In the past both Matt and I have been critical of Google's mediocre offerings beyond its core search. BusinessWeek is running an interview with Google VP Marissa Mayer where she essentially says "we throw things at the wall and see if they stick" which seems in stark contrast to an engineering driven organization. It also speaks to Matt's post about the lack of innovation coming from Google.
Typically, companies succeed because they tackle a problem and do the best possible job solving it. Throwing a bunch of things into beta is an interesting "strategy" but not what great long-term products and companies are built on. There is a point when all this Web 2.0 development stuff leaves users with an abundance of mediocre products to use. This aspect is pointed out by BusinessWeek in a different piece So Much Fanfare, So Few Hits
Google's problem isn't a string of failures, then, but rather the middling performance of many products that survive. In fact, it seems far from achieving even its intended 20% to 40% success ratio. This may be contributing to the internal debate that rages at Google's Mountain View (Calif.) headquarters over how to deliver more search users to the new products.
I point the Google situation out because they have a luxury that most small companies don't have, a whopping market cap associated with their core advertising business. They can experiment with homegrown products that cost virtually nothing to build and if they don't generate huge revenue it doesn't matter in the near-term. But this strategy doesn't work for startups. Period.
I've recently been through meetings with several companies who are contemplating tossing new products over the fence in hopes of growth and community. On the OSS startup side it's very difficult to maintain focus. The whole company must be heading in the same direction and working toward a common goal. It's the only way to survive and succeed. And really the same goes for proprietary companies who are putting old code out as OSS--they run the risk of being distracted with no discernible benefits. Building community is extremely difficult. Just because you open source your software doesn't mean people care. It takes a long time and a great deal of dedication to be relevant in the OSS space.
Previously and Links:
Marissa Meyer on Valleywag
Google...innovative?!? Come on!
BusinessWeek/Open Sources Vulcan Mind-meld
Open the Door for Open Source Deals
Levanta--the comeback kid of Linux?
Novell: Better than it appears
The most hated man in open source?
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on June 30, 2006 09:09 AM
