|Google's Larry Page 2012 Update|
Google's Larry Page 2012 Update [investor.google.com]
|Sergey and I founded Google because we believed that building a great search experience would improve people’s lives and, hopefully, the world. And in the decade-plus that’s followed, we’ve been constantly delighted by the ways in which people have used our technology—such as making an artificial limb using old designs discovered online. |
|Last April, I began by reorganizing the management team around our core products to improve responsibility and accountability across Google. I also kicked off a big clean-up. Google has so many opportunities that, unless we make some hard choices, we end up spreading ourselves too thin and don’t have the impact we want. So we have closed or combined over 30 products, including projects like Knol and Sidewiki. In addition, we gave many of our products, such as Google Search, a visual refresh, and they now have a cleaner, more consistent, and beautiful look. |
Well worth a read, imho.
They didn't close Google+ yet?
It would be interesting if Google added a Google- button.
So many of their products are poorly thought out and most are obviously designed by engineers and have never had anyone with a sense of aesthetics get involved with the design process.
Google needs to understand that many people work very well with ones and zeros, but you need to have someone involved in the process that works well with colors and shapes to have a successful product.
As an example Google Places is a great concept, but it is so poorly implemented that it borders on being useless.
If you want to attract people to your shiny object and have them use it, it has to actually be shiny.
|As an example Google Places is a great concept, but it is so poorly implemented that it borders on being useless. |
Ya I use Google Places everyday and agree absolutely
|If you want to attract people to your shiny object and have them use it, it has to actually be shiny. |
The disadvantage here is that most competing products are as bad or worse OR don't have the reach thus limited exposure.
The biggest problem with "you need to have someone involved in the process that works well with colors and shapes to have a successful product," a bean counter gets involved and repeats the corporate line "there is no money in the budget for that".
|a bean counter gets involved and repeats the corporate line "there is no money in the budget for that". |
This is generally true, but the Big G has loads of cash.
In public offerings "lots of cash" generally means shareholders trump customers.
It's possible they will dump even more services... which would be good.
Their idea for ads on YouTube videos is just plain dumb. I get they need to make money but come on.
... a cleaner (no), more consistent (yes), and beautiful (err, no) look.
Several interfaces have been dumbed down, and useful information and functionality removed.
It's progress Jim, but not as you know it.
Keyword analysis of statement:
(Mentions) ... keyword
(24) ..... Search (and "searching" etc)
(14) ..... Android
(10) ..... Google+
(9) ...... revenue
(6) ...... YouTube
(3) ...... map (and "maps")
(3) ...... ad (and "ads").
(2) ...... Adwords
(2) ...... Adsense
(1) ...... profit
Since there are more users than investors, Google (or any public corporation) needs to use a sort of inverse function of public speaking to make these types of reports. If the public heard "profit" 24 times, millions of people would think "hey that's what they really care about"... instead, the language used has to be inverted -- a sort of reciprocal linguistic forumla -- which is why "making an artificial limb" (doing public good) is mentioned first, and all the heart and flowers imagery is used. If on the same day Larry was speaking to the top 1000 investors in GOOG stock in closed room with no recording devices, he would have said, "profit" 24 times, and "search" once.
Finding the (mathematical) mean (which is the usual average) of the keyword list, yields a blend of the terms "Android", "Google+" and "revenue" --- in other words, he could have skipped all the hyperbole and said, "We anticipate growth in revenue from Android and Google+, even if ad profits are flat".
My reply to him would be: "But doesn't Google+ suck?", and ask, "Are we infringing on Apple patents to make Android useful on portable devices?"
Have to say that the new Adsense interface is great to use and looks great as well.
I don't use Places, so can't comment on that.
I really like google's design - I can't think of any other sites that are as intuitive to use.
Now if only they'd fix their localisation redirection mess.
Excuse me while I go rinse the puke from my mouth after reading that dribble.
