Skip to main content

Why Is Google So Bad At Hardware?

Microsoft might well be winning the battle to be exciting, but the flipside of the coin is that Google is incredibly bad at hardware and as a result is losing the 'exciting' race by miles. How bad, well just take a look at all the skeletons in Google's hardware closet... Glass, Nexus Player, Nexus 10, Pixel C and, very probably, the Pixel.

That's not to say the hardware itself is any worse than the competition, far from it. However Google just doesn't seem to be able to bring together the three legs of any product strategy - building a great product, marketing it well and then distributing it to customers.

For any given Google product, whether its good or bad, Google splits the world in two: the smaller portion is deemed worthy of receiving the latest Google toy, whilst the latter is left wanting. Nobody ever built a successful hardware business by excluding the majority of potential customers from that product.

Then, irony of ironies, when Google has delivered product and made it available to customers, it has done a particularly good job of telling people its out there. A company reliant upon advertising revenue being poor at marketing? Not a good look.

Right now I can think of one Google hardware product which has been an unqualified success, the Chromecast.

For the rest - some notable third-party Nexus products aside - Google has never managed to get the whole package right.

Whilst Microsoft is producing some breathtaking hardware and Apple is iterating its own hardware in small but creative ways, Google appears to be thrashing about blindly looking for something that will work with consumers. And in the end that seems to be part of the problem. In the same way that Google will throw up and tear down services to see if they work, it throws out hardware in the same way.

The difference being that consumers of Google services don't need to invest their hard-earned in getting onboard.


Popular posts from this blog

F1: Robert Kubica Impresses In Renault Test Run

The car may be old but its the performance of the driver that's the story here. Robert Kubica returned to F1, after a fashion, earlier this week with an extensive test run in a 2012 Lotus Renault F1 car at Valencia.
The age of the car and the circuit were likely determined by F1's current rules which ban testing, but the reason for Kubica being in the car is far more interesting. Considered by many to be a potential World Champion and certainly one of the fastest drivers of his generation, Kubica's F1 career seemed to be over after a 2011 crash whilst driving in the Rally of Andora. His Skoda Fabia was penetrated by a guardrail in the high speed accident partially severing his right arm.
Up until last year Kubica has been competing in rallying, with the expectation that the limited movement in his repaired arm would prohibit a return to single seater racing.
So this week's test is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because Kubica completed 115 laps of the ret…

F1: Robert Kubica's Williams Test Asks More Questions Than It Answers

Comparing driver's times at a tyre evaluation test like last week's Abu Dhabi event is difficult at the best of times, but when trying to assess the performance of a driver who has been out of the sport for six years, that difficulty level is raised even higher.
On the face of it Robert Kubica's test for Williams was a success. Fastest of the three Williams drivers present the headlines look promising. However, taking into consideration the different tyres used to set those times muddies the water considerably.
Kubica ran a three lap qualifying simulation on the new 'hyper-soft' tyre - which should have given him a two-second advantage. Correcting for tyres it would appear that Kubica was significantly slower than Sergei Sorotkin - who was on the harder 'soft' tyre - and marginally quicker than Lance Stroll, the team's only contracted driver.

Stroll's family fortune currently funds Williams, so there' no chance that he will be anywhere but in a…

Panos Panay's Defence Of Microsoft Surface Hardware Sounds Eerily Familiar

This weekend I went out with my ten year old daughter to select a laptop for her school year beginning in January. The schools requirements are quite specific, requiring a Windows 10 device, with a preference for a touchscreen and a stylus. She chose a Surface Pro, after trying a large number of different options. Having seen the way I use my own Surface Pro - and tried it herself there was only ever going to be two options - and the other was a Surface Laptop.
I tell you this so that you understand I am a buyer of Microsoft's products through choice, not compulsion. I'm on my third Surface device now. 
So when Panos Panay dismissed reports of the death of the Surface hardware line, I was very interested to see exactly how strong these denials were. Especially how they reflect what has gone before. To whit: Windows 10 Mobile.
Panay claimed that Microsoft is in hardware for the long haul. Almost exactly mirroring the words of Terry Myerson, when he claimed Windows Mobile was g…