Google to add Albums to Picasa! And I Need to Vent

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

1. Jeff Braes
   

   June 6th, 2006 at 11:01 pm

   I agree that Google is condesending, but this is a bit harsh. I am sure they are doing their best.

2. pyro
   

   June 6th, 2006 at 11:11 pm

   Maybe it’s just me but the idea of a web based office application is incredibly unappealing. The primary reason for this is that when i do have to use an office application (rarely) I have to use it for something important. The information that I create is either private, owned by my employer, contains financial information, etc. There is no way you can convince me that working in an application that stores its state on a server that other people are using at the same time is more secure than using an application that stores all state locally. I would never consider using googles, or any other companies, spreadsheet tool online for anything other than a very quick “I don’t have a spreadsheet program available” moment. The comments about it being great for doing finances and other things scares the heck out of me. Yes, it is very likely these applications will be secure but I have no reason to trust Google with my financial information simply because they say they won’t do anything with it.

   Now, the most common response I hear to my argument is that I use online banking services. My banking information is kept by my bank anyway so using their online services isn’t a fair comparison. I don’t have much of a choice in this case. I can use a bank that doesn’t provide online access or I can have the convenience of staying with my bank that does. I pay my bills check my balances and perform other basic transactions on my banks website. I have laws and the banks best interests helping to keep my information secure. I’m sure there will be breaches, but I accepted that risk when I decided to store my money in a bank rather than keeping it under my mattress.

   As to competing with MS Office, there are alternatives. Primarily OpenOffice.org. While OO.O is far from perfect it meets the needs of the vast majority of people. There is no need for online office applications, nor a compelling argument for why it would be a good idea to spend time and money on the development of one. I think google spreadsheet is more of a “look what we can do” bragging rights app then anything else. What would be usefull is if the spread sheet comes with an API that can be used to place spread sheets in other online applications. There are a great number of services online that I think could benefit from that.

3. Goddert
   

   June 6th, 2006 at 11:23 pm

   Before you critize your commenters you should learn first the ortography of your own language. And I’m not talking only about Pica”ss”a (hey, i doesn’t come from Picasso …). Low quality article.

4. Bill F.
   

   June 6th, 2006 at 11:30 pm

   For what it’s worth, this is the first time I have come back to read TechCrunch since the site re-design and I don’t think I’ll be coming back until I hear the site design changes.

   Everything is just so much more difficult to read. The previous design was EXCELLENT.

   I get way to distracted by the current design to let you guys know.

   I know I’m not the only one, hope your web traffic numbers are hurting too bad b/c of the design.

   BF

5. Michael Arrington
   

   June 6th, 2006 at 11:32 pm

   Goddert - I’m not criticizing my commenters, I’m commenting on their comments.

6. Aneil Weber
   

   June 6th, 2006 at 11:33 pm

   Michael, I agree that if Google were to launch a suite of products that directly attacked Microsoft Office it would be noteworthy for “Journalists”. Unfortunately, products that are that obvious in their scope and market direction would fail to be well…visionary. Visionary is not to conform to the obvious and generate products with obvious market potential. Visionary is to produce products that take market share progressively in parallel and converging with the way markets are heading and Google has an uncanny vision and ability to do so. I’d give it a bit more time…

7. assbach
   

   June 6th, 2006 at 11:35 pm

   well, i somehow understand your criticism Michael, but i still like google and i DO like picasa….in addition to flickr that is.( i miss an upload to flickr button )

   I am a flickr addict, yet i organize my stuff with picasa before uploading the pictures most times and yes there is tagging, use CTRL+K!

   yahoo is actually launching updates of their services as well and i like ‘em also, although i prefer the simplicity of googles stuff, yahoo is spending to much time & thought on design, so that theres an overload and lack of performance, see the new mail beta.

   let’s see what this fight will be in a few months.

8. Nic Williams
   

   June 6th, 2006 at 11:41 pm

   Gmail changed my world. It does email how I think about email.

9. Matthew Stibbe
   

   June 6th, 2006 at 11:45 pm

   I know what you mean about the drip-drip-drip buzzbuilding that passes for marcomms at Google, but I think there are three really big things about Google that most people overlook (including me):

   1. Being online hosted apps, they can iterate more quickly. Launch now, improve later.

   2. They’ll always lose a feature by feature comparison against Microsoft. Who cares? Most people don’t care about an equation editor or pivot table or relational databases. They care about writing a letter, doing their cash flow forecast and so on. They also care about usability (although they don’t call it that).

