The five Google products
December 04, 2006
It seems like only yesterday that a bunch of breathless articles appeared touting the brilliance of Google's innovation strategy. That strategy was, if you recall, the spaghetti strategy: Throw a lot of stuff against the wall and see what sticks. Business Week captured the concept well in this passage from a big October 2005 story on Marissa Mayer, the company's director of Web products and "champion of innovation":
What Mayer thinks will be essential for continued innovation is for Google to keep its sense of fearlessness. "I like to launch [products] early and often. That has become my mantra," she says. She mentions Apple Computer and Madonna. "Nobody remembers the Sex Book or the Newton. Consumers remember your average over time. That philosophy frees you from fear."
As it turns out, though, that innovation strategy wasn't particularly successful. In a series of recent high-profile statements, Google's cofounder Sergey Brin and its CEO Eric Schmidt have made it crystal clear that they've been disappointed by the results of the company's new-product strategy and are revamping it. (Larry Page, despite holding the title President of Products, has been curiously absent from the discussion.)
Brin has been particularly blunt. In early October of this year, the Los Angeles Times reported that "Sergey Brin is leading a companywide initiative called 'Features, not products.' [Brin] said the campaign started this summer when Google executives realized that myriad product releases were confusing their users. 'It's worse than that,' said Brin, Google's president of technology. 'It's that I was getting lost in the sheer volume of the products that we were releasing.'" The article also quoted Schmidt, who said of Brin's effort, "That is a big change in the way we run the company."
Brin returned to the theme of pruning back product development a couple of weeks later in the company's third quarter conference call with analysts: "What we are concerned about is that if we continue to develop so many new individual products that are all their assorted silos, you will have to essentially search for our products before you can even use them. And then you will have to search before you can do a search, in many cases. Instead what we're doing now is we are trying to create the horizontal functionality across a range of products, across media types and so forth."
In a couple of brief blurbs included in an article about "how to succeed in 2007" in Business 2.0, Brin and Schmidt hammer the point home again. "Simplicity is an important trend we are focused on," Brin says. "Success will come from simplicity ... We are focused on features, not products. We eliminated future products that would have made the complexity problem worse. We don't want to have 20 different products that work in 20 different ways. I was getting lost at our site keeping track of everything. I would rather have a smaller set of products that have a shared set of features." Schmidt says pretty much the same thing: "We are trying to shape the innovation going forward from here and get things more integrated, make Google more integrated. This is a big change in the way we run the company. In the past the philosophy has been 'get this done, get it built, and get it out.' But continuing that, we would end up with hundreds of products named X-Google, and people can only remember five products."
Simplicity is the new spaghetti. If the statements weren't clear enough, the company added an exclamation point last week when it announced it was killing off its Google Answers product.
Brin's and Schmidt's words amount to an unusually strong, and carefully coordinated, public critique of what until now had been presented as a cornerstone of Google's success. But they're probably a good sign for the young company. They show that, in this instance, anyway, Google isn't falling into the trap of believing the hype about itself - even when the hype originates from its own organization.
What I found most intriguing, though, was Schmidt's remark that "people can only remember five products." These guys are sticklers for precision when it comes to numbers, so I'm guessing that the number "five" didn't just pop into Schmidt's brain when he was preparing his words for the Business 2.0 piece. In fact, I'm not sure you'd be going too far out on a limb if you were to speculate that five is Google's current target for a product set. Five is the magic number.
So if Google were going to begin integrating its current products, features, and whatnot into five platform products, what would those products be? Well, you might think that they would match up with the five categories that the company currently uses to present its products: search; explore & innovate; communicate, show & share; go mobile; make your computer work better. But even though that categorization provides some hints, I think it's too ungainly a list to translate into a sensible product set. A better clue comes from Brin in his remarks during the earnings call:
What we're doing now is we are trying to create the horizontal functionality across a range of products, across media types and so forth. For example, I mentioned already Google Apps for Your Domain, and that in a sense is a product, but really it just combines a whole bunch of other offerings together, seamlessly integrated together so they can work well for an organization.
Another example which we haven't gotten quite up and running yet, but when you want to share your documents or your pictures or your videos, it would be nice to have the exact same way to share all those things, to have all that functionality available across all of those media types in the identical way, rather than developing sort of one-offs for each of those products ...
Finally, let me just touch on search. You may have noticed more and more now when you do search you will see, for example, images and news stories and products across the top that you can click to. There are increasingly many ways that we are integrating together all of our search offerings so you don't have to pick where you're going to search first.
Okay. That seems to point to three products: Search, Apps for Your Domain, and some kind of unified media viewer/sharer (probably building on YouTube). Then you have to add in an advertising product. That makes four. So what's the fifth one? I'll take my final clue from a blog post by Google VP Adam Bosworth last week, in which he wrote that individuals "need to be able to better coordinate and manage their own health information." The fifth product will involve the organization of personal information.
