Google - A company in mid Life Crises... really?

I am quite amazed at this PLAGIARISM that you are doing on your blog. Why is it so hard to simply give us (here on HN) a link to the original article which is actually: <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/beingpractical/google-in-its-midlife-crisis" rel="nofollow">http://www.slideshare.net/beingpractical/google-in-its-midli...</a> ?<p>Why do you have to copy the entire article on your blog word for word and then give us a link to your blog? Adsense-greedy?<p>I asked you the same question in a different thread: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3283447" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3283447</a> but you simply deleted your thread instead of giving a proper response and attribution to the proper article.

I think, Google has been playing rather well. For so long, it was more of a loosely connected free services rather than a single ecosystem that seamlessly work together. There was nothing, for the most parts, preventing any person from moving to a different third-party service [of all the services that Google offers] rather than using Google's services. I don't think Google bothered for so long because it had no reason to. Whether people use Google's services or any other services, Google will make money either way using adsense and adwords. Now the situation is changing, and changing very fast.<p>Google+ is not just about another social network, I believe it will be the soul of all the services that Google offers. Most of the services that Google offers worked pretty much independently. Except the Google logo at some corner of the site, there was n't much of a similarity in any of those services. The result is a mess. Google+ unifies all these services like never before. Social networking comes much later, I believe. Google is at an advantage over other companies, if it plays well. Facebook/twitter can let users share with their friends. Google can let users share, work and collaborate with their friends. Sharing in every form conceivable - sms, voice, image, blog, book, document, presentation, video, music, app, you-name-it.<p>Now for the problems that it faces, the biggest problem was with the platform that they were betting on. For long, Google's motto was - anything good for internet is good for google. That's no longer the case, and it won't be going forward. They were pretty successful for the most parts because they bet on open platform, and the reason for present crisis also seems to be because of the same. Google is no longer the internet [they never were but don't take it literally], and not everything that happens on internet benefits google. Facebook has an advantage here given all the businesses that they have signed up to use FB OpenGraph. However, they still have their own issues. If Google acts smart, Google+ has pretty good chance of being successful.

I have a cousin who is 12, him and his friends have been kept off of facebook by virtue of their parents being there. Every single person in his age group is on Google+. Are there any demographic breakdowns of the g+ users anywhere? I am interested to know if this anecdote is just that, or if it represents a larger trend.

&#62; Over years, Google is struggling with innovation.<p>They're having problems with execution, too. The Google Talk/Google Voice rollout/rollback/merger/turfwar/clusterf*ck is a classic display of big-company ineptitude. It's like something you'd expect from the online services of a Japanese consumer-electronics giant.

I believe that Google is politely asking for permission through Google+ to share what it already knows with external entities.<p>What do you think of the Google+ strategy?

Related to platforms, I think Google still lacks the clear vision that Apple seems to have. Within next few years, one can watch movies, listen to music, browse internet, read books, play games, respond to mails, be in touch with friends, work on docs, spreadsheets, etc., using either iPhone, iPad, iPod, Apple TV [if anything new gets released], MacBook, and Mac Desktop. Most of these are already possible, but what I am talking about is complete interoperability, while still having the same experience of using the specific device. I believe, Apple will work closely with the app developers to make their applications even more portable across the various devices that Apple builds. With Microsoft gearing up for Windows 8, they also seem to have similar future in mind. I did n't come across any such plans from Google. I believe, Google would be at a disadvantage if they don't have a similar full encompassing ecosystem. And I don't see ChromeBook getting significant market share anytime soon [if at all].

The reason why Google is already facing mid-life crises is that the pace of innovation has sped up so much. It used to be that a company could build something like Google and sit on its laurels for 20 years. IBM was the undisputed king for at least 50 years, and Microsoft was king for about 20.<p>The problem is not other search engines, but disruptive innovation that makes search engines obsolete. And this disruptive innovation seems to decrease its cycle time by about 50% each generation. So after Google has been the leader for &#60;10 years, they are already worried about something new coming along and knocking them off their perch. And I think that fear is justified.

recently there was an article about this comparing between email service and social media. Does anyone has that link?

Sounds about right - average lifespan of an S&#38;P 500 company is now ~15 years.

Wow, this is one of the most detailed and well written articles I've ever read on the topic.

you make some good points, but most of this is just uninformed opinions on various google products.

It really bothers me when people post their opinions as facts -- citations needed.

Me: ... You: Seriously? Really? Seriously? Seriously? Really? Really? Me: ... You: ... Really? Seriously? Seriously?<p>Are you this stupid? Jersey Shore fans, please stop.