   3. This means they can turn Microsoft’s strength - it’s vast installed base - against it. Most Office users are still on 97 or 2000. With Google, you’re always on the latest version.

   Plus, you can’t beat the Google price.

   Don’t get me wrong. I’m (gasp!) a big fan of Microsoft. They’re a big client for my business (http://www.articulatemarketing.com). They are smart, driven and they have a hell of a track record. Who can blame Google for not wanting to take them on at their own game.

   But competition is good for any business and good for the consumer. From a technical perspective, Microsoft is always at its best when it faces real competition. Just look at the hiatus on IE6 and now, thanks to Firefox, bingo IE7. I think these developments at Google show that there can be real competition and new ways of doing things.

10. saurab
    

    June 6th, 2006 at 11:50 pm

    I have to partly agree with the fact that what Google has been doing lately isnt exactly what one would have expected of a company that gave us Google Search, GMail and Google Maps. Now, one could still appreciate their efforts a little bit more if their services were better integrated, but I dont see that with many of their products. Half their products are just beta quality, and while this concept of get to the market fast even if it’s half-baked was “cool” in the early days, you cant keep doing that with every product release. google video is a shame, so is google notebook and well lets not even talk about Orkut (what are they doing with their billions, I have to wonder)

    Also, it baffles me that they had to release their spreadsheep app without support for charting, something that’s very basic.

    [Of course, credit where it’s due: Google Maps and Google Earth are very cool products.]

    But they made a big mistake letting del.icio.us and flickr go to yahoo

11. Cameron Olthuis
    

    June 6th, 2006 at 11:50 pm

    Mike, you’re losing it bro.

12. Rob Jones
    

    June 6th, 2006 at 11:55 pm

    Michael,

    I don’t believe Google are competing with Microsoft - why make the Google spreadsheet format compatible with Excel if you’re trying to beat it? Nick Carr is more eloquent on this topic than I - check his blog. I think he has the right idea.

    Also, why do Google need to tell you what they are up to? This seems pretty arrogant to me - care to explain? Google are in the business of making money, nothing more, nothing less. They can do what they hell they like to make that cash pile bigger, as long as it’s legal, without having to justify it to , well, anyone.

    Finally, the effusive comments from bloggers around the globe is a symptom of the media transition we’re going through. Lots of people with space to fill with a whole lot of nuthin’ to fill it with. What happens? Desperate for something to write they churn out low quality tat. Unfortunately, all this does is make the stuff worth reading harder to find. Is it not also interesting that the Google Spreadsheet story was broken to the NY Times? That says a lot for new media does it not?

13. BK
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 12:05 am

    Google has been all over the place lately… out of all the products Google has released (besides their search engine and advertising), I think G-mail is the only one that succeeded.

14. Alex
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 12:13 am

    Michael is dead right on this.

    Google has positioned itself, for better or for worse, as a market innovator/disruptor. The brand is initmately tied to the belief that every product they release has to offer something that is uniquely valuable: with Search it was both abundance and relevance, with GMail it was a search-based metaphor and an order of magnitude increase in free stroage (1Gb).

    The problem now is that if they don’t do this with every product release (at the very least for new products), they’re diluting the brand. Oh, the fanboys will still oooh and ahhh like Dan Bricklyn never existed, but more and more people will recognize what Michael is noting: there’s an inconsistency in expectations in what Google stands for vs. what they’re doing.

    When I was at Apple ‘88-’94, we made a decision to become the leading PC maker. The problem was that in order to do that, we had to get the cost of the box down which meant using off-the-shelf components. The result was that we ended up making things that looked like all the other PC’s out there and with that move we doomed Apple to years of dark ages before its seeming resurrection.

    So, sorry for being long-winded, but my point is that a brand is a function of the products, and if people start thinking the products are me-too or uninspiring, the brand will eventually follow that path off the cliff. So now the question for Google is whether they can evolve the brand to be something else?

    Alex

15. Chris
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 12:16 am

    This is a terrific post. I agree with you for the most part and love the controversy it creates (I’m sure you do to). You may not have been 100% accurate but I think Google can handle it.

