I’m a big fan of Google.  And of the products that Google produces that I use (Gmail, Google Apps, Gtalk, Google search itself).  But lately some of the products from Google are reminding me more and more of Microsoft, which has me concerned:

1. Me-too product releases
2. VERY corporate-appropriate names for the products being released
3. Failure to embrace the world outside the ‘plex

Maybe I should explain what I mean in more detail…

Me-Too Product Releases

You might say everything Google has ever done is “me-too” – its not as if Search didn’t exist before Google came along.  Or email.  Or even web email.  Or instant messaging.  Or document editing in a web browser… the list goes on and on.

But the difference in (most of) these cases is that the field had become a bit moribund and was lacking innovation – leaving itself open to a new entrant.  Search seemed like a dead-end.  Web email was stagnant and sites like Yahoo! mail and Hotmail left a lot to be desired.  If there wasn’t a technological edge that Google could gain, then Google was able to exploit an economic edge (more storage for the “free” price, or free document editing on Google Apps instead of paying for MS Word).

But the space of real-time broadcasting and status updates and social graphs is hardly a field of stagnation.  Facebook and Twitter are robust companies at the top of their game for their respective niches.  Foursquare is up-and-coming (and several other firms like it). The problem here is that Google can’t out-innovate these companies in their core competency.  The fast-follow works better if you wait for the arteriosclerosis to set in with these firms – either due to the weight of technical debt they’ve taken on (client side apps, instant messaging), or due to the organizational heft and indecision (Yahoo?) or due to painting themselves into a corner with respect to revenue models (e.g. Microsoft).  The new firms have none of these problems.  They’re nimble, decisive, and have emerging revenue models with little to lose and much to disrupt. VERY corporate-appropriate names for the products being released

Corporate-Appropriate Names

Remember when Microsoft had a lock on this approach to naming applications? Now Google is doing it.  Latitude, Gmail, Gtalk, Buzz, Docs, Apps, etc.  And when they do come up with a “funky” name, it really doesn’t resonate (Orkut?).  Meanwhile, companies with lighthearted names are eating their lunch – Facebook, Foursquare, Yelp, Gowalla.

It just makes me wonder if the suits have taken over important naming-functions at the firm.  Sometimes the name of something affects how people perceive it – even internally.  And unfortunately, even when Google tries to be more whimsical these days, it comes off like they’re trying too hard.

Remember when Google was coming up with whimsical names like… “Google” ?

Failure to Embrace the World Outside the ‘Plex

Search gives Google an advantage in “embracing” the outside world in most of their applications – most noticeably in Google Maps (now there’s a product name with all the creativity of paint drying).  I’m not sure why Google didn’t just buy Twitter and get it over with. But, if Google’s not going to buy Twitter, another straightforward thing to do is embrace it by integrating Twitter functionality into Gmail – not copying Twitter, but leveraging Twitter’s API.  Show how integrating Twitter functionality into your email client could make both more useful.  Show how integrating search into the experience can also make them more powerful.

And then figure out how to slip Google’s own “real-time-update” infrastructure into the mix – perhaps by granting twitter users their identical @names on Google’s infrastructure – essentially adopting the useful conventions of the leading platform.  Don’t make people rebuild their social graph, let them port it over while retaining a separate identity from their email address (one of the beauties of Twitter, for example, is that it is (somewhat) resistant to spam because you only see messages from people you follow).

Well, Google has a lot of smart people – I’m sure they’ll figure out the strategy, but I was disappointed that they didn’t just improve my life by making it easier for me to Tweet (Twitter?) and Facebook.  I’m not the only one who thinks they might have missed the target.  The Business Insider describes Buzz as “Late, Boring, and Lame“.  And Twitter was not full of supportive comments today, e.g.:

cdixon : Prediction: Google’s Twitter killer will be lame. A few billion dollars later they buy Twitter.

cdixon : Besides being just generally bad at social, Google products seem to be suffering from a strategy tax a la MSFT.