The review of this on threatpost https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/pages-ceo-letter-gives-short-shrift-privacy-security-040612 concentrates on privacy (poor) and security (not bad).
|Last April, I began by reorganizing the management team around our core products to improve responsibility and accountability across Google. I also kicked off a big clean-up. |
I hope he will kick Mr Panda out too. He's the worst thing that happened to Google in years.
Google + is dead.
I don't know anyone who uses it and I have teen age kids.
Facebook, however, is a daily thing for them though.
Seems that Goolge plus is nothing but a plus to google.
|"teen age kids. Facebook, however, is a daily thing for them though." |
My teen, her 20-something siblings and friends all have FB apps posting to their cell phones 24/7... they wake up and go to sleep checking FB posts. None of them use, care or would even consider using Google+ for anything, (on direct question, the most awareness I've heard is, "Oh, is that what that plus thing is?")
I deal with mostly 30 to 60+ year old folks in several niches (from R.E. to energy, to contracting and numerous ecommerce sectors)... these are people that are online all day every day and NOT ONE has ever mentioned Google+
I'm no advocate of government regulation or intervention in free markets -- but I hope Google gets continually nailed around the world for their attempts at invading people's privacy -- and that's all Google+ is about -- garnering personally identifiable information for marketing purposes.
GOOG's mission has gone from "organizing the world's information" to controlling it, (for their own profit).
|Seems that Goolge plus is nothing but a plus to google. |
I don't think it's even a plus for them -- if it was any good, they wouldn't have to push it -- it would take off by itself, (remember when "gmail invites" could be sold on eBay? Gmail was good, and valuable, and in demand -- it didn't need marketing more than a few seed accounts and a strategy to make it a commodity by keeping supply just behind demand).
They tried that same strategy when they rolled out G+ ... but once people did get in and saw there was nobody there and no useful info, demand for Google+ was gone.
|Facebook focus guides Google CEO's 1st year on job |
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Google co-founder Larry Page has a Facebook fixation.
When he replaced his mentor Eric Schmidt as Google's CEO last April, Page insisted that the company had to be more aggressive about countering the threat posed by Facebook's ever-growing popularity.
|Google + is dead. |
I don't know anyone who uses it and I have teen age kids.
Maybe Google+ is interesting for spammers and black hatters. I just saw a listing in the serps with the mention "1512 people + 1'd this". I had a look at the site because with that many +1's it should be good. Reality is that this website is pure crap with pop-ups and everything. The type of site you want to leave as fast as possible. Thus ... bought +1's? Great to know that Google mentions +1's in the serps now. Time to do some shopping and make Larry happy with more fake Google+ accounts.
Larry & Google are currently about as likeable as this guy: [youtube.com...]
Rather funny the parallels one could draw from that scene to Google's empire. ;^)
It's interesting to see they're also attempting to use the Android platform to help save the evil empire. When I first bought my (Android based) phone I could click the Android Market icon and download an app -- no hassle, no login, no mention of Google.
Now it's "Play", ( https://play.google.com/store/apps )... and GOOG wants me to login with a Google account to download an app.
If Android is what it was originally advertised as, (an open source, free platform, one which invited thousands of developers to promote it), "Android.com" and the Android app market should be turned over to a neutral, independent organization -- one where Google has no more rights than anyone else, ...and one which is governed by rules that prohibit commercial datamining of Android users.
IMO -- every Android app is now spyware. As I see it, if I download a Guitar Tuner app, and need to let Google know about it, that is just marketing info for them to sell (to a company selling guitars)... no thanks.
And try changing the default search provider on your phone and see what you get.
Android is nothing but an iPhone clone specifically designed to expand the Google grip WW using illegal tactics (soon to be heard in courts)...
Here's a few reasons why there is currently not much "love" for Google....
1. When you publish a COC that declares "Don't be Evil" - it implies you "Have been Evil"...
2. You attempt to copy nearly every innovative website as they become successful...
3. You claim to constantly release "quality updates" yet search quality has yet to improve...
4. You publish webmaster guidelines yet seemingly reward bad behaviors (dupe sites, spun, scraped content)...and use a smug PR robot named Matt Cutts to explain new policies in double secret geek talk. (that could be a separate one by itself!)