16. Liam
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 12:28 am

    Mike,

    without naming names, was the edit an independent rethink on your part, or something else?

    One day two kids in a garage will come up with a new search algorithm that Google won’t get to buy, and then even AdSense will be worthless, let alone a rake of below-average products

17. Michael Arrington
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 12:30 am

    Liam, I’ve edited the post a bit just because i wanted to, no conspiracy theory.

18. Simran
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 12:36 am

    @ BF: First off, there are people who like the new design. And if you don’t, why not use NetVibes or PageFlakes or a good RSS reader? Close your eyes while commenting, many already do.

    As to competing with MS Office, there are alternatives. Primarily OpenOffice.org. While OO.O is far from perfect it meets the needs of the vast majority of people. There is no need for online office applications, nor a compelling argument for why it would be a good idea to spend time and money on the development of one. I think google spreadsheet is more of a “look what we can do” bragging rights app then anything else. What would be usefull is if the spread sheet comes with an API that can be used to place spread sheets in other online applications. There are a great number of services online that I think could benefit from that.

    I agree with you here, pyro. Open Office is a great suite. I think it’s ridiculous paying M$ for their Office suite. I just got a MacBook Pro and it came pre-installed with a lot of Microsoft junk which I’m soon going to trash and replace with OO.O. I also agree with your take on storing sensitive information on Google, however “secure” it may be. No ammount of SSL can protect you from a malicious Google employee. On Mac OS X we have iPhoto which is as good, if not better than Picasa and directly integrates with Flickr (with a plugin) and iWeb.

    Saurab, you’ve got it wrong with Google NoteBook and Orkut. Orkut is used by millions of people. I even think it’s the best social networking site online. I presume you’re Indian (your name), and am surprised that you don’t use and appreciate Orkut. The number of people online from India is mad! Practically every classmate of mine from every school/college/institute I’ve been is online. The second most popular one here in India is hi5. And Google NoteBook is a really useful tool for research and publishing. I was using it a lot when I was on Windows. It’s the simplicity of it that makes it so good. You just highlight a batch of text or right-click an image and add it to your notebook. If you want to share your research notes with your classmates or friends, it just takes 2 clicks to publish it. Beautiful!

    But they made a big mistake letting del.icio.us and flickr go to yahoo

    This is something I too have pondered upon on occasion. I would have expected such wonderful online apps to be owned by Google. According to me, these two products are what saved Yahoo! and kept them in the Web 2.0 game. I mean, who uses Yahoo! My Web???? It’s a broken product in comparison with del.icio.us. And Yahoo! Photos? That’s okay for moms who can’t figure out that you have to sign up with Yahoo! first to get a Flickr account. (my aunt was struggling with this for days)

    I agree with Rob, in that Google still isn’t a competitor to Microsoft. The only real threat M$ Office has right now is OO.O.

    - Simran

    PS: You can digg this story here.

19. Paul Andrews
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 12:40 am

    Completely agree Mike.

    There are too many problems and too few benefits for this kind of thing to succeed. Problems: 1. Any app of any complexity is clunky running inside a browser. Who needs all those browser menu items, right-click menu items, toolbar items cluttering everything up when you’re just trying to do a spreadsheet? Try explaining all that stuff to a novice spreadsheet user. 2. Javascript was never designed to do big complex apps - how will Google spreadsheet perform when the spreadsheet gets bigger than just a dinky play sheet. 3. Rich content (i.e. large amounts of data) continues to gain in importance - are we really going to want to shunt that back and forth over the net rather than just store it locally. 4. Security (already mentioned plenty) 5. It just doesn’t have the functionality of the desktop spreadsheets.

20. Jeff Seibert
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 12:40 am

    Mike, I agree completely. Google needs a focus. They need a goal. They need to act like they actually care about these products. The releases completely lack any pomp or circumstance… at this point it is more like, oops, there goes another one.

    While I am entirely for secrecy during product development (I work for Apple), the company at least needs a vision, and “organizing all the world’s information” doesn’t cut it. They need a product strategy, or at least a semblance of one.

    With regards to Spreadsheet, sure, it is might be useful… to some people… but as far as I can tell it is nothing more than an online spreadsheet implementation.. I am left asking why.