So boil it all down, and here is my best guess at what the five Google products will be and how they'll be branded:
Google Search ("Google" goes back to meaning just search: for all information types, on all devices, personalized)
AdMarket (a unified market place for buyers and sellers, spanning web text, web video, web banners, print, radio, TV)
YouTube (YouTube expands from video to become the common interface for all media sharing)
YouTools (what Apps for Your Domain morphs into, with different tool sets for businesses, families, universities, and hospitals)
YouFile (a personal information management service, covering health data, finances, etc.)
I admit it's not perfect. But it's a start. What I like about this schema is that it begins to give concrete commercial shape to what Eric Schmidt calls "the computer in the cloud." If search is, as John Battelle argues, the OS (and if the Google data centers form the CPU), then YouFile is the hard drive, YouTools are the applications, and YouTube is the network. AdMarket? It's the hyper-efficient power supply. Money is power, you know.
Can you come up with something better? How would you boil the Google ocean down to five products?
Cute post, Nick. It is interesting to look at how Google might pull all this together.
Looking at your categories, I am not sure I understand the distinction between YouTools and YouFile. It seems like both are categories for personal productivity web apps, are they not?
On Google Search vs. YouTube, does the difference come down to pull vs. push? In search, you explicitly are looking for something? In the YouTube category, content is being pushed (broadcast) to you?
I am not sure how well that works though. It seems to me that search is a feature, not its own category. You search web documents, news, videos, and other things. You also discover web documents, news, and videos through sharing, recommendations, browsing, and other types actions that do not require a search. But all of these are features, ways of finding and discovering the information you want.
As for other categories, I think shopping could be a big one. If Checkout, Base, and Froogle are leading into an e-commerce move, that is.
Posted by: Greg Linden at December 4, 2006 04:20 PM
Nick, if you want to do the you thing, why not go another step and just say:
Greg: cute post? CUTE post?
Posted by: John Koetsier at December 4, 2006 04:37 PM
Interesting idea to think about Google services in this way. But can you say more about how YouTools and YouFile are different? Actually, in general the difference is not clear among those two plus YouTube (YouShare?). After all, the files would be stored and manipulated with the help of the tools, and some of them would be shared, others not. My impression is that Google is integrating these so much that it's hard to distinguish among them in this way. Where do you put GMail or Google Docs in this scheme? It might depend on the particular application of either.
On another point, I think the end of Google Answers is partly interesting, because it suggests that even under Google no product is safe. And if we don't know when the product we're using may be closed then will we really want to rely on them long term? (This suggests the importance of being able to export material. But of course, when it comes to reputation earned in a system, that can't just be exported and salvaged.)
Posted by: eszter at December 4, 2006 04:54 PM
Interesting post that jogged a couple thoughts:
first, advertising could be viewed as Google's disruptive revenue model common to most of their products.
Second, the number five could simply come from that heuristic "Dogs and humans can only recollect five, plus or minus two, facts/associations"?
If so, Google could simply start with three branded service (all anchored by ad revenues), upon which they could append an increasing number of features:
1. Search & information navigation
2. Business and communications tools
3. Media social networks
GMail and Google Docs (and Google Calendar) go into either "YouTools" or "YouFile". YouFile would make more sense, but you'd have the same sort of service under YouTools.
I'm more wondering 1) whether or not they'll keep Google Labs open, despite such a move, and 2) how many of these products are going to have an API to mess with.
I notice that the Web Toolkit doesn't fit easily anywhere.
Did someone commented yesterday that "Web 2.0" was habout having the users do all the work? Well... They apparently even have the users do they strategy now!
Seriously, I love your approach; I am not sure I see a great difference between YouTools and YouFilen, though. And I can't see the News strateg in there. And I would consider the map services as something in it self: Google is very much for clarity in the product; actually, they are the only company (that I know of) that considers it has failed if the consumers can't find the right solution by themselves. Maps and search don't appear similar to most people --- while I have noticed many confusion between G.Maps, G.Local, G.Earth. Regarding G.News, the one service I was desperate for is finally available: a RSS feed for News Search result! That certainly is the sign of a comming pooling off all the blog and news services. Next to come: a relevance/reputation threshold for people who can't read it all.
Good post. Actually, the magical number is seven: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two
So we can add two more, unless we prefer to keep it simple ;-)
Nice way to go about designing strategy.
Posted by: Carpy at December 5, 2006 09:53 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
"Riveting" -San Francisco Chronicle
"Rewarding" -Financial Times
"Ominously prescient" -Kirkus Reviews
"Riveting stuff" -New York Post