>> "And they are focusing on moonshot projects for exactly the same reason that article claims is Google's problem - being complacent."
MS Research has been doing this kind of thing for years. Most of the projects never go anywhere. Google isn't the first company to do R&D - they're just really public about it to try and improve their public image.
Just in case you needed some backup for this point:
Google X started sometime in 2009-2010. In the time its been around only one project - the project around "Engineered Architecture" was successful and the team was able to form a company called Flux (https://www.flux.io).
Funny, they're being sued now by the architect they brought in with the idea for the program:
Microsoft research vs Google is an interesting case, especially considering that Google's glucose sensing contact lens project originaly started at microsot research, but Novartis is licensing them from Google.
Google is trying and delivering a whole lot more than MS Research ( did MS ever have a public prototype for anything?) - Glass, Self Driving Cars, Google Now are all tangible things that show concrete effort to make entirely new products and also make existing products better. They may not all be instant consumer hits but the point was about complacency - and this isn't complacency, it's the exact opposite.
Microsoft became complacent with WinMO, even few office releases were meh. Windows stagnated until security blunders forced them to react. Google on the other hand isn't being complacent with GMail (Inbox), Android (Lollipop), Chrome (v41) or Search (Google Now).
>> "Google is trying and delivering a whole lot more than MS Research ( did MS ever have a public prototype for anything?) - Glass, Self Driving Cars, Google Now are all tangible things that show concrete effort to make entirely new products and also make existing products better."
Glass flopped. Self-driving cars haven't been released and there are plenty of people working on that (Google just makes a big PR thing out of it) and Google Now is great (although hardly one of their moonshots?).
>> "Google on the other hand isn't being complacent with GMail (Inbox), Android (Lollipop), Chrome (v41) or Search (Google Now)."
Inbox is certainly interesting but most people I know don't like it. I did like it but moved away due to rising features. Lollipop killed my battery life and slowed my device to a crawl. Chrome has become sluggish and bloated. Like I said Google Now is great but only if I give Google all my data and give up all my privacy (search history, location history).
Agree. Inbox is an OK product but nowhere close to expectation. It's a product of mixing ideas, not a product of revealing essence.
Daniel Eran Dilger, the apple fanboy had a brilliant observation on John Sculley's Apple:
"In general, Sculley's Apple consistently produced ambitious but unrealistic technology plans that attempted to over-achieve at a price that failed to capture a sustainable segment of the market. " (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/7C942A13-E006-4EBB-A4...)
Yes, I think Larry Page is another John Sculley.
Edit:
Actually I think GoogleX projects are fine, b/c they are in fact PR projects: couple of billions here and there to maintain a hi-tech myth. Money well spent!
The problem is the products like realtime search, Buzz and G+. They are ill designed, poor planed, poor executed and have 0 substance.
Yes i agree Google-X plans are ambitious.It's really hard to tell how unrealistic are they, but they did achieve some pretty brilliant results(self driving car driving 700K miles, Google loon progress[1]), And as for price, Google do seem to be mindful of prices. As examples: their self driving car, used as a taxi would be very affordable,Google loon is aimed at the 3rd world(so they surely planed for costs),Their glucose lens don't seem expensive(electronics are usually cheap) - but surely sell for a good price.
Lollipop killed my battery life and slowed my device to a crawl.
Given how profound you seem to think most everything of Google sucks (seen in a multitude of posts of yours throughout this thread), I'm curious what device you have that Lollipop "killed"? I'm going to call bullshit
HN has seen a HUGE influx of Microsoft shills, and it's getting disconcerting.
And an almost immediate karma punishing (-11 in less than a minute), despite this story sitting on the second page. Does Microsoft give an extra bonus if you sign up for HN? The astroturfing PR efforts have gotten quite a bit more pronounced. It feels like the glorious Slashdot days of old.
I have to agree with you about the MS shills. Seems pretty bizarre, especially with all of the hate on Google that appeared instantly here. They also include incredible love for MS products, which I don't see anywhere else. Sure feels like an astroturf campaign.
No love for MS here. Nexus 5, Nexus 7. Battery and speed. The 7+lollipop was a bummer for me, I used to be kinda proud of it. Now it needs ongoing maintenance (cache clearing).
All complex software has bugs, and Android has become enormous (I tried to update AOSP earlier this month and gave up after about 40GB of repo deltas. This enormous activity, itself, completely invalidates the garbage linked post).
This post and a large percentage of the comments, and the moderation, is essentially a "shit on Google" post, somehow trying to make Microsoft look better in some relative sense. It is terrible fanboy noise.
And the gent I responded to just picked up someone else's grievances. I would wager good money they have no Android device "ruined" by Lollipop. They just want to legitimize their walls of anti-Google screeds.
EDIT: I've really riled up some astorturfers. Any post I make is almost immediately attacked.
There's a lot of weird language and engineering research that they do that then propagates back into the developer ecosystem--I think you aren't giving near enough credit there.
I agree with your point, but looking at the projects,there's a clear difference between the companies: most of MS's projects(maybe except hololens) have large business value risk, on top of the technical risk.
On the other hand, most of Google's projects don't have much of a business value risk. If they'll work well, most likely they'll make good deal of money(unless the competition wins - but i believe Google also thinks hard on making projects hard to copy , or some other substitute challenges the market - but hey what can you do?)
MS Research has been doing this kind of thing for years. Most of the projects never go anywhere. Google isn't the first company to do R&D - they're just really public about it to try and improve their public image.