I think Google should drop the product launches.  Apple is really good at them, and each product launch creates almost as much negative buzz in the aftermath as positive buzz (where’s my videocamera on the iPad!? who named it “iPad”? ).  If you do a mediocre or “okay” job with the product launches, its even worse.  I suggest they go back to releasing product the Googley way:  by putting it out there and letting people discover it.

Those who know me well know that one of my pet peeves is the idea that whatever the “next” generation is, that generation must be managed differently, treated differently, etc.  Fortune magazine, which is one of my favorite reads, is one of the worst offenders, having promoted Generation X, Generation Y, and “the Millenials”.  I could go on a long rant about what I find wrong with these analyses.  But it is hard to know where to start.  Is it the gross overgeneralization of vast groups of people (which reminds me a bit too much of the same kind of overgeneralizations, when negative, which some call prejudice or ageism)?  Is it the idea that the next generation is always, somehow, lazier than the one before?  Is it the idea that the next generation is always, somehow, better adept at multi-tasking and networking than the one before?  Or is it the self-congratulating articles that show up in Fortune, where an author identifies with his/her own generation a bunch of happy characteristics that are clearly “unique” and unlike anything that has come before.

I posit, instead, that people are… people.  The basic emotional and intellectual underpinnings of the people I meet do not alter that dramatically between 18 year olds and 65 year olds (maturity level, sure, but the machinery behind the surface? not so much).  Yes, the “kids” are more technologically adept.  But then, my parents were more technologically adept than their parents.  And their parents were more technologically adept than their parents’ parents.  So, what would actually be different is if the next generation was *less* technologically adept, rather than more.  This is not a function of increasing ability, it is a function of increasing technology – and the exposure to more technology at a younger age, and in more seamless integration to their world, changes things.  My daughter could use an iPhone quite well at 18 months.  Is she the next Einstein?  Maybe not.  I was initially impressed, but since then I’ve seen LOTS of babies flip through photos on iPhones.  Hey, the interface makes sense, even an infant can do it.

I also hear that the younger generation (at one point, I was reading this about my own generation) wants to be managed differently, treated differently, by adults.  Actually, what every generation wants, is for the people they work for to respect their person, their work, and their lives – and they want to be effectively led by their leaders, and have the opportunity to lead their colleagues and teammates when appropriate.  From talking to my grandparents, I can see it was so with them.  From my own experiences as well. And with the 20-somethings I work with today.

So it was refreshing to read an article that did not fall into any of these pitfalls.  Gary Hamel has a blog on Management “2.0″.  And in his article “The Facebook Generation vs. the Fortune 500” he captures perfectly the *right* way to discuss this topic.

1. He distinctly avoids age as a discriminator
2. He does not ascribe ridiculous attributes to the vast majority of a whole generation of people
3. He defines the generation not by age – but by a common interest – Facebook.
4. He defines “status quo” by another common thread – companies on the Fortune 500.  (of course, Google employees would probably largely classify as both, proving that every generalization is going to be pretty off-target for some sample population).

He points out how the technology of Facebook and other technologies of its ilk have affected its users’ expectations of the word (he could have just as easily called it the Twitter generation or the Myspace generation or the Blog generation).

Among my favorite points: All ideas compete on equal footing (because of the ease with which feedback and commentary can be fostered for any idea).  Leaders serve rather than preside (long a philosophy of good corporate denizens – that they were cultivating people as well as cultivating profits).  Intrinsic rewards matter most.

My grandfather worked at Duriron (now Flowserv) for 44 years.  He retired, and then was on a pension for another 35 years.  His company evinced many of the traits Gary espouses over that time.  For example, one of the CEOs of Duriron worked under my grandfather, a Civil Engineer (and sometimes sales rep for the company), to learn the ropes.  The intrinsic value of doing a good job for the company was worth more than any bonus or incentive plan.  Power (influence) came to my grandfather because he was a good teacher – he shared what he knew freely.  He often chose his tasks – saw a problem and worked on it- rather than being assigned to it.

Read it over and see if Gary’s thoughts don’t have merit for your organization.  Setting the title aside (I was really prepared for another bad article on this subject), this is one of the better articles I’ve read on the subject of how social software has changed the dynamics, or at least, reinforced dynamics that were already in play.