    Finally, Rob, Google Spreadsheet is definitely competing with Microsoft: the fact that it works with XLS files speaks towards this fact, not against it. They are, correctly, doing this to completely remove the barriers to entry. Who would ever try out Google Spreadsheet to begin with if it did not work with the Excel data they already had? Decreasing the barriers to exit achieves the same goal: the average person will not use a system if they deem it difficult to exit at a later date.

    :: Jeff

21. Lo
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 12:41 am

    Michael,

    I agree in general with your post, and will add that GMail was relatively successful besides search.

    One thing that Google is clearly doing right is keeping its brand up there. How else could there be so many “blinded” Google fans? That it in itself is an incredibly strong asset that is far more unique and valuable in the long-term than a product. True, future products will affect Google’s brand equity–but with Google’s current brand position in most consumer’s minds (”the most technologically advanced internet search company run by the smartest people in the world”), they sure have a lot of room to make mistakes.

22. Aneil Weber
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 12:44 am

    Alex,

    It’s obvious that you don’t know what a brand is and Google is not a brand. Furthermore, your idea of how this “brand” differentiates itself is clearly feature-based and not a foundation for what it even means to be branded.

    Brand dilution has nothing to do with what you are saying and if it isn’t clear to you how Google differentiates itself then I have no doubt as to why you weren’t part of the revolution that turned Apple into what it is today.

23. Su
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 12:49 am

    Hey Mike, why did you re-edit the posting? Lega issues, aye?

24. Michael Arrington
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 12:51 am

    Su, no, I just didn’t want to put any particular person at Google in a difficult position.

25. AhmedF
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 12:53 am

    Hrmm I think that Google Maps was pretty nifty.

26. Bob
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 12:56 am

    They’re making the same mistakes Microsoft did? What’s that, buying any company that could possibly threaten your products then trashing it?

    It seems more like they’re buying technology and helping to make it BETTER.

    In fact, it seems like they’re giving people the tools they need to make the most of their PCs, because Microsoft certainly aren’t. For example, compare a vanilla install of Mac OS X to Windows XP.

27. Lo
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 12:56 am

    Aneil,

    I disagree with you. Google is a brand, but whether it’s equity is tied to a higher-order social-emotional attribute (like Apple’s cool, trendy, stand out, be different imagery) or to more basic product-based attributes is dependent on what the majority of people perceive.

    Alex’s perception of Google is a “disruptor”. How can you judge him to be wrong about what the brand Google stands for if that’s exactly what it stands for him? Each of us may have different perceptions of what Google stands for, and ultimately it is what the majority thinks/feels that determines what Google is (and that’s something that requires testing and validation).

    Remember, branding is tied to consumer perception. Alex is a consumer inasmuch as you are.

28. Simran
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 12:57 am

    Hey Mike, would you please moderate my comment?

29. Michael Arrington
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 12:58 am

    AhmedF - I agree, Google Maps was a great product. It needs to catch up to Yahoo and Microsoft’s more recent offerings, but it clearly pushed them to make better maps products, and Google Maps is one of the most important web services integrated into mashups today. I edited the post to reflect your point.

30. Michael Arrington
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 1:00 am

    Simran, done. Long comment. Askimet didn’t like it.

31. Sam
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 1:00 am

    Michael I don’t quite understand who you are trying to get at. It was after all you who said just yesterday:

    “Cool. I can’t wait to get mine and try this out. ” about Google Spreadsheets.

    And a while ago:

    “My overall impression: Excellent. The ability to share via web publishing or RSS shows Google’s commitment to an open stardard. And this application is impressive in its speed and stability.” about Google Calendar.

    So are Google’s releases bad or are they good? You can’t argue both cases I am afraid. Nik on the other hand said basically what you said above way back when Google Pages was launched:

    “Froogle, Base, Catalogs etc. and now Google Pages. I am talking about software releases from Google that completely and utterly miss the mark and don’t seem to move for a while after they do…”

    http://www.nik.com.au/archives.....ogle-miss/

    And the comment that the last thing that Google did good was Core Web Search. Pfffft.

