Diagnosing Google
In 2017, I wrote my most widely-read piece, Apple Inc: A Pre-Mortem. A few months later, I purchased my first Android phone in years — the commencement of my shift to Google’s ecosystem. Many reductively interpreted this to mean I simply moved from “Apple fanboy” to “Google guru”; however, as the above title hints, this could not be further from the truth. In fact, my foray into the Google heartland has provided me with concrete evidence of the dysfunction lying within.
Let us start with everyone’s favourite Google trope: the Google Cemetery. Google have always been known for the relative autonomy and creative freedom they have provided employees, most famously exemplified by their 20% Project initiative. Despite its purported demise, it seems to have lived on in some teams, if not in spirit. It has resulted in several noteworthy products, including Gmail and AdSense. However, when one considers the larger context that birthed this idea, the conclusion is that it was the product of a disorganised, chaotic culture. It is not an inherently bad concept, but the individualistic paradigm it promoted within Google’s context — “every person’s idea is valid and should be equally considered” — can still be witnessed to this day. It is more likely a symptom rather than the cause, but it serves as the perfect framework for dissecting Google’s wider issues.
Hyperactivity Disorder
Perusing the Google Cemetery, the breadth and variety of products laid to rest is striking. This scatterbrained approach has benefited the organisation, distinguishing them from Apple’s (historically) singular focus and Microsoft’s lockstep strategy. However, it has also become their achilles heel. A pet project is born, rising through the ranks until it is developed into a fully-grown product. It is nurtured and championed — until another shiny new project (often within the same category) emerges to steal the hearts of upper management. The once-darling of the company is occasionally repurposed, but almost always relegated to life support until the plug is pulled.
Rather than nurturing creativity, this breeds politicking and infighting. Products are neglected then killed, rather than iterated and improved. Instead of possessing a unified, company-wide strategy with strong product leadership, they have running jokes, like the infamous Google Messaging Apps meme. Could you imagine if Facebook had adopted a similar messaging strategy? On the contrary: they acquired what emerged as the de facto Android messaging platform and are on target to pull off the monumental task of unifying their three distinct platforms under a single architecture.
I believe part of this pathology can be traced back to their organisational structure:
Notice the overlap that already creeps in at the executive level? It is not a leap to assume there is even greater overlap as you travel down to product team-level.
Contrast with Apple’s:
For the most part, each person’s portfolio is distinct. Granted, Apple has far fewer products and services than Google; nevertheless, this does not preclude a more efficient structure than Google’s current.
Returning to the above example: why have there been so many different teams working on entirely separate messaging products? For a company that prides itself on its efficiency — A/B testing every option to ensure the optimal outcome — this is truly perplexing. Google’s flat, project-based structure has been lauded in management textbooks; however, when everything is equal, hierarchy is inevitable and neglected products result.
Dead on the Table
Android’s iMessage
To this day, there is no greater example of Google’s strategic failure than the state of native messaging on Android. Why did they finally integrate SMS in Hangouts, only to turn around and remove the functionality? Why was messaging developed separately from Android in the first place? Google’s Android apps are a package deal for OEMs, so preinstallation wasn’t the issue. It will forever be a blight on Google that Apple — with their abysmal record on social services — went on to build what has become a messaging platform with its own walled sub-garden and lock-in effect. It is truly ironic that the first Android prototypes took inspiration from BlackBerry, yet they never thought to emulate their most successful service: BlackBerry Messenger.
▶ Google Stop
Play Music
Despite owning the most popular music service in the world, it apparently didn’t occur to Google to utilise this competitive advantage when working on a paid streaming service. Instead, they launched Google Play Music (a solid offering, by the way!), and tacked on YouTube integration. After numerous rebrands for their YouTube subscription offering, Google finally saw what was right under their noses and created YouTube Music. When it launched, it was a minimum viable product in every sense of the term — it was essentially a skin for the existing YouTube experience. It took them over three years to develop it into a suitable Google Play Music replacement. Meanwhile, they kept investing into Google Play Music, until it met its inevitable fate after they eventually saw the light — over two years later.
Google recreated features built up over seven years, painstakingly developed a library + uploaded music migration feature, then razed all their hard work and accumulated loyalty to the ground. Even then, it is still missing core functionality and numerous artists/albums. What a tragic waste!
Play Movies/TV
The duplication of resources continues with yet another YouTube product: YouTube Movies & TV Shows. In 2010, YouTube launched its movie rental business. In 2011, Google launched what was originally “Google Movies” alongside Android “Honeycomb” 3.0, then brought it under the Google Play umbrella a year later. Last month, they consolidated Google Play Movies and Google Play TV under the new-but-old Google TV brand (not to be confused with Android TV or YouTube TV).¹
Aside from the human resource and development inefficiencies, there is the tangible business cost of operating two identical streaming services with what appears to be separate licensing agreements. To confuse matters further, purchases on one platform are usually playable on the other² — but not always (with the incongruent licensing also a factor). How is the average user meant to navigate this maze of confusing branding and overlapping functionality?
Reminders and Notes
When it comes to Google’s dysfunction, their messaging app obsession receives the majority of attention, but their reminder and note situation is equally absurd.
