Google Search, Maps, and Gmail were so much better than the competition that I don't think it's fair to not consider them to be something "new". Otherwise, by the same logic, Apple has never developed anything "new" either (MacOS was not the first windowing operating system; the iPhone was not the first touchscreen portable; the iPod was not the first portable MP3 player).
But, I think anybody that lived and worked during Microsoft's market domination in the 1990s has to be seeing hints of the same unsettling behavior in Google.
It's clear at this point that every single market has to see Google as potential competition: SaaS hosting, search & information management, self-driving cars, consumer electronics, and now music. It's not a matter of if Google will choose to step into your market, it's a matter of how much of their resources they will dedicate to it.
I think this strategy will backfire on Google, but I'm not a fabulously wealthy businessman, so what do I know?
I know. I was alluding to Gruber's strong bias towards Apple, and that he should give Google's products and services the same allowances that he would give to Apple's.
edit: sorry, might still not be clear. Gruber seems to be implying that Google fans are believing something that isn't true; by extension, Gruber's disagreeing with Larry Page's statement that Google is "building great things that don't exist", and both of his paragraphs are dedicated to that point. If he were more objective, he'd have to also say that Apple doesn't build "great things that don't exist", and that the enthusiasm of Apple fans is unjustified. That's pretty far from Gruber's usual take on Apple.
But really, I think that's a less interesting debate than the one about whether or not Google is starting to look like 1990's-era Microsoft. "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" might arguably describe Google right now too.
Comments
Google Search, Maps, and Gmail were so much better than the competition that I don't think it's fair to not consider them to be something "new". Otherwise, by the same logic, Apple has never developed anything "new" either (MacOS was not the first windowing operating system; the iPhone was not the first touchscreen portable; the iPod was not the first portable MP3 player).
But, I think anybody that lived and worked during Microsoft's market domination in the 1990s has to be seeing hints of the same unsettling behavior in Google.
It's clear at this point that every single market has to see Google as potential competition: SaaS hosting, search & information management, self-driving cars, consumer electronics, and now music. It's not a matter of if Google will choose to step into your market, it's a matter of how much of their resources they will dedicate to it.
I think this strategy will backfire on Google, but I'm not a fabulously wealthy businessman, so what do I know?
But his point is not about Apple being different but about Google's fans eating the kumbaya thing up.
I know. I was alluding to Gruber's strong bias towards Apple, and that he should give Google's products and services the same allowances that he would give to Apple's.
edit: sorry, might still not be clear. Gruber seems to be implying that Google fans are believing something that isn't true; by extension, Gruber's disagreeing with Larry Page's statement that Google is "building great things that don't exist", and both of his paragraphs are dedicated to that point. If he were more objective, he'd have to also say that Apple doesn't build "great things that don't exist", and that the enthusiasm of Apple fans is unjustified. That's pretty far from Gruber's usual take on Apple.
But really, I think that's a less interesting debate than the one about whether or not Google is starting to look like 1990's-era Microsoft. "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" might arguably describe Google right now too.
If he were more objective...
If he were more objective then he would not be Gruber.