32. JOJOFACE
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 1:07 am

    I agree with you on some parts, but I’m gonna have to disagree on most of it. Most of the recent Google products under-whelming? Sure, Google Calendar is pretty sub-par, and Google Video is not very aesthetically appealing, but hey. They’ve done a lot of great stuff. Google Maps is awesome, and the ability for others to use it to integrate into other apps is great. And Google revolutionized Free Mail services. 10MB attachments were unheard of until Google came around, and anything more than 2MB of storage was rare. I think you have to give credit where credit is due. But, I do see your point and agree somewhat. It does seem like they don’t really have a direction, and kinda just spit out new services. But when these services are updated and improved upon, it should turn out pretty good. I’m excited to see how Google turns out in a year or two. ^_^

33. Michael Arrington
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 1:08 am

    Sam,

    You have a point. I hold Google, Yahoo, Microsft and AOL to a much higher standard than other companies. I may like one of their products as compared to a web startup, but it may fail to impress me overall. Also, my main gripe is that I want to understand what Google’s overall game plan is. I just don’t see it. That’s a great quote by Nik, by the way. I forgot about that.

34. Lo
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 1:11 am

    Michael, to your point about figuring out what Google’s overall game plan is–would you think it’s simply about getting EVERYTHING on the network from content to web services to traditional offline applications in order to maximize traffic? Maximizing traffic would then lead to maximizing advertising revenues!

    Just my two cents.

    Lo

35. Hughes
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 1:13 am

    This is very true. There is such a fascination for Google, that we do not see the facts anymore.
    I think that one big problem they have is that they want to be everywhere, tempting to block every positions. But, can you be good everywhere, even Google ?
    Google looks a little like a big bazar now.
    They are also little by little losing their supremacy on their core business : search engine, which is less and less clear. The quantity of information is here, but the quality, and especially the organization/presentation of the information is not optimized anymore.
    An excellent search engine, shouldn’t it be like an excellent website : giving the customer the accurate information in 2 or 3 clicks maximum ?
    Do we find the accurate information in 2 or 3 clicks anymore on Google ?

    Hughes

36. Mike Irene
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 1:15 am

    Gmail and Gmaps are the only two Google Labs releases that have made a lasting impression since the original search platform. On that topic, Google has foresaken the vehicle that drives their success - SEARCH! There’s so much fertile ground in search but it seems to be stagnant at the Googleplex. For example, vertical search in areas like real estate and other industries, etc. With it’s scale, why can’t Google kill local Multiple Listing Services (MLS)? Startups like Trulia are filling the void.

37. Aneil Weber
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 1:17 am

    Lo,

    I love it. I agree that “disruptor” has a strong association with Google but that isn’t a brand. Is your toothpaste a disruptor? Your cereal? Your sausage? Disruptor isn’t a brand, it’s a business tactic that is essential for success in this marketplace. You hit on a great thing and Google is tied to certain things but let’s not get confused and use words we don’t understand. If the public perception of a company is “disruptor”, don’t you think that might be a problem?

38. Simran
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 1:22 am

    Thanks Mike! I love Akismet, except when it turns me into a spammer!

39. Lo
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 1:28 am

    Aneil,

    Personally, I see Google as being more than a disruptor. I have attached my own sets of associations to the Google brand (it’s a fun, youthful and sometimes “out there” technology brand–remember the pigeons?) to the point that I think it resonates pretty strongly with me. Is it already on the same level as Apple or Microsoft? Not yet, but it’s getting there.

    On the “disruptor” thing– I wasn’t trying to argue that Alex’s perception of Google as a “disruptor” is right or wrong. I was just pointing out that Google IS a brand and can stand for “disruptor” for some people.

    Now if this were the case for the vast majority and whether this becomes a problem for Google or not is another topic altogether. Personally, *IF* this were the case, I think it is a problem.

40. WTF?
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 1:59 am

    NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON HERE, ESPECIALLY THE TECHCRUNCH COMMENTS. YOU GUYS SOUND LIKE THE APPLE DUDES ON MACRUMORS HAILING EVERY BIT OF NEWS ABOUT WEB2.0 - LIKE IT’S NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE AND OH SO COOL. AND THE MOST INTERESTING THING: GO AHEAD AND COMPARE YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH ARSTECHNICA… OH WELL.

    maybe it’s time to step back and see what’s really up. who actually needs all this?

41. Wim
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 1:59 am

    Don’t forget that a firm like Google brings innovations to the masses if it wasn’t for company’s as big as them to show off the “new” AJAX/web2.0 stuff and let non techs have the experience of that the whole web2.0 thing would still be just for the geeks and techs who are on the lookout for new and cool stuff.