There are currently seven different apps with reminder/note functionality in some form:
- Calendar (general reminders — henceforth referred to as “Reminders”)
- Assistant (Reminders)
- Search (Reminders)
- Keep (notes + note reminders)
- Messages (message reminders)
- Gmail (email reminders)
- Tasks (task reminders)
But wait — there’s more! Assistant has its own sub-apps:
- Assistant Reminders (Reminders)
- Shopping List
- Lists & Notes (Keep notes + Shopping List lists)
I realise that at least half of the apps have a specialised reminder unit (e.g. email). However, there is no reason why a single app couldn’t handle most (or all) of them. Take Apple’s Reminders app. In iOS 9, they added the ability to add reminders for basically anything on-screen, using Siri or the Share Sheet. Samsung’s Reminders app is equally versatile, even offering the ability to resume video playback. Microsoft To Do collects flagged Outlook emails.
You might protest, “Well, reminders are different to tasks!” and, sure, on a surface level, they might be. However, ultimately, a reminder is marked as “Done”, just like a task. You can’t tell me this semantics debate is the ideal UX:
In my mind, there should simply be two primary apps: one for notes, and another for reminders. Don’t get me wrong — I’m not against having multiple task route options, or multiple views for the same data source (where necessary). In fact, viewing/adding Reminders in Calendar and creating them in Search using natural language queries is critical to my daily workflow (and thousands of others), and SMS reminders appearing as a fresh notification is clever. Rather, it is the unnecessarily siloed or overlapping approach of some apps that bothers me:
- Why doesn’t Tasks have Starred and Snoozed Emails/SMS lists?
- Why does Tasks prompt users to import Reminders while the latter is still widely used (yet won’t be synced)?
- Why does Google Assistant launch a half-touch, half-voice, Assistant-based UI when you tap “Reminders” in the Google app, instead of just opening Calendar?
- Why did Google integrate Assistant-created shopping lists in Keep, remove this integration, create a separate Shopping List web app, and then reintegrate Keep?³
A/bsession
Google’s infamous obsession with A/B-testing practically every decision has been a boon to its web properties, such as Search. However, it is not always suited to hardware-based platforms such as Android. A smartphone is a person’s most intimate and personal computing device; experiencing constant A/B experiments can be jarring — you feel like your device is changing from under you. More concerningly, A/B tests can be used to justify a design change that is inconsistent with the rest of the platform — if only by encouraging teams to view decisions within the context of their own product without consideration for the greater platform, simply because “the numbers said so.”
In design, there is a fine balance between exploring genuine improvements, and constantly changing something for the sake of it. “Move fast and break things” is not always the ideal methodology here. In this data-awash world, we sometimes forget the best decisions are not numbers-driven, but instead based on a well-placed hunch. I’m not suggesting Google should cease A/B testing; rather, there is a time and place for it, and it is important that product teams consider knock-on effects.
Attention Deficit Disorder
Arguably, this issue is Google’s greatest. It is closely related to their Hyperactivity Disorder with two key differences: it often involves a major product, and rather than an up-and-comer replacing the product, it is kept on life support indefinitely. Often the root cause can be retraced to either a strategic error or external stakeholders.
Android Tablets
Google’s Android tablet journey began in earnest with Android 3.0 Honeycomb and the Motorola Xoom over nine years ago. Long story short, they fumbled their go-to-market strategy for developers, which set the tone for the rest of their tablet strategy. Fast forward to today: the Android tablet market has dried up with only two major players, and virtually nobody recommends an Android tablet over an iPad⁴.
To be sure, the tablet market is inherently difficult — just look at the app challenges, OS dilemmas and market positioning issues Apple faced for years. However, Apple persisted in its development of the iPad (albeit in ebbs and flows, with questionable strategy decisions), and it has helped claw back sales from comparable products. Google, on the other hand, devotes minimum viable attention to tablets after their initial attempts.
Wear OS
The Wear OS app and hardware market is in less dire shape; however, external stakeholders have largely hamstrung its growth:
Accordingly, Google has devoted increasingly less attention to it — updates are few and far between, their own teams don’t always write apps for it, and key features remain MIA or buggy for months.
What of it?
You may argue that decreased attention on products that have become sideshows is simply efficient resource allocation. However, keeping a product on life support is arguably more inefficient. They refuse to pull the plug, yet they also don’t provide it any TLC; it’s a self-defeating cycle. Why should a consumer or OEM invest in a comatose platform? Therein lies the commonality between their Hyperactivity and Attention Deficit Disorders: by failing to iterate, they plan to fail.
Conclusion
Despite Google’s shortcomings, they also have many strengths, which is beyond the scope of this piece. A few standouts: their tentpole products have steadily improved over the years (as demonstrated with my continued use), their hardware design language is unique and friendly — a breath of fresh air, and their attitude towards feedback and bug reports sets a shining industry example:
As with my Apple pre-mortem, I have written this not to mock Google, but to help them and others learn from their mistakes:
I remain steadfastly dedicated to improvement in the industry as a whole, and seek to challenge all players in becoming better — humanity only benefits in the face of competition. This is why I am rooting for all the companies now, rather than the (frankly juvenile) worldview of aligning oneself with any particular “team”. Fierce competition means we end up the winners.
I want to see Google earn back user loyalty and trust by being loyal to them through consistently careful, considered product decisions; I want to see a fiercer, cohesive ecosystem competitor to Apple; I want to see products that I love receive the attention they deserve.
You can follow me on Twitter:
¹ Believe it or not, this passage alone took me around 2 hours to research — the surrounding history is particularly murky, and finding old news articles (even just 10 years old) can be quite painful.
² It’s a handy feature, to be sure, yet also entirely unnecessary if there were a single storefront instead.
³ Granted, when you choose Keep as your List app in Assistant, the Shopping List web app isn’t used. But why didn’t they focus on a single solution in the first place?
⁴ I was in the market for a tablet recently, and even I couldn’t justify purchasing an expensive Samsung or (budget Lenovo) tablet over an iPad.
