. They got lucky and adapted quick, but Apple is horrible at building a platform. They make these wonderful devices, and a good ecosystem around it, but their platform stuff is shit. Building the company around iTunes? Argh. iTunes in general? How many failed "Apple in the cloud" products have we already seen? 3, or is it 4? Only just now do they seem to be approaching a 1.0 product. And ascribing the App Store to Apple is a joke to anyone with a vague grasp of history... the iPhone shipped with no SDK and no intention to release an SDK. It was going to be web apps only, and poor bastards stuck with a pre-3g iphone are still stuck with that. Market forces created the App Store and release of a native SDK, not some grand Apple strategy.