    Let them play and enjoy the great things that come once in a while and just leave the once you don’t like.

    Live and let live.

    Wim

42. Eric
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 2:21 am

    try :http://www.zohosheet.com/home.do

    it is better than google spreadsheets, Google spreadsheets attracts so much attention because it’s google. if you compare the funcationality. zohosheet is much better.

    try to import an Excel document to both google spreadsheets and zoho sheets.

43. Danny Sullivan
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 2:24 am

    Yep, Michael, there’s long been plenty of blind ethusiasm for anything Google does. Googleware probably ought to be a term, in the way that Microsoft I think helped popularize vaporware. The mere idea that Microsoft might go into a space could chill that for anyone already in it. With Google, they can take preexisting ideas and attract huge hopes that can seem (and sometimes are) unreasonable. But then again, if they take on some products, because of their size, suddenly those product might finally find legs.

    You think web search was the last thing that changed your life from Google? You already admit that personally, that’s too short sighted. You’ve switched to Gmail for your personal mail. That’s a big deal. That’s a big change. I know it well, because POP access got me to do the same switch.

    Google Maps was a huge thing that did indeed change all the players and how we view maps, and it got plenty of people to continue to use Google and be transformed. For them, it may not even matter that technically there can be better products. For them, Google Maps is good enough. Hey, Linux and Macs might be way better than Windows some think — do you think Windows users care? If it’s working well enough, sticking with what you know trust and depend on is fine.

    AdSense isn’t a consumer product, but you’d better believe it was a major transformation. We had contextual products before Google entered the space. But now they are the leader in mindshare in that space. And fair to say, they’ve probably helped greatly change your life given I’m looking at AdSense ads that probably generate a good chunk of your revenue. You’re also big enough that you can go without them — but when you started, were they your sole form of revenue? If so, then Google even more so had a big impact on you beyond web search.

    Google Desktop is also a big deal. I’ve cover the search space for years, and we had plenty of desktop search products. And we had to sit there and hear Microsoft yammer on about how Longhorn was finally going to do desktop search and wipe the floor with Google (not that I ever believed that). Then Google comes along, and suddenly desktop search is fast, free and dependable. Plenty of other products out there now, and I don’t have the stats on who has the most installations, but fair to say Google Desktop transformed the field and certainly is transforming the personal experiences of many people, as well.

    Frankly, I’ve seen far more blind enthusiasm delivered upon small companies with somewhat interesting ideas and no real business models that won’t be around in a year than given over to Google. They’ve got a string of failures (go try Google Voice Search, Google Catalogs, Google Answers), but they’ve got a heck of a lot of successes, as well. Not everything they touch is automatically blessed with Google success. Certainly every product they roll out doesn’t deserve the Google love that comes up (though to be fair, there’s plenty of criticisms, as well). But you do have to take it seriously. You do have to measure up what the entry might be — Google has a track record now that makes it foolish to dismiss that.

44. Mark
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 2:45 am

    Philip said: “Picasa is Google’s desktop photo management software – something like Yahoo’s Flickr, except it’s not on the web.”

    and your nitpick: “Yeah, it’s just like Flickr, except without tagging, sharing, commenting and, of course, it isn’t a web service.”

    So let’s nitpick your nitpick - First, Philip already said that it’s not on the web, so i don’t really see why you have to reiterate it as if Philip said the contrary.

    And, Picasa has tags, and obviously the comments (by others) would be absent since as said already, it’s not a web service. Again no need being redundant.

    It got sharing, the implementation may not be the same as flickr’s (again because it’s not a web service), but it does have it.

    I really like flickr, and it is impressive. What makes it better than what Picasa is is that it’s a web service (thus opening the floodgates for many ways of sharing and collaboration). So what does Google need to do to make Picasa better and be more competetive? Add a Web service component. So now apparently they’re doing it thru WEB ALBUMS, and you seem to be very pissed off. Either you didn’t get that what they’re adding is not just albums, but WEB BASED albums (web service) or it looks to me that you hate the fact that Google is improving a product. You see, belitling this development would be belitling something that has flickr a kick-ass web service.

    Oh and about that rant about Google being too secretive for you? I think it’s really arrogant to demand a Company like Google to disclose its strategy to you (and other bloggers).