5. Can you say "Monopoly"?...
6. Tight alliances with secretive organizations like the NSA, CIA, DARPA...
7. Selling user info...
8. Deceptive advertising practices (Aussie case)...http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402531,00.asp
9. Continuing to be the worlds biggest "black box" system...
10. (drum roll) CEO Larry Page's 3,700 word letter basically pleading users to "Love" Google.
If they want "great love", they might want to work on those issues.
However, once the public starts to perceive you as the "Anti-Christ",(don;t believe it? Google it!) I think damage control becomes difficult...
Feel free to add you own...
|It would be interesting if Google added a Google- button. |
they won't do that for fear it would get a google (1e100) clicks.
Like Facebook, google+ may also get more popularity in future, because as you all are well known about facebook that it has become popular since past 3 to 4 years, so according to current market scenario i think google+ will also get a great popularity in future.
I see this as a communication attempt by the founders to win back some "Google love" and balance the $$'s with the thrill of running a business that folks love, like the good old early days, when we were wooed.
But you can't have two Kings - $$'s and people, unless you reciprocate the commercial economy of that relationship. To win the hearts and minds of the people on whom ultimately the business will prosper, more focus on listening to how users and business's alike can prosper and sustain together would bring things back the balance and the spirit of success.
Also a removal of the perception that business' are being manipulated, and a return to the so called "democracy on the web". [ even though democracy doesn't exist ]. Google's founders' root foundations are where it's strength lies - not in greed, control and social elimination which i think is where folks see Google heading.
Unfortunately, faceless shareholders may be the driving force of greed that sit's in the background and makes it hard for the founders to return to their roots.
Bring back the original refreshing thinking and core focus. Entertain the shareholders in a better cause. Folks will love Google then.
Well put Whitey -
When Google makes money, we should all make money too...and the relationship grows.
This is the way is was working prior to May 2010. We made a little more money every year, nothing earth shattering, but each year was beating the last in sales (mind you we're not running MFA sites).
As of the MayDay 2010 update, the patterns have changed, apparent traffic shaping applied and the result is a loss of sales over the previous two years since May Day. It's not the economy to blame. We run a business that should see improved sales in a bad economy.
It just seems that in Google's reach to become everything they've lost focus on the search product that made their webmaster users a success. They must keep in mind, without happy & successful webmasters whose valuable content Google hangs on their search framework for free, they are nothing but a bare search framework. If they continue to hang garbage on their framework, they'll drive off their search users too and everyone loses.
If they want love, they should concentrate more on being the Cadillac of Search that they used to be...not on being another wannabe facebook when the thrill of social networking is already waning.
I was spammed by Google+ this morning. It seems a new client I dealt with yesterday added me to one of his Google+ circles, or otherwise fed Google+ my email address.
I got the invite/notice that he had added me, and did nothing.
(I do not have a Google+ account or anything on Google associated with the email address he provided them).
This morning I got an email from: "Google+ Team" with the subject: "Top 3 posts for you on Google+ this week"
This email was auto-sent without my opting in, and at the bottom there is only a notice in the footer that says "Don't want occasional updates about Google+ activity and friend suggestions? Change what email Google+ sends you."
Unfortunately, I'd need to create and log into to a Google+ account to change the settings -- in effect, they have created a spam-bot... if anyone feeds Google+ your email address, GOOG is taking that as signal to start spamming me.
I will be calling a contact at Google to recommend they immediately stop this practice -- it is nothing more than unsolicited email, and each self promoting email should be considered a violation of the CAN-SPAM act.
|not on being another wannabe facebook when the thrill of social networking is already waning. |
What planet you living on?
I see the opposite, which is why Google is trying to shove plus 1 down peoples throat.
If you are not doing social marketing and don't plan to, then you are missing the boat and few years from now you will be kicking your self.
Facebook is not myspace and is not going anywhere any time soon.
And, once they finally decide to incorporate web search into the walled garden of facebook the correct way, it's game over for Google search.