| ▲ | majormajor an hour ago |
| I was thinking the other day that it's particularly weird that Gmail is so bereft of features after all this time. It's not that they've left it completely as-is "this is great, there is nothing to do"—but just that the things they have tried have been... kinda uninteresting and quite simple? It's weird to me that with the other AI features they've tried (including suggested responses and such in drafting new emails) there isn't anything, say, to make really good proactive suggestions for like "apply this label to all incoming emails like this." That sort of stagnation, though, and lack of their "trying things" really moving the needle compared to their decades-old ads product, makes me think they really are becoming the new IBM. IBM, in my estimation, has largely been irrelevant to the future of computing since the early 80s when MS ended up owning the PC story, but they have still had some quite solid stock prices runs at times over the decades (10x in five years at the end of the 90s, say). You can make a lot of money with a no-longer-that-interesting business. |
|
| ▲ | amazingamazing 44 minutes ago | parent [-] |
| I honest to God cannot see how someone informed at all could call Google stagnant. Name almost anything and Google is on the frontier. Quantum computing, self driving, language models, network infrastructure, TPUs, etc. It's some sort of delusion on this website that Google is falling behind. Or more likely, wishful thinking. |
| |
| ▲ | majormajor 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | For self-driving, Waymo isn't technically Google anymore. ;) I don't know anything about Quantum so I'll defer to you on that one. In the LLMs/inference/ML space they seem to be great at theory and poor at execution until someone else shows them what the model looks like first. Similar to with cloud. Or with mobile. Or with voice assistants. Or with social (well, they never got there on that one even with the copy attempt.) Which is a classic "decline phase" behavior (see also Xerox, Bell). If all Google products outside of their research papers and labs had disappeared ten years ago, what product categories would be missing? | | |
| ▲ | amazingamazing 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | YouTube has nearly the same MAU as Facebook. YouTube is definitely social, albeit different. The rest, well I respectively disagree. | | |
| ▲ | majormajor 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That's fair. In my taxonomy it's media+ads, which was "fewer unique verticals" but it certainly has a heavy social component. But it's also over 20 years old. |
|
| |
| ▲ | shimman 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nah, they're right. Google can only afford to do this because there are literally two players when it comes to online advertising. Remove advertising from Google and suddenly they can't subsidize failing BUs. Kinda the point of preventing monopolies. They stagnate actual growth in the pursuit of profits. Americans don't benefit when Google is a trillion dollar company, but Americans would benefit if there was an actual competitive market. | | |
| ▲ | amazingamazing 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Sure, and 20 years ago Walmart dominated retail. And yet, Amazon is winning now. Being #1 is never guaranteed. Plenty of more examples of this happening. Defending your position becomes increasingly difficult. We're literally seeing this right now with AI. |
|
|