    And let me point a contradiction in what you wrote:

    “Now, if Google actually announces their intention to eat Microsoft’s lunch by trying to kill their Office revenue with a full online office suite, that would be interesting.”

    then you said,

    “This isn’t about corporate secrecy - we all know that Google is trying to hit Microsoft where it hurts. ”

    Oh, so we all know that Google is trying to hurt Microsoft, why would there be a need for a full diclosure from Google? Or are you just pissed off again that Google is being careful by not overpromising? It looks to me that you just want to make them look stupid in the end. Hey, while it’s a nice thing to be open about strategies, it is also not wrong to follow the mantra: “under-promise, but try to over deliver”

    You can rant all day about Google not sharing enough of its strategy to you, but in the end, you have to accept that in the real world, products like spreadsheets and picasa and maps that you seem to be too fond bashing were not made to be reviewed and criticized by “class A” bloggers, they were made to be used, by ordinary users.

    I used to love TechCrunch, but ever since i started to get the feeling that it has turned into just another Google basher (besides beign a web2 products review site) blog, my respect for it slid down to the level of those blind Google-lover blogs.

    This is really low.

45. luke
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 2:51 am

    The commentaries about Google seem to be annoying you more than the company itself. I’m a photographer; Picasa 2 is one hell of a piece of software, doubly so as its completely free.

46. Noah
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 3:22 am

    much agreed.

    Google needs to work on the stuff its already delivered and not get into building little tiny websites to try and own every single niche in the world. They won’t win..

47. Berkay Mollamustafaoglu
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 3:34 am

    “This isn’t about corporate secrecy - we all know that Google is trying to hit Microsoft where it hurts. …”
    “, muzzle their out-of-control communications team and start telling us what Google 2.0 is going to be. ”

    Forgive me but this sounds like a rant of a spoiled child. Just because every web 2.0 startup out there who want to get on the map practically begs the A-list bloggers, does not mean Google needs to do the same. Why should they “announce” their strategy?

    How about this? What if Google does not have a master design pushed down from the top and instead prefers to create an environment where many initiatives are allowed to have their shot at being the next killer app from Google. “They need to build aggressive and visionary products” makes it sound like anybody know what those products are. This industry is very unpredictable, just think of the success stories of today and who thought they were going to be where they are today couple years ago.

    I have no inside knowledge of Google whatsoever, but it would not be unreasonable for Google to create an ecosystem of internal startups like groups within Google and let evolution figure out which one becomes a flagship for Google and which ones fail and disappear. Besides the long term visionary initiatives that has been subject of speculation in the blogosphere for some time is scaring everyone under the sun as it is. Why should Google fuel the growing fear and risk creation of a front to prevent them?

48. BillyG
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 3:47 am

    Skimming over your article, the last sentence clued me in: Om posted a story so of course you had to jump on the “Hate Google” band-wagon too. I guess we’ll start seeing these posts all over the place now… the blogoshere is hilarious.

49. duncan
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 3:52 am

    It seems a bit harsh to criticise a google fan site for being too pro-google. If you don’t want to read comments by people who love everything google do, maybe Google Blogoscoped is not the site for you.

    From a web2.0 point of view I think that even though google’s evolution seems a little disjointed to us on the out side most of their products are still in beta phase. While that in its self annoys a lot of people, I am sure when these products come out of beta a more coherent picture will emerge. Weather they will become a dominant force in global software, as they have in internt search, remains to be seen. Is that not the reason why sites like Google Blogoscoped exist, people are excited about what the future may bring

50. Jonathan Mendez
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 3:56 am

    Google continues to grab more and more share of search. To consumers they are doing plenty right and that is what really matters at this point of time. Search is their core business and they still have plenty of growth potential into local search, mobile, vertical, etc. As mentioned Gmail has been a great success as well. Now I’ve yet to click an ad from my Gmail but I’ve come close. As Lo pointed out this is what Google is all about and their most important business objective lies herein. For advertisers their biggest problem with Google is becoming that there isn’t enough inventory. In my opinion all these other little products are just PR blather. The one app that will be most important for Google over the next 12 months is Base. It will be interesting to see what happens here. I’m not too worried about their near-tem future though. Another thing they’ve disrupted is the job market. Go find yourself a really smart young engineer that Google hasn’t snapped up.

51. Marcus
    

    June 7th, 2006 at 4:12 am